Originally Posted by
Regularguy
"Was it a mistake to place UAL aircraft on these once extremely profitable routes? Is it maintenance? I really don't know the answer. "
First question, do you have any evidence these aren't currently profitable routes? It's amazing when something becomes viral because a statement like this is made on the web.
Second, just look at the age difference between the airplanes you mention. UAL airplanes are older and do require more maintenance.
Third, When UAL purchased the Pacific division from PAA the UAL mechanics were amazed with what the PAA pilots would go with. Each pilot group has their traditions and culture for what deferred items they are willing to fly with. Historically UAL has been a culture of fix it, even when it was determined OK by deferral. Safer? Depends on who you ask.
Fourth, I have no idea about the culture and traditions of CAL pilots and their acceptance of deferrals so my third point may be pointless. Of course I'm sure the Guam and EWR guy will correct me.
Summary: Don't make hyperbolic statements with out the facts, me included.
You are right, I don't have the numbers in front of me. My sources are the VP of the IAH hub and the chief pilot and director of operations(both of whom have been out on Guam for years and are worried about our market share if this continues) in Guam. I do not have access to the financial numbers but I do have access to the operational numbers(load factor/completion factor/departure within 00 minutes/arrival within 14 etc). I'm not trying to pick a fight here. You are probably correct in that we rarely have to make a decision to fly with something deferred in that our fleet of widebody aircraft and our narrowbodies are young in comparison.
The best thing about this merger is having the ability to match markets with aircraft and aircraft with markets that stand alone, we could not have done. The 767-300 alone is going to be a game changer for Europe in that it will replace(once they have undergone a cabin makeover) the 757-200 aircraft that currently fly on the edge of the performance envelope in the Winter to deep European markets s-CAL has developed out of NYC(EWR). South America will see the widebody service it deserves from NYC and IAH along with IAD with 767's(and later 787's) because this merger allows that.
SFO and LAX will see more 757-300 aircraft flying Hawaii routes profitably as the 757-300 has the lowest seat mile cost of any 756 aircraft. It is perfect for the leisure market from the West Coast to Hawaii. 757-200's will open new markets to the U.K from IAD. The U.K is perfect from the East Coast in a 757-200(with RR engines) all year round. There are 747 routes like LAX-SYD that the s-CAL 777 can do for 80,000 less per leg than a 747 in fuel burn freeing up the 747 to fly something more profitable.
I'm bullish on this combination but like others, my worst nightmare is waking up in 12 months reading the papers and internet boards as we file lawsuits etc. like Airways. I'm not going to argue the SLI on here as it is a waste of time. I understand the feelings many at s-UAL have and believe it or not, I agree with some of the arguments. In the end I expect to be disappointed somewhat with the SLI and if the majority at both CAL and UAL feel the same, then the arbitrator probably did a good job.