UAL Files CH 11

[goldentrout]

PCL-128

"You're right that the industry didn't implode after EAL went under. However, a deep recession followed less than a year later. I know many pilots that were never able to get decent flying jobs after they lost their jobs at EAL. Due to the onslaught of available labor coupled with the bad economy of the early 90s they could not find jobs right away. As we all know, airlines want to hire pilots who are current, so when hiring picked up again these pilots had not flown since 1989 in many cases and were not even considered for employment. Years went by and they were slowly able to pick up the occasional job flying freight, but we all know how often freight startups go under so they were out of job again. Again, WAKE UP TO THE REAL WORLD AND STOP LIVING IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD OF THE FREE MARKET ALWAYS WORKING!!! There are exceptions to every rule, and the airlines are exceptions to free market system."

1. The demise of Eastern and Pan Am did not put the economy in recession in the early 90s. There are natural economic cycles, and the War against Iraq was the biggest catalyst for that recession...Eastern and Pan Am's demise was but a blip on the screen.

2. I'm sorry that a bunch of pilots lost their jobs...unfortunately they were working for companies that did not have a viable business model.

3. It is not the government's job to subsidize airlines so you or I or anybody can have a flying job...we do not have a government guaranteed right to a job...we have a right to seek a job opportunity, and to use our own wits to find a compnay which we think is viable in the long term.

Fantasy??????????? How can you call 200 years of free market economics, and the USA as the strongest economic power on earth, fantasy? History and what's happening in the industry, as well as the opinion of every major airline analyst, is on my side.

Who/what's on your side

 

[surplus1]

goldentrout

This is off topic so I apologize but I just had to ask. You said"

There are natural economic cycles, and the War against Iraq was the biggest catalyst for that recession...Eastern and Pan Am's demise was but a blip on the screen.

What do you expect the pending new war against Iraq will be the catalyst for? Any more blips on the screen?

 

[TXCAP4228]

99% of the flying public would not even notice if fares went up 50 dollars. It's a big stretch to say that 50 bucks would cause the number of pax to drop off.

So what you are saying is that you should unilateraly get to force consumers to pay your price and maket forces be d@mned.

PCL, It does not matter how nominal your extra charge should be. If it is arbitrary then you must do one of two things:
1) suspend market forces - comrade.
OR
2) be prepared for the reduction in passengers and the ensuing loss of revenue.

A friend of mine bought a ticket this summer from MIA to LAX on United with a stop in DEN I believe. This ticket sold for 290 dollars! How are we supposed to make profits when tickets to go cross-country are selling for under 300 dollars? If you had a 757 completely full at this price, the flight would pull in about 50k in revenue. That doesn't even come close to paying the operating cost of the a/c, let alone paying for ground support, landing fees, employees, etc...

You ask how to make profits?
1) Get a better business model where you don't rely on this customer.
2) Become more efficient.
3) Get better technology so that your operating costs are reduced.

Wow, you're really whining here. What your really saying is "how is my company supposed to pay for my big shiny jet so that I can fly and make well into the 6 figures?"

Frankly, that is unimpressive.

Then, to top it off you prove my point for me:

I don't care what you say, most people would gladly pay a little more for this ticket than to do a 3 day drive to get there and then another 3 days back.

1) The market proves you wrong! If the market would support $50 more then you could charge it.
2) The market will not support it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DO CARE!

This isn't rocket science dude.

 

[goldentrout]

In the short term, the impending war with Iraq will probably have serious negative consequences for the airline industry.

So what's more important...your and my job in the short term...or stamping out terrorism so our kids and grandkids can live without the fear dying a hotel bombing or an airliner or being killed by smallpox or anthrax?

In the long term, ending the reign of Islamic terrorism will do more for the stabilization of the global economy, (and therefore the airline industry), than living in fear every day of Al Quaeda blowing up more of our airliners or nuclear plants or oil tankers or whatever.

The end to terrorism will require short term sacrifices from many people both in and out of the military.

The long term prospects of a world with no, or at least a severly weakened, Islmaic terrorist threat will be better for of all us.


By the way...even if you could show that the Eastern/Pan Am collapses provoked the 1991 recession...that just proves my point even further.

After the airline market adjusted from losing Eastern/Pan Am, it had 7 straight years, 1994-2000, of the most profits ever!

 

[goldentrout]

SWA is making money flying people coast to coast for tickets $300 and under and making money.

My step son's dad bought him a ticket from DEN to Ft Lauderdale for $290 over Christmas on Jet Blue...apparently they're making money on that ticket price.

Just because UAL's cost structure doesn't allow them to make money on a $290 DEN to Florida ticket doesn't mean it can't be done.

Jet Blue can, and is, doing it!