United - Profit!

[32LT10]

Why does lowiquer not post specifics???? Because a broken clock is always correct twice a day.

 

[SWA/FO]

Why does lowiquer not post specifics???? Because a broken clock is always correct twice a day.

Plus, that stupid "blue" ink!! Drives me nuts

 

[lowecur]

Downsizing isn't the answer to everything. What do you know about the ORD operation anyway? It's congested. Where are the specific inefficiencies you're talking about? Too many non productive routes in order to maintain gates under a "use it or lose it" mandate. Do you have any info to back up your opinion? No. I'm not saying you're wrong. I know. Things could definitely be run better. I agree. What you typed looked as if you're pulling sh*t out of your a** though. No not me, that's for chimps like SWA F/O. Tell me which areas of the operation you are talking about and why you think downsizing is the only way to make it run better.

Cuz the FAA is looking to downsize if UAL doesn't do more themselves. How much money do you think UAL loses in canceled flts, ground delays, and general congestion at ORD? I'll bet it's a ton. The FAA should have a slot auction at ORD. This would get rid of many of the RJs, as carriers would pay a premium for the best times, thus forcing them to eliminate a large percentage of RJ traffic and go to larger aircraft to subsidize those slots.

imp:

 

[D-Bo]

Cuz the FAA is looking to downsize if UAL doesn't do more themselves. How much money do you think UAL loses in canceled flts, ground delays, and general congestion at ORD? I'll bet it's a ton. The FAA should have a slot auction at ORD. This would get rid of many of the RJs, as carriers would pay a premium for the best times, thus forcing them to eliminate a large percentage of RJ traffic and go to larger aircraft to subsidize those slots.

imp:

You're a F'n idiot. And I'm not saying it just because I disagree with you. So the FAA is looking to downsize UAL at ORD if UAL doesn't do it themselves? The FAA is going to forcibly downsize UAL? The FAA wants UAL to downsize because of ground delays and general congestion at ORD? That sounds right cause we all know that UAL is the only carrier to operate out of Chicago to get hit with ground delays and "general congestion" at ORD. That's an ORD problem that affects every carrier out of ORD. Not a UAL specific problem. Are you trying to insinuate that it's UAL's fault? What about AMR and all of their RJ's. What about every other carrier that operates there. The other carriers aren't affected by the summertime Wx delays that roll through the midwest during the summertime are they? Is the Wx UAL's fault too?

 

[D-Bo]

What is UAL's fault are the canceled flights due to lack of crews though. More than enough reason to revoke some privileges to the hometown carrier with the largest operation at ORD.

 

[D-Bo]

You also may as well blame UAL for the runway configuration at Orchard Field too. We all know they drew up that faulty configuration way back when. Yeah...that's their fault too. And now the FAA is looking for payback.

 

[D-Bo]

F'n idiot might be too harsh. That was wrong. You don't know what you're talking about though. Do you think you're an operations expert, management expert, or regulation expert. Do you know a lot about any one aspect of the industry or do you make it up as you go?

 

[lowecur]

You're a F'n genius. You are right! And I'm not saying it just because I disagree with you. OK So the FAA is looking to downsize UAL at ORD if UAL doesn't do it themselves? Is there an echo in here? The FAA is going to forcibly downsize UAL? No, they should let the free market determine the price of slots, and then we shall see if UAL wants to maintain the kind of presence they have at ORD. The FAA wants UAL to downsize because of ground delays and general congestion at ORD? Yes. That sounds right cause we all know that UAL is the only carrier to operate out of Chicago to get hit with ground delays and "general congestion" at ORD. They do have over 50% of traffic at ORD, so yes they should streamline their operations. That's an ORD problem that affects every carrier out of ORD. It was created by UAL and AMR to keep other carriers out of ORD. Not a UAL specific problem. Are you trying to insinuate that it's UAL's fault? YES What about AMR and all of their RJ's. They are part of the problem also, but about 20% smaller. What about every other carrier that operates there. AMR/UAL control 90% of ORD. Let's not ever bring them into the discussion at this point. The other carriers aren't affected by the summertime Wx delays that roll through the midwest during the summertime are they? Is the Wx UAL's fault too?

The DOJ has recommended slot auctions to the FAA, and it's my guess it's gonna happen by 2008 if UAL doesn' take their own initiative.

imp:

 

[lowecur]

F'n idiot might be too harsh. Were you in the military? That was wrong. You don't know what you're talking about though. I don't think you have the expertise to judge me, unless you've got a degree in airline mgt? Do you think you're an operations expert, management expert, or regulation expert. Do you know a lot about any one aspect of the industry or do you make it up as you go?

