Us Cuts Flights At Phl, Fll, And Clt

[mweiss]

Air Wisconsin? Says who?

Serious reading between the lines. The timing seems to be a bit too close to the other ZW announcements to be coincidental.

Otherwise, this move will ultimately increase CASM.

Probably, but we really don't have enough information in the press release to glean that with certainty.

The "balance" between RJs and Mainline just went another 11 aircraft in favor of Express...

At least. We only know how many mainline aircraft are leaving, not how many Express aircraft are entering.

 

[mweiss]

I don't think this has anything to do with AWAC, but rather the deliveries to PSA and MidAtlantic through GECAS.

Could well be from there. Or a combination. Too little information.

I believe you're reading this wrong. The net loss of 14 flights compares to the February 2005 schedule, with the increased flying. The increase in ASMs of 4-6% compares to the May 2004 schedule.

[post="250903"][/post]​

Good point. And that's after three readings. Are they trying to obfuscate here?

Could it be that USAirways is in such bad shape due to management that they have to react to their mistakes more quickly or face the ultimate?

[post="250906"][/post]​

It could. I don't think they're calling that many of the shots these days. Yet another reason why it's a really, really bad idea to file for bankruptcy, despite what many seem to believe.

The major problem is simple: it's primarily fuel, fuel, fuel...

If so, then the solution of RJs, RJs, RJs isn't a solution at all. Which burns more fuel per ASM, an RJ or a 737?

 

[etops1]

i guess they don't need the 70+ additional spanish lo/dos. this company is idiotic. i swear. they sure know how to piss people off. way to go bruce&bruce. i am sooo pissed right now . :rant: :down: :angry: :rant:

 

[funguy2]

Serious reading between the lines. The timing seems to be a bit too close to the other ZW announcements to be coincidental.

At least. We only know how many mainline aircraft are leaving, not how many Express aircraft are entering.

[post="250908"][/post]​

On the first point... The flight changes announced are for May, or roughly two months from now... If Air Wisconsin were to be adding US Airways flights in two months, an official announcement would be the least of their worries... bigger problems would include repainting aircraft, moving crew bases, having some kind of schedule, and scheduling crews... Its too late to do any of that and get it done by May... at least in any significant form...

On point 2: We know the balance is shifting to Express, we only cannot quantify it. What we know is that smaller aircraft have higher CASM... As the average aircraft size declines, CASM must increase. Its really simple.

And as I've noted in another thread, I am concerned US Airways will get Air Wisconsin's aircraft at a time of UAL/AirWis's choice, not US Airways choice. That may have serious implications, particularly if the company has exited BK in the meantime.

 

[funguy2]

The major problem is simple: it's primarily fuel, fuel, fuel...

That would be the primary COST problem...

The primary revenue problem is an inability to raise fares due to an oversaturated market...

Interestingly, and airline failure, assuming the capacity is not replaced, could help both ends - lower supply of airline seats should average up fares - lower demand for Jet A should lower prices - all else equal. While that's theoretically true, we will never see it happen because the capacity will be replaced one way or another.

 

[justaumechanic]

The major problem is simple: it's primarily fuel, fuel, fuel...

Look at United who said today that their January "fuel expense for the month was $63 million higher than January 2004 on flat capacity." As far as US Airways, today's NYMEX Crude Oil Futures Closing price was about $51.50, which is about $7.50 more than the Transformation Plan budget and equals about $15 million more per month in additional fuel expense.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="250907"][/post]​

Why don't you and your union buddies go down to CCY and say "Hey, fuel, no problem, we will give you another 15% and you can cut our 401K to a 1% match, I just want to be able to be called a pilot and wear my cute wings" "Oh, you can lay off everyone else and outsource those jobs, no problem, we don't mind".

Face some facts USA320.. Your leadership at US Airways stinks.. The fourth grade class at Todd Lane Elementary School in Center Township PA could run the airline better..

You work for fools..

 

[mweiss]

The flight changes announced are for May, or roughly two months from now... bigger problems would include repainting aircraft, moving crew bases, having some kind of schedule, and scheduling crews... Its too late to do any of that and get it done by May... at least in any significant form...

Skywest shifted from DL to UA pretty quickly. There were mixed livery issues there during the transition, but it worked out OK. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, what with the Star Alliance stuff anyway. Shifting the schedule is a bit bigger issue, but we really don't know how tightly this new schedule will work initially.

On point 2: We know the balance is shifting to Express, we only cannot quantify it. What we know is that smaller aircraft have higher CASM... As the average aircraft size declines, CASM must increase. Its really simple.

All other things being equal, yes. And as stage length increases, CASM must decrease, again all other things being equal. So we have one factor that increases CASM, and one factor that decreases CASM. Take a known number, add an unknown number, and subtract another unknown number. Is the result bigger or smaller than the number with which you started?

