Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

When will it ease up or do we need the government to step in again? ie. regulation.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

schafjet

Osama hunter
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Posts
214
The following article was in the Star Tribune out of MSP.



The five low-fare airlines that serve the Twin Cities are expected to lose money this quarter, proving that few carriers can escape the financial carnage wrought by $50-a-barrel oil.
The losses likely to be incurred by some previously profitable low-fare carriers could force executives to lessen the sting by raising ticket prices, a move that probably would be followed by Northwest Airlines and other major carriers.

AirTran Airways and Frontier Airlines already have warned that they'll lose money in the quarter that ends today, even though it includes the peak summer travel season. Analysts are projecting a loss of 45 cents a share for America West, and Indianapolis-based ATA Airlines is scrambling to slash expenses in order to avoid a bankruptcy filing.

Fuel costs at Sun Country Airlines, based in Mendota Heights, rose 40 percent in August alone, and the company said it may lose up to $1.5 million this quarter.
Analysts also expect profits to be down at industry stalwarts Southwest Airlines and JetBlue Airways, neither of which serves the Twin Cities.

That marks a sharp turnabout for many low-fare airlines, which appeared invincible in recent years while the big carriers, such as Eagan-based Northwest and United, tallied big losses.

"The assumption is they can't lose money, but they can," said Joel Denney, an airline analyst for Piper Jaffray & Co. in Minneapolis.

Low-fare carriers have been making money by flying on high-volume routes with new airplanes and younger labor forces that typically are paid less than many of their counterparts at the big airlines.

"Fuel happens to be a great equalizer," said Joe Hodas, a spokesman for Denver-based Frontier, which saw its fuel costs rise 34 percent, to $1.25 a gallon, in the past quarter.

High fuel prices carry a stiff financial burden for low-fare carriers, most of which are rapidly expanding their fleets and their routes in order to compete more directly with the major airlines.

At Frontier, for example, the spike in fuel prices occurred while it was locked in a bitter fare war with Northwest on new nonstop service between the Twin Cities and Los Angeles. Frontier ended up retreating in the Twin Cities and also reduced new nonstop service between Los Angeles and St. Louis and Kansas City.

August was a particularly brutal month for Frontier. It increased the seat miles it flies by 40 percent in August, but revenue per seat mile dropped by 19 percent.

Michael Boyd, an aviation consultant from Colorado, said that there are several business differences among the five low-fare carriers that provide service to the Twin Cities. But he said the price of fuel is having an adverse effect upon all of them.

Boyd also stressed that high fuel prices aren't the only major culprit in the losses for the third quarter.

"You have a fuel whammy and a consumer aversion to going to Florida," Boyd said. Among the low-fare carriers, AirTran Airways, based in Orlando, was severely hurt by the four hurricanes that hit Florida.

Denney noted that the pain will continue for AirTran and other carriers serving Florida, because many leisure travelers will take vacations elsewhere until rebuilding efforts are completed.

The third quarter typically is a weak one for Sun Country Airlines, which experiences its heaviest traffic between December and April, when Minnesotans are traveling to warm-weather destinations.

Still, escalating fuel costs guarantee a larger-than-expected loss of $1 million to $1.5 million, said Shaun Nugent, Sun Country's CFO. It also lost about $450,000 in the second quarter, after paying 32 percent more per gallon of jet fuel.

On Friday, Sun Country said it would boost fares in some markets to offset the continuing rise in its fuel costs.

Terry Trippler, who operates the Web site Hubcitymsp.com, said he has watched low-fare airlines institute small fare increases in a smattering of markets. But he also has watched fare increases, such as one recently introduced by American Airlines, fall apart when low-fare competitors fail to match and keep raises in place.

Trippler, whose Web site promotes travel on the low-fare airlines serving the Twin Cities, said consumers have benefited from the low fares being offered by all sizes of carriers. But "if airlines continue to sustain losses, the consumer loses in the long term," he said.

The major airlines have been unable to raise fares, largely because of intense competition from low-fare airlines. Once the quarterly losses are revealed at low-fare airlines, Trippler said, "I don't think they'll go very long without raising fares."

But there still is too much seat capacity on the market, Boyd said, and low-fare carriers have new airplanes on order and they'll quickly move to pick up routes that may be dropped by big airlines. For example, AirTran took delivery in June on the first of 50 new Boeing 737s.

At America West, spokeswoman Janice Monahan said every penny increase in the price of fuel per gallon translates into a $4.5 million rise in annual fuel expenses. In the second quarter, America West paid an average of $1.16 a gallon for fuel, up 41 percent over the 2003 quarter.

America West, like many of the low-fare carriers, had some hedges in place to guard against huge increases in fuel prices. But the carrier saved only $7.7 million as a result of fuel-hedging transactions in the first half of this year.

