And Boyd says...................

[Clyde]

Don't underestimate the STILL prevalent over management existing at nearly all the legacy carriers. AA still hase roughly 45 VP's. I have no idea what 45 VP's are needed to accomplish. Evidently, it has something to do with the light bulb question.

Until these airlines can shrink mgmt, I'm firmly against pay cuts for the low level workers. Mgmt in this industry needs to start leading the way. They need to take pay cuts first, then go to labor if necessary (which you know it would be). In nearly all of the latest legacy airline concession packages, mgmt has taken pay cuts only after the unionized employees call them on it. Then all of a sudden you see a 5% cut for VPs and 10% from higher ups. I'm not seeing the same amount of commitment and losing faith in this industry's leadership.

If these airlines could shrink management and streamline things upstairs, they could probably afford to bring pilot salaries back up too.

 

[bvt1151]

Poor Boyd.

Fuel prices aren't the problem, its over capacity. Every airline has to pay the same in fuel (except maybe for SWA with their lucrative hedges) which means all of the industry is on an even keel. So why aren't prices raised to meet the cost? Because there are too many airlines with seats available looking for that ever-elusive, but always sought after market share.

If everybody's costs rise the same amount, it shouldn't be a drag on the whole industry, unless of course there's way too much supply.

I'm still not buying into Boyd's one-sighted "my hindsight was 20-10" crap.

 

[FDJ2]

Every airline has to pay the same in fuel (except maybe for SWA with their lucrative hedges) which means all of the industry is on an even keel.

Not necessarily. Airlines have different levels of fuel hedging, starting with 0 and on up, and their fuel might be hedged at different prices. Also, not all aircraft burn the same amount of fuel per ASM and even the same type and model aircraft will have different fuel burn per ASM depending on stage length. Put in a difference in the price of fuel at different airports and the fact that some airlines have their fuel purchased for them by their mainline partner and you ultimately end up with various degrees of exposure to rising fuel costs depending on your hedge, airframe, stage length, points of purchase and whether or not your fuel is purchased by others for you.

That's not to say that there isn't also an issue of over capacity, but the rise in fuel costs has had a major effect on the bottom line of most carriers and that effect can vary.

 

[Beer&Brauts]

Now if Boyd would just come out to Dulles and the G (as in Ghetto) Concourse the F gates in ORD wouldn't seem so bad!

 

[Big Duke Six]

It's a combination....

First, his comment about the Fall of Saigon re-enactment was one of the funniest things I've ever read here. Also, the "customer service standard" line HAD to be sarcastic.

Anyway, at F9 they tell us that for every penny increase in fuel price, our costs go up something like $1.5 million per year. Considering how much fuel price has gone up, I think one is safe to deduce that we would have been profitable if fuel had not gone up. Now spread that over the entire industry, keeping in mind we use but a fraction of the fuel that UAL does, and I think one can argue it does play a big role in the bleeding.

Realize that industry-wide, profit margins were not that large to begin with. Most carriers are screwed because of their inability to pass cost increases on to the customer due to the aforementioned surplus of seats. Why UAL is still charging BELOW market rates is still a mystery. You would think that they would raise prices as much as possible and still be below the competition. But they don't; some of their prices are WAY low. But hey, who am I?

 

[tranceport]

Why UAL is still charging BELOW market rates is still a mystery.

I can think of a few reasons they still charge below market rates:

*they are in bankruptcy and are no longer respnsible to shareholders so they can

*they need to show high load factors to make management look good.

*they need to try and keep their customer base and give everyone a freebie.

*Ual doesn't have to show higher revenues until they propose an exit business plan. I mean do u actually think if they show a profit now and a loss in 6-12 months that that will look good? It's the other way around...show a loss now, struggling to stay afloat and voila, 6 months from now we're breaking even and that's great! stock goes up and large shareholders of new stock can sell for a profit b4 the lawyers get rich again in the next bankruptcy. It's a repeatable business plan that works great. No shareholders now= no accountability.

*full planes and losses equates to more leverage by management to get wage and benefits concessions. see, they are back at it this month asking workers for $192 million a year in more cuts--how about mngmt?

*Nothing like watching your competition bleed along with you. Hey, if you can't make money and have court protection from your responsibilities, why not? Mgmt. doesn't care about the health of the industry.

*Unions are impotent to bring this up b/c they have no leverage. It's a sinking ship and heaven forbid they put pressure on the company to raise fairs...funny how easily that works in good times but not in bad. They are sleeping with mgmt. anyway. (see Ual's MEC announcenment tuesday in which they said they have reached a tentative agreement with the company but CANNOT tell the members the deal until a later date. oooh, sounds very secret that the A plan is gone and a 18-22% pay cut is coming as was presented).

should I go on? I think I'm putting myself to sleep.

Not trying to pick on you but I needed to vent after reading your statment.

Respectfully,
a fellow bus driver