Actually, I'm an amatuer analcyst, although it's just part-time. The rest of the time I sell insurance.

imp:

 

[D-Bo]

It's all up to UAL on whether or not the FAA imposes slot auctions on ORD??? UAL's actions, or lack there of, will be the determining factor??? Who's next? DAL at ATL? AMR at DFW? UAL at SFO? JBLU at JFK? Airways at LGA?

Scram.

 

[Marko Ramius]

Snap back to reality B. Rabbit

You mean like how the FAA took slots from AA and UA and gave them over to Indy and America West? How about that widely succesful slottery at LGA? ORD is a hub operation so frequency will always be a driver with respect to flights there. Not every airline is or wants to be solely O & D like your beloved B6. A large number of the RJ destinations have marginal direct loads to ORD, but do help fill larger a/c out of ORD. Additionally, the glut of RJ's out there lead to traffic cannibilization. Look at city like Springfield, Mo. That city had a whole bunch of large a/c service to nearby places like STL and ORD before the RJ. Now it can be served by RJ's from a multitude of other hubs which in turn reduces the flow to the primary hubs. Slapping a 737 or S80 or even a 190, isn't going to help that.

 

[lowecur]

D-bo

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do AMR, UAL, and SWA control Chicago because it's a money maker?
• Do you think Chicago is a "must" piece of the puzzle for any airline looking to grow a viable route network?

If you can answer those questions correctly, you will understand how important controlling Chicago is to keeping other airlines from growing a viable network.....even if it means losing money.

imp:

 

[D-Bo]

Fuuny you mentioned that in your reply in post #109 lowecur. I actually do have a degree in Aviation Management and Aeronautical Science. Doesn't make me an expert but I am in the industry and think I know more about it than you do.

 

[Marko Ramius]

Not to bore you with details lowecur, but I believe the government determined long ago that there can be no monetary value associated with slots. I think this came about from the days of airlines trading around slots for cash when they weren't using them. I believe this is one of the many(I know there were others) reasons DC Air was set up the way it was vs. just an outright sale of the slots to another carrier. This is also how they took TWA's LAX-DCA flights away from AA, and why you don't see an renumeration to UA or AA for their lost/transfered ORD slots. Even though they are likely the ones UA bought Air Wisconsin for before the goverment declared there can be no value to slots.

 

[lowecur]

You mean like how the FAA took slots from AA and UA and gave them over to Indy and America West? Ooooo, that was a killer I'll bet! How about that widely succesful slottery at LGA? ORD is a hub operation so frequency will always be a driver with respect to flights there. No problem with that, just get rid of 60% of the RJs. Not every airline is or wants to be solely O & D like your beloved B6. I don't love B6, I do luv E-jets though! A large number of the RJ destinations have marginal direct loads to ORD, but do help fill larger a/c out of ORD. It's all about protecting gates, and keeping B6, FL, and other airlines from setting up a major focus city. Additionally, the glut of RJ's out there lead to traffic cannibilization. Look at city like Springfield, Mo. That city had a whole bunch of large a/c service to nearby places like STL and ORD before the RJ. Now it can be served by RJ's from a multitude of other hubs which in turn reduces the flow to the primary hubs. Slapping a 737 or S80 or even a 190, isn't going to help that.

I have no problem with service to smaller markets. I just can't see 3 or 4 RJ flts per day to small markets, and anywhere from 5 to 15 flts per day to middle, and large markets just to protect the gates. The DOJ has stated their wishes to the FAA, and hopefully it will be instituted by 2008. Did you know that at the beginning of 2005, 44% of flts were RJ and they only controlled 24% of the capacity. That is outrageous!

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/209455.pdf

imp:

 

[lowecur]

Fuuny you mentioned that in your reply in post #109 lowecur. I actually do have a degree in Aviation Management and Aeronautical Science. Doesn't make me an expert but I am in the industry and think I know more about it than you do.

