"we're still not fixed" said Parker
- Thread starter deltawatch
- Start date
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Help control the greedy exec population.
Spay or neuter your CEO.
Would that be a fix?
Spay or neuter your CEO.
Would that be a fix?
hp_fa
Veteran
- Feb 19, 2004
- 3,290
- 178
Close....he will need a rentention bonus in bankruptcy to keep him from finding other work for which he is so highly prized in the marketplace.
cactusflyer
Senior
Of course not, he still has contracts to negotiate. I'm sure it won't have an impact on his pay now will it?
Managing expectations it what that is called.
CynicalResAgent
Veteran
What I am wondering is how the rising price of oil will affect the regional flying who supposedly have the higher CASM. Specifically the 50 seat regional jets. How are the regionals for US paid? Is it a per flight contract or a per pax contract? I've read the 70-90 seat jets are supposed to have a lower CASM and supposedly the Q-400 (which the scope does not currently allow) also has a favorable cost.
US has a lot of regional flying and how much of it affects the bottom line? If you look at a hub like PHL and you see that a significant portion of the flights are on 50 seat regional jets and if fuel costs are increasing how can these costs be reduced? More ,more efficient turboprops? Reduce 50 seaters and increase 70 seaters. Does US have more control over its contract with the regionals?
US has a lot of regional flying and how much of it affects the bottom line? If you look at a hub like PHL and you see that a significant portion of the flights are on 50 seat regional jets and if fuel costs are increasing how can these costs be reduced? More ,more efficient turboprops? Reduce 50 seaters and increase 70 seaters. Does US have more control over its contract with the regionals?
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Speculating of course, but the rest of the fix may be one of these things.
Eliminating marginal flying out of the marginally profitable (where did I hear that before) PHX hub.
Consummating some kind of merger and hoping the lessons learned from this one will help avoid another debacle.
Admitting PHL is Humpty Dumpty and giving up on putting him together again.
Eliminating marginal flying out of the marginally profitable (where did I hear that before) PHX hub.
Consummating some kind of merger and hoping the lessons learned from this one will help avoid another debacle.
Admitting PHL is Humpty Dumpty and giving up on putting him together again.
US Airways has the dubious distinction of being smaller than it's own express operation.
There are 9 different carriers currently flying as US Airways Express, with several different types of contracts.
Piedmont Airlines and PSA Airlines are owned subsidiaries of the US Airways Group. They are essentially US Airways on different certificates. The revenue stays in house as they are wholly owned.
Trans States Airlines PIT ERJs and Colgan Air's Saabs operate on at-risk contracts. This means US puts thier code on the flights, markets them etc, but the risk, and cost, route decisions, and I'd imagine revenue goes to the operating carrier.
The B1900s operated by Colgan and Air Midwest are under Essential Air Service contracts, so get money from the government to operate the flights. Again, US puts thier code and marketing on them.
Now the stupid ones. The regional jet agreements with Republic/Chautauqua, Mesa, and Air Wisconsin are capacity purchases. They are basically wet leases of aircraft without having to worry about crewing, scheduling, maintainence, or any of the support. US Airways pays these 'jet lift providers' cost plus. This means that US pays for all of the costs to operate the flight- fuel, whatever else- PLUS a guaranteed profit. I believe either Mesa or Republic's contracts are cost plus 3%. So these carriers are profitable no matter what they do. And what do they do with those profits? Buy more jets to operate for our competitors. US Airways agreements with Mesa Air Group and Republic Holdings finance new jets for American, United, Delta, Continental, Frontier, and Mesa's Hawaii fiasco. Bizarre.
There are different facets to the contracts, some are fee per departure, meaning the operating carrier gets paid as long as the flight takes off sometime, passengers or not. This is why you used to see Mesa jets take off from Philly empty after a 14 hour delay- so they get paid. The amount of passengers onboard, or the experience they have is irrelevant to the operating carrier. US seems to have little quality control over the Express operations or product (they don't seem to have either for the actual airline itself though). There are performance clauses in the RJ agreements but they are obviously pretty extreme.
As far as aircraft are concerned, US schedules the aircraft here they like, but are obligated to use all of these carrier's airplanes. For example, Air Wisconsin needed a home for it's 70 50 seat CRJs so we are stuck with them, high CASM or not. 50 seat RJs are absolutely the most uneconomical plane you could be flying with high fuel prices. US had a big hard-on for them up until a couple years ago because it allowed them to park roughly half of the mainline fleet and it's employees in favor of outsourcing. They signed lengthy contracts. Mesa wil be around until at least 2011 and has the West Express ops to itself. Air Wisconsin's owners Eastshore did invest a lot of money into US in return for something like a ten year agreement . Republic took our airplanes and slots and we are stuck with them too, I believe it's a crazy long contract too. Why they sign such long contracts in such a cyclical industry is beyond me but US Airways has never been the coldest beer in the fridge no matter who's running the place. US's famously stupid unions have allowed up to 93 90 seat jets to be operated by contractors on the property of thier mainly short haul, small narrowbody airline (but no 70 seat turboprops at their owned subsidiary!)
Imagine how profitable the airline might be if all or most of this flying's revenue stayed in house? Or of the company could determine what aircraft to fly? US needs 70-100 seat EMBs at mainline, a small handful of 50-70 seat RJs, and a sh!tload of Q400s. Larger. more economical aircraft at less frequencies, under thier own operational and product control (hopefully improved of course).
There you go again making use of logic and common sense. Management will have none of that. Dont you see when you outsource everything it shows a short term (very short term) reduction in costs. This is absolutely essential for management to get their bonuses, and to play stock option games.
running the company never enters into it.
running the company never enters into it.
sharktooth
Veteran
- Jan 27, 2006
- 1,846
- 0
They are too busy, having theirs kissed and/or chaining the entire circle.
Well said, PB.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
PAYCUTS????
Raise the f@%king ticket prices!!!!!
Any other business passes on the cost increases to the customer not take it from the employees to off set!!!
