![]() |
Purchase F9. Ha! Have some g*****n respect for yourselves.
|
Originally Posted by APCHCLIMB
(Post 3719596)
Purchase F9. Ha! Have some g*****n respect for yourselves.
|
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 3719539)
They’re called black swan events for a reason, every single time it’s something that’s never happened before, or a set of circumstances no one was able to predict.
They can have two effects 1) temporary reduction in demand that rebounds 2) structural change The last 40 years have been so rough because of structural changes post deregulation. I don’t see structural changes waiting on the level of legacy consolidation, FE removal, baseline load factor shifts etc. but change my mind… i like data |
Originally Posted by WXS15
(Post 3719535)
Of course, no one really thinks this hiring rate will continue for another half dozen years...
|
Originally Posted by Brickfire
(Post 3719618)
Black swans will come. So will white.
They can have two effects 1) temporary reduction in demand that rebounds 2) structural change The last 40 years have been so rough because of structural changes post deregulation. I don’t see structural changes waiting on the level of legacy consolidation, FE removal, baseline load factor shifts etc. but change my mind… i like data |
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 3720432)
Your data is wrong. I told you. the load factor at United in 2000 was in the 70s, not 60s. And only 75 aircraft, or 12% of our fleet had FEs in 2001. But it's nice to know you have it all figured out. A genius. Just wait till it hits the fan... you'll need some cheese with your whine.
That also doesn't dispel your notion that this industry has a history of unforeseen events that turn it upside down. Both can be true. And they are. I tend to err on his side, though, that the industry has materially changed via consolidation and that airlines (for the sake of my argument, I'm referring specifically to the three main legacies) are probably more insulated now than ever before from the run-of-the-mill economic cycles. Couple that with unprecedented retirements for the foreseeable future (if 67 passes, the bell curve just slides two years to the right), and it's not naïve to believe that there's good reason to suspect the status quo to continue for a while. |
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 3720432)
Your data is wrong. I told you. the load factor at United in 2000 was in the 70s, not 60s. And only 75 aircraft, or 12% of our fleet had FEs in 2001. But it's nice to know you have it all figured out. A genius. Just wait till it hits the fan... you'll need some cheese with your whine.
12% of the fleet having an fe is 4% of pilots The ability to permanently reduce pilot labor requirements by retiring a fleet isn’t trivial I don’t see any low hanging fruit now that management can pick and permanently reduce labor demand with the benefit of a crisis. That is what made the last 40 years so hard, Pilots took a hit during a crisis and the economy getting better didn’t return the status quo. |
Originally Posted by guppie
(Post 3720432)
Your data is wrong. I told you. the load factor at United in 2000 was in the 70s, not 60s. And only 75 aircraft, or 12% of our fleet had FEs in 2001. But it's nice to know you have it all figured out. A genius. Just wait till it hits the fan... you'll need some cheese with your whine.
|
The industry is fundamentally changed enjoying unprecedented pricing power since deregulation, but without MASSIVE government intervention the Covid pandemic would have bankrupted most airlines. How soon we forget.
And if you don't think 28,000 United pilots by 2030 is emotionally based then you aren't paying attention. |
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 3720999)
The industry is fundamentally changed enjoying unprecedented pricing power since deregulation, but without MASSIVE government intervention the Covid pandemic would have bankrupted most airlines. How soon we forget.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:27 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands