Writing on the wall for major airlines

[Ty Webb]

I hate to sound rude, but that's about the most ignorant thing I've read on this forum for months.[/i]


Uh, no, actually, the most ignorant thing on the forum would be your post- in which you call what I have written "ignorant" but fail to address my post or coherently describe what it is that you disagree with.

Major airlines do tend to furlough between cycles . . . . got a question about that? Seems pretty self-evident to me. I am suy

 

[jarhead]

Well, ClownPilot, I certainly wouldn't EVER want to offend you, with your tender sensibilities and all. After all, I am just an idiot, in your all seeing wisdom. Let me put your fears to rest. I am not, nor have I ever been, a professional pilot. So, you in your infinite wisdom, missed the mark on that one. No, I made my mark in this world in business. I retired at age 57, and have lived quite comfortably with my success at piling up a pretty nice bundle of cash in my investments, and 401(k). I am now 63 years old, and know far more than you might expect, as to the laws of economics, and how to run a business. Kind of amazing how I could do that, being an idiot, and such. However, if it makes you feel good, you certainly can reduce your argument to calling someone you never met, "an idiot" Far from irritating me, I actually get a chuckle out of your ranting. I am not going to change your views, and never could. After all, what I know, would fit in the "dimple of a thimble". Did you ever try out for a debate team in college? I bet that argument would score lots of points. You know, if you can't produce a coherent point, just call 'em names, and tell them their mother wears combat boots.

I truly am sorry that I annoy you..........Naw, that's not true. I lied! In fact, I am amused by it, and rather enjoy that I annoy you.

 

[snowback]

I hate to sound rude, but that's about the most ignorant thing I've read on this forum for months.[/i]


Uh, no, actually, the most ignorant thing on the forum would be your post- in which you call what I have written "ignorant" but fail to address my post or coherently describe what it is that you disagree with.

Major airlines do tend to furlough between cycles . . . . got a question about that? Seems pretty self-evident to me. I am suy

I wasn't addressing your entire post, just the one line I quoted. It seems pretty self-evident.

Your last statement is correct. Major airlines do tend to furlough between cycles, but to say that most major pilots get furloughed is nonsense.

 

[secks]

Originally posted by Clownpilot
Like the downturn that got us here the upturn that follows will help return this profession to what it should be for the top guys. A high paying and enjoyable career.

Before you start placing others in your "biggest idiots" category, maybe you should try making some coherent arguments. Jarhead made some good points, and you didn't really refute any of them. Instead, you resorted to calling him an idiot. At your age, you should know better.

That aside, tell me: exactly how much should a "top" airline pilot earn? Don't you think $150+k/yr is excessive? Hell, many surgeons don't net that much in a year. Few lawyers do, either. Besides, why should a top airline pilot earn 3 times what a pilot of comparable skill earns at a regional? Does his experience/seniority really warrant such a higher wage?

You're complaining about people like jarhead destroying the airline pilot profession. The people who destroy it are those who demand such exorbitant wages that when the airlines aren't filing bankruptcy, they're furloughing pilots because the union wages aren't reasonable. These same people bar qualified pilots who are willing to work at a major for less than the union rate. I see exactly who's destroying what ..

 

[Immelman]

A few comments on that high-dollar business traveler that all the majors think they can 'woo' back..

Its interesting to look at this from the out-of-aviation perspective as well. I work as an engineer for a successful tech company who is just starting to loosen up on travel rules (post economic slump, now that things are recovering).

My company's travel policy is that domestically we have to fly coach on whatever the lowest fare is. Often, we do have to make travel plans at the last minute, but (thankfully), if SWA serves the route, then the walk-up fare is pretty reasonable (maybe $200 r/t compared to $600 on UA... easy choice!). After having flown 1st class domestically (see the other thread asking about eliminating 1st class), I can honestly say that it isn't worth it for 2-hour hops.. its extravagance that doesn't sell. My bet is that most people filling domestic 1st class seats these days are free mileage upgrades (take a look at www.flyertalk.com to see all the mileage scams...).