Well it sure does make you an expert, and I'm gonna vote for you as a moderator. I'll have my people call your people and see if we can do lunch to plan a campaign strategy.

imp:

 

[Marko Ramius]

The point wasn't that giving slots to Indy and HP killed UA or AA. The point is that the FAA isn't really interested in fixing what's up at O'hare, only assigning blame and acting like they have a plan. If they were concerned, the slots they removed from AA and UA would have not been assigned to any other carrier. Instead they shuffle them around b/c they know pulling slots from AA and UA is headline grabbing, and no one outside the industry will pay attention to the finer details of them doing absolutely nothing. Btw, I have news for you: if you think the FAA institutes anything on time you're nuts-especially when it's something they didn't invent. 2008 is likely another stall date, watch the DOJ or the feds say they have to reevaluate when the O'hare modernization takes another baby step forward. This just in, airlines like AA and UA were in business long before compaines were thought of. They each had their own business plan and model. AA and UA are network majors, their business and revenue source involves getting as many people into the network as possible. That means alot of flights and as much incremental feed from regionals and alliance partners as possible. It's not going to change because you don't agree with it. Simply combining three RJ flights from say Moline to ORD into a larger a/c is not going work. Sure it'll solve the FAA's problems, but the hub carriers at ORD lose out as passengers take better timed alternatives at other airlines hubs. With the advent of the RJ, and the phase out of flights at ORD with under 50 seats there really isn't true small city service out of ORD anymore. Most of the cities are mid-size and only get 2 flights a day or so to ORD per carrier because of the slot restrictions already in place. With AA basically shuttering STL and NW slicing up Mesaba, the remaining service is mid size or higher or hub-poaches like flights to COS or AUS.

Either you're really stupid, or I think much of this is already known to you. It just doesn't fit into how you want to see things in the industry play out. UA and AA don't owe it to anyone to give up gates because B6, FL, or Lowecur feels they should. I highly doubt that they'd give up the gates if forced to anyway: UA underutilizes it's 737 fleet and AA has mad-dogs in the desert. They don't feel a/c of that size are needed on those routes at present, but you can bet they'll do it vs. just giving up gates. The effect on the beyond revenue of the network is too great to allow it.

 

[lowecur]

The point wasn't that giving slots to Indy and HP killed UA or AA. The point is that the FAA isn't really interested in fixing what's up at O'hare, only assigning blame and acting like they have a plan. If they were concerned, the slots they removed from AA and UA would have not been assigned to any other carrier. Instead they shuffle them around b/c they know pulling slots from AA and UA is headline grabbing, and no one outside the industry will pay attention to the finer details of them doing absolutely nothing. Btw, I have news for you: if you think the FAA institutes anything on time you're nuts-especially when it's something they didn't invent. 2008 is likely another stall date, watch the DOJ or the feds say they have to reevaluate when the O'hare modernization takes another baby step forward. This just in, airlines like AA and UA were in business long before compaines were thought of. They each had their own business plan and model. AA and UA are network majors, their business and revenue source involves getting as many people into the network as possible. That means alot of flights and as much incremental feed from regionals and alliance partners as possible. It's not going to change because you don't agree with it. Simply combining three RJ flights from say Moline to ORD into a larger a/c is not going work. Sure it'll solve the FAA's problems, but the hub carriers at ORD lose out as passengers take better timed alternatives at other airlines hubs. With the advent of the RJ, and the phase out of flights at ORD with under 50 seats there really isn't true small city service out of ORD anymore. Most of the cities are mid-size and only get 2 flights a day or so to ORD per carrier because of the slot restrictions already in place. With AA basically shuttering STL and NW slicing up Mesaba, the remaining service is mid size or higher or hub-poaches like flights to COS or AUS.

Either you're really stupid, or I think much of this is already known to you. It just doesn't fit into how you want to see things in the industry play out. UA and AA don't owe it to anyone to give up gates because B6, FL, or Lowecur feels they should. I highly doubt that they'd give up the gates if forced to anyway: UA underutilizes it's 737 fleet and AA has mad-dogs in the desert. They don't feel a/c of that size are needed on those routes at present, but you can bet they'll do it vs. just giving up gates. The effect on the beyond revenue of the network is too great to allow it.

You really need to cut back on the sugar and caffeine. Take two valium and call me in the morning.

Peace.

imp:

ps: What did ol AMR/UAL do before the advent of the RJ? Man, those must have been tough times.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Marko Ramius]

It takes some 151 to get with you...

You really need to cut back on the sugar and caffeine. Take two valium and call me in the morning.

Peace.

imp:

ps: What did ol AMR/UAL do before the advent of the RJ? Man, those must have been tough times.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Interesting comment coming from a member of the blue man group. As for your question, I've already answered it, basically. Before the RJ, those cities were served by mainline or by turboprops for flights within @ 350-500 mile range. The RJ allowed those markets to be fragmented and accessed by other carriers route networks which altered the dynamics of the dominant carriers. A route like DFW or IAH-DRO, couldn't have existed profitably prior to the RJ.

 

[jetalc]

Congrats on the profits, UAL. It's been a long time coming.