We got an AIP!
01-25-2018 | 02:14 PM
#841
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
FC
Last edited by Final Clear; 01-25-2018 at 02:16 PM. Reason: error correction
01-25-2018 | 02:37 PM
#842
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
01-25-2018 | 02:49 PM
#843
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 663
Likes: 46
01-26-2018 | 06:24 AM
#845
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 687
Likes: 12
From: Maddog FO
Fuel prices are on the rise. Experts all say by the end of 2018 we could see gas prices at $80 per barrel for a long time. It is already about $70 a barrel. Legacy carriers need 50-60 bucks a barrel or else they need to raise the ticket prices. Spirit does not need to raise ticket prices and our model can do well with $150 a barrel. If the legacy carriers raise ticket prices then the PAX will fly Spirit.
Consolidation is on the way. The legacy carriers need to raise ticket prices or face another round of bankruptcy if the gas stays high long enough. Spirit will keep ticket prices low, so buying Spirit is a way to raise ticket prices while keeping the PAX. In this situation Frontier will be bought buy a Legacy as well.
The scope and merger protections are huge considering that this new contract may be temporary until a joint contract is negotiated post merger.
Consolidation is on the way. The legacy carriers need to raise ticket prices or face another round of bankruptcy if the gas stays high long enough. Spirit will keep ticket prices low, so buying Spirit is a way to raise ticket prices while keeping the PAX. In this situation Frontier will be bought buy a Legacy as well.
The scope and merger protections are huge considering that this new contract may be temporary until a joint contract is negotiated post merger.
01-26-2018 | 11:13 AM
#846
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 21
From: 60’s Tech, Right
They don’t necessarily need to, but not doing so would erode their margins. For us, it’s easier to disperse a higher fuel cost per aircraft because of our seat density. For a legacy, which sells 10% (total guess, I have no idea) basic economy fares, its harder to disperse that increase in cost. As oil gets more expensive, basic economy makes less and less sense for a legacy.
01-26-2018 | 11:57 AM
#847
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
They don’t necessarily need to, but not doing so would erode their margins. For us, it’s easier to disperse a higher fuel cost per aircraft because of our seat density. For a legacy, which sells 10% (total guess, I have no idea) basic economy fares, its harder to disperse that increase in cost. As oil gets more expensive, basic economy makes less and less sense for a legacy.
Capacity remains high but as fuel and labor goes up, it squeezes their margins more and more.
Now they are trying to find ancillary revenue sources like Basic Economy which they actually like. UAL said in their financial call that they like the basic economy because most passengers who buy the basic economy actually "upgrade" to items when going through the ticket process (sound familiar?) like bags, boarding, seats etc....
NBC news had a thing last night showing how Legacy basic economy fares have been resulting in passengers paying more overall for their ticket, when adding things, versus buying a standard coach ticket in the first place. The government even came out with guidance warning consumers about this.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/1...-international
Is a fare war coming? United sparks worries among investors - Jan. 24, 2018
So they want a war of the basic economy.
01-26-2018 | 08:41 PM
#848
New Hire
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Union WANTS a NO vote??
Hearing quite a few rumblings that the NC/MEC actually WANTS us to vote this TA down. Has anyone else hear anything like this? Apparently, they were backed into a corner and fought a losing battle. The NMB was squarely on the company's side and was blinded by the 43% pay raise and refused to let any of the concessions weigh in on the decision. The MEC/NC had their hands tied, they were out of leverage, and wants the word to get out that if this thing gets voted down, they will have the leverage to get us what they intended to the entire time. Obviously the Union just can't come out and say this, but I thought it was worthy of a post to see if anyone else had heard this.
01-26-2018 | 08:54 PM
#849
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Hearing quite a few rumblings that the NC/MEC actually WANTS us to vote this TA down. Has anyone else hear anything like this? Apparently, they were backed into a corner and fought a losing battle. The NMB was squarely on the company's side and was blinded by the 43% pay raise and refused to let any of the concessions weigh in on the decision. The MEC/NC had their hands tied, they were out of leverage, and wants the word to get out that if this thing gets voted down, they will have the leverage to get us what they intended to the entire time. Obviously the Union just can't come out and say this, but I thought it was worthy of a post to see if anyone else had heard this.
01-26-2018 | 09:03 PM
#850
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 24
From: Airplanes
Hearing quite a few rumblings that the NC/MEC actually WANTS us to vote this TA down. Has anyone else hear anything like this? Apparently, they were backed into a corner and fought a losing battle. The NMB was squarely on the company's side and was blinded by the 43% pay raise and refused to let any of the concessions weigh in on the decision. The MEC/NC had their hands tied, they were out of leverage, and wants the word to get out that if this thing gets voted down, they will have the leverage to get us what they intended to the entire time. Obviously the Union just can't come out and say this, but I thought it was worthy of a post to see if anyone else had heard this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