Internationally, my company allows us to book business class. Again, lowest price wins. Here, the 8+ hour flights do make it VERY nice to go biz or 1st class... but guess what - we rarely fly on US-based carriers to international routes because the competition is cheaper! I went to London last month from SFO and the business class fare on all US carriers was over TEN THOUSAND dollars. No thanks... we booked a 'full-fare' "premium economy" ticket on Virgin Atlantic (the seats are about as big as domestic first class) for $2500 and I got upgraded to 1st class both ways because their planes were FULL both ways! I've seen similar pricing when traveling British Airways, Korean Air, etc... in fact, the one time I flew UA biz class overseas, the service was just fine (I'm not picky), but really sub-standard compared to the foreign carriers.

I think that the LCC model is the only thing that will work for domestic US travel (possible exception of 5-6 hr transcon flights)... the "majors" need to accept this fact. Internationally, a 'premium' product will sell if you price it reasonably.

 

[saabtrash]

Actually Goldentrout, if we look back to a year ago, the LCC's already were rising. If you look back 2 years ago, they were rising. Notstradamus you are not.

 

[N2264J]

What an idiot indeed...

Jarhead, congratulations you just joined the ranks of Avbug and Skydiverdriver as the biggest idiots who post on these boards. Your fast food analogy is absolutely ludicrous.

Knowing people like you are in the same air as me scares the crap out of me. Please find another profession and stop trying to destroy this one. We don't need any help from you.

The voice of a "major" airline pilot mimicking the constipated mentally of the legacy carrier MECs Goldentrout referred to.

Actually, everything has changed except the way we think about it. Reality has shifed so much with the appearance of the smaller jets that the terms "major airline" and "regional airline" no longer apply. Now, there are only "airlines" and "airline pilots." The term "feeder," for instance, can be used to describe an aircraft of any size, at any company depending on whether it's pointed at the hub or away from the hub. By definition, feeders feed the hub and should no longer be catagorized by a particular aircraft or a specific airline.

Jarhead is correct. We are experiencing a sea change.

 

[Skyboss]

We'll see how JetBlue is doing in 5 years when their back end loaded lease deals begin adding up. They took a gamble that they are winning right now. That gamble assumes a large stash of cash now will be sufficient to cover lease payments that grow over time. This of course depends on them retaining their rather high load factor.

Of course, starting with $100 million covers up quite a bit of what would have been significant losses. It'll be interesting to watch. Long haul flying is pretty efficient.

 

[nimtz]

Major airline or not, if there is a void in international flying because every major airline went broke, someone will pick up the slack. Maybe a company like SWA or Airtran might buy an assload of 777's and hit europe and Asia? It's not that far fetched. More likely that with the demise of major airlines in the US (a very fat chance indeed) more than likely a foreign carrier would pick up the slack.

My money is on Continental though. I was looking at their annual report and it looks like they are consolidating with Boeing products. By next year, most of their MD's will be gone. A common (somewhat) fleet, flying efficient aircraft, not in bankruptcy, they could be poised to take some market share from the majors as they will inevitably decline, but not go away.

For that you would have to have a management team whose concern was growing into a more competitive airline, not filling their own pockets so deep that the Worldcom board would be jealous. Gordo's only got a few more years to go before he says he'll retire, so any money for growth is tied up in his compensation. My money is on CAL being the first name to disappear in the next round of consolidation, probably into DAL.

DiamondD:

Finally someone who doesn't buy into all the hype USA Today puts in front of them. Remember folks, the only low fare airline that survived the last time the majors were in a funk was SWA. The term 'dinasours' has been used before in describing the majors and they have come roaring back from times like this before. The fact that some of you guys are content with LCC pay scales for your entire career makes me fear the future of our profession. It's too bad all the work of those who have gone long before us will be wasted...

 

[transienttorque]

We'll see how JetBlue is doing in 5 years when their back end loaded lease deals begin adding up. They took a gamble that they are winning right now. That gamble assumes a large stash of cash now will be sufficient to cover lease payments that grow over time. This of course depends on them retaining their rather high load factor.

Of course, starting with $100 million covers up quite a bit of what would have been significant losses. It'll be interesting to watch. Long haul flying is pretty efficient.

By then Jetblue will have their Maglev modified aircraft and be saving money by not having to buy tires.