UAL's UAX flying to increase?
 

copied this out of a thread on the Major forum.....unless im reading this wrong...their capacity reductions do NOT include the express side... and actually show an increase? or am I just not awake yet?

Capacity Fourth Quarter Full-year Full-year
(Available Seat Miles) 2008 2008 2009
(Versus FY 2007)

North America -14.5% to -13.5% -8.0% to -7.0% -18.0% to -17.0%
International -4.5% to -3.5% +1.5% to +2.5% -5.0% to -4.0%
Mainline -10.5% to -9.5% -4.0% to -3.0% -12.5% to -11.5%
Express +3.0% to +4.0% Flat to +1.0% +10.0% to +11.0%
Consolidated Domestic -11.5% to -10.5% -6.5% to -5.5% -13.5% to -12.5%
Consolidated -9.0% to -8.0% -3.5% to -2.5% -10.0% to -9.0%

Is UAL's scope a 70-seat max? If I were United (not that I condone these moves), I would make use of Air Whiskey and their scope exemption and throw some 86 seaters in place of those 737-500s where the market doesn't fit them.

Now that would be interesting but that goes back to the days when AWAC actually flew for UAX. Could be once that contract was gone, so was the exemption.... dunno.

Are the percentages increases in flying or increases compared to total fleet utilization? If Mainline capacity was reduced, but Express flying remained to same (or slight increases with previously annouced expansion) would that effectively show as a larger percentage of Expresss flying as a whole?

well thats a damn good question that I dont have the answer to.

I cannot see UAL growing express much if any since this is geared to reduce costs not add them. 70 seaters are not cost savings compared to a 20 yr old 737 with concessionary wages flying them.

United, AA they are all just trying to stay afloat. My guess is others will follow soon. The whole industry is aiming for 15-20% reduction. Just my opinion.

just posting what came out of the article..... see above.....

if I read that chart correctly it shows a 10% or so increase in available seatmiles for 2009 ...... for express

i dont get it either.

I have heard conflicting reports as to the scope exemption that AWAC had. Most people think it is still in effect, though I had heard that it was only good for those 18 airframes. Others have said they could be replaced 1-for-1. Not that I advocate it either. I would rather see mainline jobs for all of us in the future, not large RJs.

With that said, AWAC and United have always had a different kind of relationship and even though AWAC is not currently flying as United Express there is still a solid business relationship between UAL and AWAC regarding ground handling. And when the contract ended a couple years ago for flying the company was very clear that they intended to keep a good business relationship with United should the opportunity arise to fly for them again.

Personally, I would love to fly as United Express again. I liked it much more than what we currently do on the East Coast.

Not that I want RJs to replace 737s......

I certainly hope UA Express flying does not increase. That would be a shame, seeing 73s replaced in full by E-jets and RJs.

Who wants more crappy paying jobs and benefits at the regionals? Not me. I want there to be more jobs at the majors, for everyone.

Bad sign...domestic mainline is being outsourced to the E-jets. Good news for career regional pilots but dismal for those of us with asparations of something better. This is just a band-aid for a very broken industry. The majors will decide that E-jets and C-series at the regionals are a good source of lift until that becomes unprofitable, then something else will come along to replace the replacments. Someone needs to draw a line in the sand. I sure hope ALPA has the means to stand at the line

I second that good sir.

Unfortunately ALPAs the one that gave up the scope (with the support of it's members at the mainline level of course). There's nothing that can be done about this nonsense.

This will probably mean stability, or even growth, at the UAX regionals.

They are parking alll 737s.

They still want to grow international.

They will still need feed for international.

The feed is going to have to come from somewhere...

I tend to agree..... its what this business has been doing for 30+ years.... larger aircraft at mainline..... bigger/more at the regional level..... now its international expansion.... less domestic... to be picked up by ....RJ's of some ilk I do fear.