And as I've noted in another thread, I am concerned US Airways will get Air Wisconsin's aircraft at a time of UAL/AirWis's choice, not US Airways choice.

I'm sure you're right. We don't know, however, if the time has already been chosen.

 

[funguy2]

Skywest shifted from DL to UA pretty quickly. There were mixed livery issues there during the transition, but it worked out OK. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, what with the Star Alliance stuff anyway. Shifting the schedule is a bit bigger issue, but we really don't know how tightly this new schedule will work initially.

SkyWest's California service was a completely different situation. SkyWest essentially took their intra California operations and switched them from DAL to UAL... Crew bases, flight schedules, terminals used were all initially exactly the same. In fact, IIRC their flights were branded as DL* and UA* at the same time during the transition...

AirWis supplying service to US Airways would certainly not be via hubs at DEN, ORD, or IAD. They would have whole new operations, need new crew bases, presumably in the US Airways hubs/focus cities, and other "behind the scenes" operations stuff...

Your comparison is apples and oranges.

All other things being equal, yes. And as stage length increases, CASM must decrease, again all other things being equal. So we have one factor that increases CASM, and one factor that decreases CASM. Take a known number, add an unknown number, and subtract another unknown number. Is the result bigger or smaller than the number with which you started?

Fair enough... However, I don't expect the stage length to be altered dramatically, since there are a number of long-haul and short-haul trips being cancelled.

 

[mweiss]

Your comparison is apples and oranges.

That may well be true. I don't know enough about the routes that ZW is providing to UA, or the ones they would be providing to US.

I don't expect the stage length to be altered dramatically, since there are a number of long-haul and short-haul trips being cancelled.

[post="250923"][/post]​

I guess it depends on some other numbers that were absent in the press release. The flights were compared MOM, while the ASMs were compared YOY.

 

[javaboy]

2 words

FUEL SURCHARGE

Problem solved,

next

 

[sfb]

I guess it depends on some other numbers that were absent in the press release. The flights were compared MOM, while the ASMs were compared YOY.

Well, you can get a bit of an idea of what's going on by looking at the growth of the wholly-owned express carriers between 2004 and 2005. In May, 2004, the additional capacity coming online at MDA and PSA was starting to show up in the traffic numbers -- increased ASM's at the wholly-owneds accounted for an increase in system capacity of roughly 1% year-over-year. In January, 2005, the wholly-owned express carriers' capacity roughly doubled compared to 2004, and this additional flying accounted for a bit over 4% of system capacity. From this observation, I'd estimate that we'd see the flying at the wholly-owneds being responsible for 3 or 4 points of the 4 to 6 percentage point increase in system capacity estimated by management.

 

[trvlr64]

Separately, the Passenger Baggage Call Center in PIT is closing. Baggage-related calls will be directed to a new call center operated by a company called Atento in El Salvador. Atento has begun the training for the US Airways group and they will be servicing calls beginning this week. US Airways currently has a Website Technical Support Center in San Salvador and is likely to open a new reservations center there too.

[post="250847"][/post]​

OUTSOURCING AT IT'S FINEST!! Now we'll have to learn spanish if we loose our luggage and make future reservations.

If your luggage is lost in PHL please call 1-800-SCREW-U.Press 1 for Spanglish, 2 for Engish, and 3 because no one will find your bag ever!

 

[EyeInTheSky]

The major problem is simple: it's primarily fuel, fuel, fuel...

Look at United who said today that their January "fuel expense for the month was $63 million higher than January 2004 on flat capacity." As far as US Airways, today's NYMEX Crude Oil Futures Closing price was about $51.50, which is about $7.50 more than the Transformation Plan budget and equals about $15 million more per month in additional fuel expense.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="250907"][/post]​

No USA320Pilot, the major problem is simpletons: it's primarily idiots, idiots, idiots 'fueling' the company management positions. And, we all know what a cracker jack group these amigos are. :blink:

 

[FWAAA]

2 words

FUEL SURCHARGE

Problem solved,

next

[post="250931"][/post]​

Gosh, I wonder why nobody's tried that?

 

[N924PS]

Why don't you and your union buddies go down to CCY and say "Hey, fuel, no problem, we will give you another 15% and you can cut our 401K to a 1% match, I just want to be able to be called a pilot and wear my cute wings" "Oh, you can lay off everyone else and outsource those jobs, no problem, we don't mind".

Face some facts USA320.. Your leadership at US Airways stinks.. The fourth grade class at Todd Lane Elementary School in Center Township PA could run the airline better..

You work for fools..

[post="250920"][/post]​

Right after you my friend.
Maybe the IAM could take the "leadership"role and be the first one's to give again.

It's over if they ask again. Heck, it might be over anyway, and not just for USAirways, as long as oil prices continue to spiral upward.