Us V Wn
- Thread starter TomBascom
- Start date
I read that hole thing hard to stay awake ....I think that LUV has more inerest in what JetBlue is doing in the NE but it will have a very negative affect on U.
none the less. collateral damage I guess.
It would in my opinion U needs to deploy the express flights with the emb170 I think thats the aircraft out of PHL flood those runways and keep that per seat mile figure down arround 6 cents even LUV would have a hard time with that number............
none the less. collateral damage I guess.
It would in my opinion U needs to deploy the express flights with the emb170 I think thats the aircraft out of PHL flood those runways and keep that per seat mile figure down arround 6 cents even LUV would have a hard time with that number............
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
Good thought Doc, but CASM on the 170 is not expected to be substantially less than current mainline. Six cents a mile does not appear to be a reasonable expectation. I agree with your suggested blocking tactics to delay WN aircraft, but it will also further drive connecting US passengers to CLT, PIT or other airlines.Doc said:
AtlanticBeach,
Again, you are making too much out of CASM strictly, as is apparently Seigel in the latest incarnation of "the plan". The real quesiton is, how many butts do you need to put into seats until every butt thereafter becomes profitable. In other words, where is your break even load factor at the current yield levels. Everything I have seen (albeit unofficial) has been at 50%, or 35 passengers for a 70 seat aircraft (does it actually have 70 seats, or is something like 64?).
The mainline B737 may have a cheaper CASM on a particular route, but the number of seats is going to make a difference, imagine the CASM difference between a 737 and 330 going PHL-CLT.
The mainline 737 with a lower CASM may take 80 people to break even on a route that the EMB170 takes 35 to breakeven. If the route only routinely books 50-60 passengers, the EMB is operating profitably, while the 737 loses money. All with the dreaded higer CASM.
Again, you are making too much out of CASM strictly, as is apparently Seigel in the latest incarnation of "the plan". The real quesiton is, how many butts do you need to put into seats until every butt thereafter becomes profitable. In other words, where is your break even load factor at the current yield levels. Everything I have seen (albeit unofficial) has been at 50%, or 35 passengers for a 70 seat aircraft (does it actually have 70 seats, or is something like 64?).
The mainline B737 may have a cheaper CASM on a particular route, but the number of seats is going to make a difference, imagine the CASM difference between a 737 and 330 going PHL-CLT.
The mainline 737 with a lower CASM may take 80 people to break even on a route that the EMB170 takes 35 to breakeven. If the route only routinely books 50-60 passengers, the EMB is operating profitably, while the 737 loses money. All with the dreaded higer CASM.
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Nov 29, 2003
- 419
- 0
You know, everyone listens to aircraft manufacturers say that "you can break even with a 50% load factor on my airplane" but nobody ever hears them say "if you charge an average fare of x number of cents per mile"
I doubt seriously that U can break even at 50% load factor on any airplane, unless you've figured out how to make one burn water for fuel and can fly itself without benefit of pilot.
The real deal is U lost money in Q3 with a 76.9% load factor. Sevety-Six-Point-Nine. No magical airplane is going to show up and allow U to break even at 50%. None. It just won't happen.
The problem isn't that U doesn;t carry enough passengers. They have plenty. Witness a 76.9% LF.
The problem isn't that theydon't pay enough. In manymany many cases u's walk up fare can be described as outrageous.
The problem is cost.
The problem with cost is U's management, or lack thereof, can only think of one way to sut costs. Chop wages.
U has done that. They needed to. Now they have. It hasn't helped enough. No amount of pay chopping is going to do the trick either.
The problem is the way the whole system is put together and runs. Can it be fixed? Probably, but it won't be easy.
The other part of this dilemma is that U has a management that (a) won't listen to anyone, including voices of sanity and wisdom from the internet and (B) the managers at U are all high speed, well educated individuals who know a lot more than some dude from a cow college in Texas.
Good Luck. Bottom line is your plane wont break even at 50% at any fare level you will actually get people to pay.
I doubt seriously that U can break even at 50% load factor on any airplane, unless you've figured out how to make one burn water for fuel and can fly itself without benefit of pilot.
The real deal is U lost money in Q3 with a 76.9% load factor. Sevety-Six-Point-Nine. No magical airplane is going to show up and allow U to break even at 50%. None. It just won't happen.
The problem isn't that U doesn;t carry enough passengers. They have plenty. Witness a 76.9% LF.
The problem isn't that theydon't pay enough. In manymany many cases u's walk up fare can be described as outrageous.
The problem is cost.
The problem with cost is U's management, or lack thereof, can only think of one way to sut costs. Chop wages.
U has done that. They needed to. Now they have. It hasn't helped enough. No amount of pay chopping is going to do the trick either.
The problem is the way the whole system is put together and runs. Can it be fixed? Probably, but it won't be easy.
The other part of this dilemma is that U has a management that (a) won't listen to anyone, including voices of sanity and wisdom from the internet and (B) the managers at U are all high speed, well educated individuals who know a lot more than some dude from a cow college in Texas.
Good Luck. Bottom line is your plane wont break even at 50% at any fare level you will actually get people to pay.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #6
I doubt it. WN seems to be focused on what WN is doing rather than what their competition is up to.Doc said:
They see an underserved market ripe for the plucking and they are perfectly poised to be the plucker and to reap a premium while doing so. (Notice how WN manages to charge more while lowering fares for everyone else? That's a neat trick...)
The route map is entirely believable and should be giving Dave and Dave nightmares (PHL O&D business travelers are meanwhile salivating...) The comparison with BWI and the observation that BWI took 9 years in large part because the spoke cities in the NE hadn't been developed yet should be even scarier -- O&D traffic between the Northeast and PHL is an obvious target. With some fares at $1.20/mile there's little doubt that a) WN is going to go after them B) they're going to eat US' lunch (literally) and c) it's going to hurt (a lot).
US' only hope is to dramatically rethink the whole operation in a hurry. They need to lower costs (note necessarily paychecks) and provide clearly differentiated services at a defensible revenue premium. Right now they're 0 for 2 and basically haven't even showed up in the batter's box...