Rick I'm not trying to rain on your parade when I post these so don't bite my head off. I'm literally praying you're correct. But being Devil's advocate I'd make the case that this could mean UAL is simply losing an incredible amount of money and is doing any and everything to keep the place afloat. UAL was the first to initiate bag fees because of how bad a pinch they are in. Regional feeders aren't always cheaper. If cutting domestic frequency of flights is the route they want to go then it could make sense to cut the regional flights and do fewer, but fuller, mainline flights. Obviously I'm hoping your correct as it's jobs for all of us but lets not kid ourselves and be unprepared for could come.

Personally I'd rather the jobs and airplanes stay at mainline, so it's not really my parade...what I think is going to happen and what I would like to happen are two seperate things, and unlike some people, I can keep the two straight.

If a 120-seat 737 is flying with 80 pax...it is losing it's ***.

Downsize it to a 50/70 seat RJ, then not all 80 pax get to fly...this drives prices up which MIGHT make a full 50/70-seater profitable. Maybe.

If they are going to replace each 737 with two RJ's, then they are stupid of course.

The whole point is to remove the seats from the market, not replace them with other aircraft. In order for this industry to survive, as a whole, there needs to be a 20% to 25% reduction of available seats. That means when one carrier removes seats, no one else rushes in to add them back in. Unfortunately, this also equates to several more carriers closing their doors. Definitely dark days ahead for all.

Southwest isn't going to let gates sit idle. And, like in the past, WN will pick up the slack.

I'm guessing UAL is now starting talks with their "Regional" feed on how to reduce costs (ie concessions). I'm hoping UAL is in better shape than they are projecting, but it doesn't appear that way with the massive cuts and added fees. UAL going out of business doesn't help because it will be hard to transfer the tails to another carrier (especially the 50 seat variety). For RAH, I thought they were hoping to place those tails with United. It appears to be survival mode right now and what was good terms at 100 brl oil may not be the case today. I believe Bedford even said that Frontier offered to continue the contract if RAH would take on some of the fuel costs and that was rejected. UAL may bring the same proposition to the table, especially if they are looking at BK. Fuel is hurting the airlines and it is the one part of a mainline carriers regional cost structure that they cannot control. Only time will tell what will happen, but I'm sure the announcement today probably has the management at UAL's regional feeds (especially those heavily vested into UAL) a little worried about the future.

That happened already, it will just be a repeat of what UAL did in the 2003-2004 time frame when they bent over their 3 existing express carriers at that time. And like you said, they had Ch.11 on their side and the ability to exercise more leverage over their contractors. Sadly, we at the regional level are STILL feeling the effects of those concessions.

UAL can't really go into BK. They already have and those aircraft are already spoken for to their largest creditor. If they go into CH 11 now they won't have anything to bargain with.

The way the situation is being set up, they could however threaten CH 7.

even southwest has cut back growth expectations.

If there is another round of bankruptcies it'll be a bloodbath like never before seen. I have buddies at United and they are so beaten down that some say they'd just as soon see the company go out of business than cut pay and benefits further. And I think the companies know it. It won't be endless Ch. 11. It'll be right to liquidation for some if it really comes to that.

I may **** off fosters again for posting "insider information"...but since its pubically available information I'm gonna post it anyway:

UAL ALPA small jet scope...

An RJ is not profitable at the current price/barrel of oil. 50 seats are profitable up to around $50/ barrel; 70 seaters are profitable up to $70/ barrel; and 130 seaters are profitable up to $130/ barrel. This of course is with the current ticket prices and nearly full aircraft. Any aircraft with less than 120-130 seats and has jet engines is not profitable from A to B (right now) even with full loads. RJ's will still have their place in some markets, but I would expect to see a lot of capacity dropped on the regional side. Why united didn't start with the regionals is beyond me.

SWA announced cutbacks by retiring aircraft (19 I think this year was the original number) while taking the aircraft already set up for delivery. So far they've already announced they won't be retiring as many. I think it is 9 aircraft they're keeping so far that they said they would retire . Each month they add so more flights and announce a higher net aircraft gain for the year.

In all seriousness, did you make that up, $50 for 50 seaters, $70 for 70 seaters, and $130 for 130 seaters? :confused:

Oh yes they can. Continental made two trips. 1983-1986, then again 1990-1993. It is ugly and make attorneys and senior management a whole lot of money. <ng>

UAL, as stupid as they can appear to be, still knows more about their business than YOU do...


