StarFish to based in Denver

[T-Bags]

Just a little? Notice I said I mentioned that strategy to Mr. Tilton. I'm sure he actually only acted on it after it was presented to him by McKinsey or by Mr. teague. I'm under no visions of grandure that Mr. tilton would spend millions on a bunch of overpriced MBA's and then actually listen to the employees. . What people seem to not understand is that our costs on the SFO to NRT route has absolutey nothing to do with the costs on the DEN-ABQ route. UAL must be competative on each route they operate on. If they operate on more high costs high yield routes than low cost routes, then the average casm will go up. but again THAT'S IRRELEVANT. IF YOU WANT TO GET TO NRT, THE PRICE FOR A TICKET FROM AMA-LUV DOESN'T MATTER. UAL's costs are now THE LOWEST among network carriers, and as for the revenue side, UAL recently leaked that Aug YOY yield performance was up 15% (vs 8% for the industry). although some else predicted a 12% yoy performance , it wasn't Chipper, and he seems to have gone silent. as for Fiends, I only despise scabs and those who act like one (folks who find some glee in the erosion in the pay and benefits of this career). they will never be my "friend".

 

[F9 Driver]

Starfish.... T-bags... Am I sensing a theme here? Interested in those DEN-SFO runs are we? Just kidding Francis - Couldn't resist

In all reality T-Bag, I wish you guys better luck with your LCO than you've had with your primary product.

Bypass the de-ice pad... that's funny. Don't quit your day job...

 

[crashpad]

"UAL will have to post a "true" profit as of 10/31 and they most likely won't make it. Maybe similar to US Airways, the DIP financers will likely force additional cost savings from UAL. This, of course, means that UAL management will have to take more from the unions and that lovely labor/management relationship will raise its ugly head once again. UAL may survive a bit longer, but they will never be the "Friendly Skies" again. My guess is a dramitic reduction in overall size/scope of the airline or liquidation in the 2nd half of 2004."

quote

 

[T-Bags]

"UAL will have to post a "true" profit as of 10/31 and they most likely won't make it.
quote

Do you make this stuff up? I think a little time actually reading the DIP covenents prior to making uneducated statements concerning their content would do wonders for your credibility. Do the initials EBITAR mean anything to you? By those measures (you know, the ones the DIP loans require) UAL was "profitable" the last three months. Writedowns and lease termination expenses ARE NOT COUNTED.

 

[crashpad]

Actually, it's quote by a UAL employee, so my credibility is still intact...whew!

 

[T-Bags]

Actually, it's quote by a UAL employee, so my credibility is still intact...whew!

Please leave our F/As out of this.... Suffice it to say, DIP is not even a concern until at least DEC, and with the way SEP has gone, it looks increasingly like DEC is also covered.

 

[T-Bags]

Starfish.... T-bags... Am I sensing a theme here? Interested in those DEN-SFO runs are we? Just kidding Francis - Couldn't resist



Your mom lives in SFO? Sorry couldn't resist...

 

[F9 Driver]

Witty repartee there T-bagger...

With great minds like yours pitted against us, and with Tilton's ear directly no less, I guess we should just give up now.

Thanks for outlining what is going to happen to me. I'd been staying up nights tossing and turning, wondering what the future held.

Here's another amateur opinion of chocolate Starfish's chances.

http://www.aviationplanning.com/

"United's Low Cost Carrier:
Sorry, But It Doesn't Add Up.

Everybody wants United to get its tail out of chapter 11. But this infatuation with starting an internal low-cost carrier (LCC) is getting spooky. It makes one wonder what's going on in the airline's Ivory Towers.

It's getting weirder and weirder. A couple months ago, the LCC was to be 30% to 40% of the airline's entire fleet. They even projected that the ASM costs of this "Starfish" would be 7.18 cents per mile. How many airplanes involved? Not sure. What kind of aircraft? Not sure. Where they going to go? Not sure. But the necessary costs were figured to the second decimal point, 'cause United's going to teach Southwest a lesson. Spooky.

Now, Starfish is planned to be just 40 airplanes. Southwest is out of the picture for the moment, and Starfish will start by replacing existing mainline service in markets where United competes with Frontier at Denver. The airline put out press releases noting that recent labor agreements make this LCC possible. Yes, everybody took big cuts. But, they leave out the fact that Starfish will have no labor cost advantage over mainline - they're the same rates. And the planes will have essentially the same operating costs, too, like fuel, maintenance, and the like. According to United, Starfish will bank with the rest of its Denver flights. Apparently, the only fundamental difference will be no first class section and the sector costs will be split up over more seats. Even here, there's a fly in the ointment - in some instances, the 156-seat Starfish aircraft will replace larger 757s. How's that going to get seat-mile costs down? Not sure.

A Model That Never Worked. There are lots of variations on this low-cost-inside-mainline theme. As it stands, it appears that United intends mostly to get its costs down to compete, and not necessarily get its fares down below those of Frontier, Southwest, et al. If they do this simply by cramming more chairs in the cabin with a new name on the side of the airplane, it's not likely to gain the airline market share. Adding capacity and frequency can only work if it stimulates more demand. In some markets, that can work. In others, say, DEN-MSY, it's not likely. And, as it appears, the Starfish A-320s will have essentially the same sector costs as the United A-320 two gates over. The only way the Starfish airplane can make more money is having more people on the airplane. To get more people on the airplane will entail some incentive to stimulate traffic, like, lower fares. Not a winning formula, especially since United generally matches Frontier's fares already.

And, please, the fast-turn, high-frequency thing won't fly. First, these flights will need connecting feed. That torpedoes the fast turn thing. Furthermore, the markets Starfish is planned to fly from Denver are not likely to be stimulated with higher frequencies anyway - none of them are underserved now. Then there's the fleet - from an operational point of view, the 40 all-coach aircraft will be a stand-alone sub-fleet, which can represent reduced flexibility for United.

Asking Hard Questions Is Not Being Negative. Outside of United itself and a couple of academics whose understanding of the airline business is rooted in the 1950s, almost nobody's buying this Starfish story. United's management seems to think that having cocktail receptions for travel agents and analysts will get them all to be nice, not ask hard questions, and agree that Starfish is a great idea. Unfortunately, giving travel agents a glass of jug wine and letting them belly-up to the shrimp bowl won't change the hard realities that this LCC is facing. Or answer the open questions about its validity as a competitive tool for United.

Nobody's arguing about the quality of United - it is a great airline. But this LCC thing hurts the carrier's credibility."

 

[crashpad]

Let's try some word association:
Which word does'nt belong? Eggs, Meat, Starfish, Wife.
hmmm??
Well, you can beat your eggs, you can beat your meat and your can beat your wife, but you can't beat your Starfish... it's just bad form.

 

[F9 Driver]

VERY WARPED!

I like it

 

[LearLove]

StarFish - where do they get these marteking people? Is it the same firm that came up with NWA's new paint? I think the're smoking crack.

Back in college the marketing students were the ones that couldn't hack finance or accounting. Then again anyone in the business college was there because they could hack engineering. However we engineers were in the college of engineering because we could hack third grade spelling.