Southwest Airlines, the largest low-fare carrier, locked in substantially lower fuel prices on four-fifths of its supply. But even Southwest and JetBlue Airways expect lower profits because they are being hurt by high fuel prices.

Analysts don't expect a return of $20-a-barrel oil. Boyd, for one, doubts that oil will drop below $35 a barrel, and that may not provide much relief to weakened carriers, be they major airlines or low-fare operators.

"Our fundamental outlook for the industry has dimmed for at least the next four to six months," analyst Michael Linenberg said in a Merrill Lynch research report. If that scenario plays out, he wrote, it will be "most problematic for the industry's financially weakest airlines." ATA and Frontier were among the low-fare carriers considered financially "weakest."

ATA Airlines declined to comment on oil prices or the carrier's financial condition. The airline, which offers daily flights between the Twin Cities and Chicago's Midway Airport, posted an operating loss of $32.9 million for the first half of this year, and it has slashed costs to try and fend off a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Its fuel price per gallon rose 28 percent last quarter.

The Air Transport Association, the industry's trade group for the major airlines, has urged federal officials to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but Boyd predicted that won't occur. The Bush administration has strongly resisted that move and instead has continued to expand the oil reserve.

Sun Country's Nugent isn't focused on what Washington politicians might sponsor. Right now, he's trying to adapt to the financial havoc at his airline. He's not optimistic about fuel prices. "It is getting worse," Nugent said. "In the last two weeks, we've seen an increase of almost 20 cents in our per-gallon cost."
 
Simple...

  • Pass laws against practices such as "fuel hedging". These strategies are unfair and allow coniving corporate thinkers, an unfair advantage.
  • Pass laws that create a federal minimum wage for pilots. Once pilots all make the same wages for a particular level of work, there will be no unfair price competition in making pilots work for less.
  • End the rediculous practice of paying people more for being with a company longer. Pay those that produce, not those that consume.
  • Pass laws that require airlines to charge 10% more than cost, for their services. Profit will be mandated, no more undercutting at the cost of employee's wages and benefits.
  • Last but not least, let bad businesses fail. The meek shall inherit the dearth...not the working man's paycheck in the form of taxpayer subsidies.
 
FN FAL said:
  • End the rediculous practice of paying people more for being with a company longer. Pay those that produce, not those that consume.


So you believe that a 10 year Captain should not make more than a 5 year Captain, and a 7 year F/O should not make more than a 2 year F/O?


atrdriver
 
atrdriver said:
So you believe that a 10 year Captain should not make more than a 5 year Captain, and a 7 year F/O should not make more than a 2 year F/O?


atrdriver
I don't believe a 10 year captain produces any more than a 5 year captain. I don't believe a 7 year first officer produces any more than a second year first officer. If a person is an apprentice and is not fully skilled, they should receive apprentice pay. That's what I believe...In fact the FAA believes the same thing...it's either "U's" or "S's".

Longevity should determine bids for runs, bids for vactions, bids for domicile.

If you go back up there and look at the original poster's article...you'll read the statement that says that airlines with more senior employees, cannot compete with newer airlines with less senior, newer employees. You can argue with me all day about who is "WORTH" more and who is "WORTH LESS", but if wages were flatter accross the board, there would be no price comparison between workforces...thus ending unfair competition between start ups and existing airlines.

Captains should get captain pay and second officers should get second officer pay. People walking around without a clue, should draw apprentice pay.

Let me toss the concept at you from a different angle...your argument will be that a 15 year captain knows more, is better at the job than the 10 year or 5 year captain. IF that is true...and pay is an indicator of such a better pilot...than I as a customer want a rebate, when you stick me with a one year captain and first officer just off of IOE!!!

Think about it...1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year...who's the best pilot? The guy that gets paid more? Then the airlines should make it easy for the customer to know what he is paying for. A standard would be colored blazers...kind of like the colored belts Karate guys earn. That way, when I walk up the jet way to take a flight somewhere, I can make an easy determination as to the skill level of the flight crew. CA and FO both wearing WHITE blazers?...look out! Either give me a rebate or let me off this mutha.

Here's a second argument. You are going to say that pay is a motivator to keep employee's around longer. Uh-uh! Pay is a pacifier, not a motivator. If a place of business is so crappy to work at that they have to bribe people into staying with more pay...what's the point of working there.

I'm saying, even out the wages across the board. Captains make captain pay, FO's make FO pay. Pay raises are based on COLA and negotiated settlements for increases.

If you are going to give me the argument that pilots are better at 15 years than 5 years, then why are you charging me 15 year pilot prices at the ticket counter and then "baiting and switching" me to the 5 and 2 year flight crew?
 
Last edited:
atrdriver said:
So you believe that a 10 year Captain should not make more than a 5 year Captain, and a 7 year F/O should not make more than a 2 year F/O?


atrdriver
No, but I do believe that a seniority heavy workforce that finds itself unable to compete against a seniority light workforce and jobless, has every right to expect first year pay at their new jobs, regardless of time in career, time in type and time in grade.