Neither RJ or 737 is profitable under current conditions.

If you have less than 100 pax, a 737 probably cannot be profitable without massive fare increases.

If you fill up an RJ, AND raise fares sufficiently the RJ might be profitable.

This assumes that they will replace each 737 with only one, or possibly two RJ's.

A 150-seat 737 will be more economical than three 50-seat RJ's under any circumstances. But if you have fewer than 150 pax, then RJ's start to look better.

Nothing is going to work with much less than 50 pax, unless it has propellors.

Completely made up. After 9/11 oil was $20/bbl but the airlines lost BILLIONS. Not to mention UAL is parking 747's, which going by his/her math makes them profitable. Why would UAL park profitable aircraft?

Because they're not profitable.

It's been said that 50 seaters are "loss leaders" and used by the majors to cherry pick competitors routes. Before the RJ DAL pretty much had a stranglehold on the Southeast, UAL on the West coast, NWA in the midwest, etc. RJ's opened up a lot more markets for the majors, at $0.25/gal Jet-A. However, now they've morphed into less feed and and now carry a sizable percentage of the mainline pax, reference XJT.

What will bring about profits is a cutting of the capacity. Downsizing the number of seats on a given market makes each seat more valuable. Thus you can charge exponentially more for them.

Unless LCC's come in with 737's and take up the slack. Did someone say Southwest/Airtran?!?

Cut enough capacity and SOMEBODY will try to fill the void...... I would like to see one shinning long term example of an airline that SHRANK its way to profitability.

And as far as the 50/70/130 comment above... stop smoking crack.

those are the paraphrased words of an airline consultant working for a major airline.

Getting RALPA to take a stand is like trying to build a sandcastle with dry sand. Impossible.

go ahead and be positive and tell yourselves you will all keep your jobs. the fact is, EVERYONE is screwed whether they are at the major or regional level (if you are toward the bottom of the seniority list).

Had a mainline United CA in the jumpseat today...I told him he'd better do everything in his power to preserve my future job at the legacy level...that I wasn't about to be stuck at SkyWest for the rest of my career!

Of course you did. I'm sure you turned around, looked him in the eye, and lectured him about what he should do. Because, as we all know, the biggest thing the mainline pilot is concerned with is the future job of a regional pilot.

Let alone one at a non union carrier.

Nobody cares that SKW is not union, except for a few regional pilots who think alpa's failings are SKW's fault :rolleyes:

Here is the real surprise
 

I was at a meeting where the guy that used to run the marketing dept at P&G that came to Untidy a few years back, fielded some questions regarding customer feedback on passengers. He basically said that customer comments pointed out they actually preferred the express carriers on routes shorter than 1.5 hours because they felt that the express carriers treated them so much better.
I decided to become more vigilant and sure enough my commute changed to where I was riding a .8 hour flight into ORD for about a years time. The mainline flights made an announcement almost every time that it would be to turbulent to provide inflight service, of course most of those flights were smooth in terms of turbulance. The F/A's also exhibited attitudes that I noticed several passengers commenting about. The express flights always provided inflight service and truely made me feel welcome. ( also noticed by other passengers and commented upon )
Here is one that I know this crowd will hate, I rode on a Go-jets flight departing at 6:00 AM and try as I may because I am a coffee hound, I could not empty my cup. Several other passengers noticed how attentive this individual was and wanted to know the F/A's name so they could send a note to United.
The reality is that we at Untidy have created a product that everybody notices is below standard, even our service providers have not fallen to our level. If we do not fix this problem immediately we are gone. Our lack of basic ethics in the work environment has become apparent to the marketplace. The blame game started years ago, and the end of the game is approaching. If we all do not start looking in the mirror with a change in our hearts, the product just will not survive. In the end we will find ourselves " banging our hearts against some mad buggers wall ".

It's easy to become fat, dumb, and lazy when you're the contracting party, such as United. The regionals, by being both a younger and less jaded crowd, as well as being at the mercy of their contracting parent, have absolutely been serving up a better product than mainline...I, for one, would Love to see that change for the better, starting from the top.

Dead-on ockham.