In case you're not reading through the satire in my original post, what I am really saying is...keep the freaking government out of this. Let the work force negotiate with management as to it's worth. Let the airlines negotiate with the customer for sales. Airline tickets should reflect the cost of fuel and should fluctuate accordingly...it's not rocket science.

Fuel is up! Ticket prices go up! That's that. If you can't compete with other airlines and stay business...so sorry.
 
Last edited:
FN FAL said:
No, but I do believe that a seniority heavy workforce that finds itself unable to compete against a seniority light workforce and jobless, has every right to expect first year pay at their new jobs, regardless of time in career, time in type and time in grade.

Fuel is up! Ticket prices go up! That's that. If you can't compete with other airlines and stay business...so sorry.
So if a Captain makes the same wage regardless of time with the company, what is the point of seniority?

And I agree with the second point, if variable costs go up, so whould prices. That's the way the entire world works, except the airline industry. We have a bunch of Harvard educated morons running these companies that continue to sell tickets for less than the product costs to produce. As long as this continues, airlines will continue to fail, people will continue to get hurt, etc...

atrdriver
 
I was more interested in the problems with fuel costs than with pilot pay. I think pilots have taken it on the chin enough lately. Too bad that's all airlines look at is labor costs and then go crying to the governmet about it. Airlines are not held to the fire to come up with more creative solutions to their problems. Labor is just a small piece of the puzzle, when will airlines and the bankruptcy judges (government) figure that out?
 
atrdriver said:
So if a Captain makes the same wage regardless of time with the company, what is the point of seniority?
I'm not saying that seniority with a company shouldn't count for anything. I did mention trip bids, biding vacation dates, biding domiciles. If there's a furlough, the new guys gotta go...it's the way it should be.

But I do think that people doing the same jobs, should get the same pay. If a senior employee is making twice the money a junior employee is, isn't the junior employee being penalized for knowing the same things and doing the same tasks as the senior employee?

I guess the opposing question is, what additional value is the company getting from a 15 year employee, that it isn't getting from a 5 year employee? What additional value is a company getting with an entire pilot group at 5 years vs. 15 years? A lot.

Getting back to this article the original poster placed in this thread, it seems to me, that labor cost stratification throuought the industry would lend itself to dampening the pendulum like swings of feast or famine. I realize that the economy plays an important part of how healthy the industry is, but it also seems that whipsawing labor groups against each other takes its toll as well.

Notice I never said that labor as a whole should take a cut in pay...just that wages should be more plateau like, so that one labor group's costs were the same as the other.

One way of doing this, would be to flatten the wage structure. Of course this will never happen, because obviously senior guys are not going to take a pay cut...and it is, what it is.

One thing is for sure...everybody likes making top money at 15 years, but when those negotiated salaries are not competitive and the business shuts it's doors, nobody likes making 1st year pay at the next job.

I'm all for straightening out the sine wave of aviation job stability and lifetime wage earnings for pilots...I'd would rather see an aviation industry with less ups and downs, less whipsawing of pilot groups, less furloughs, and less bankruptcies.

I think if labor cost was fixed across the board, there would be less of this. Labor costs could then be negotiated and factored into the cost of an airline ticket, just like an increase in oil prices could.

And you know what, cost of management is a kind of a "labor" cost as well. Obviously, someone has to manage the company. I think that management needs to be held accountable to it's employee work force (and the shareholders)...and that waste, bloated staffing, hidden perks...should all be something that is readily apparent in a transparent operation. Costs of being managed should be competitive and it should be required that those persons who manage a company, fall on the sword when they perform like criminals not operating in the best interest of the company, the shareholders and those employed to do the dirty work.

I hate to sound like a communist or a socialist, but if Management and Labor at the airlines could operate in the same direction...life would be grand. You could get rid of the backstabing crooks in management, loose the "choke the golden goose" attitude in labor...but it'll never happen.
 
Last edited:
schafjet said:
I was more interested in the problems with fuel costs than with pilot pay. I think pilots have taken it on the chin enough lately. Too bad that's all airlines look at is labor costs and then go crying to the governmet about it. Airlines are not held to the fire to come up with more creative solutions to their problems. Labor is just a small piece of the puzzle, when will airlines and the bankruptcy judges (government) figure that out?
So what should the government do about fuel costs?
 
Not saying the government should do anything. What should everyone do? Will airlines continue to falter until there are just a few? Will ticket prices then go up where they belong? Will fuel remain at record highs, killing the airlines? How many people have to lose their jobs? Will airline travel once again be only for the rich. Regulation, Deregulation? The airline business is changing so rapidly that there needs to be new ideas to change with the times. The first idea should be charge a correct fee for services rendered, that would help.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top