Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Who Of The US Airlines Is Making The Money?  
User currently offlineFokkerVII From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5461 times:

With all the stories floating around of bankruptcies of US carriers it made me wonder who is actually making all the money? There are so many people flying in the USA these days that someone (besides just Southwest) must be making money. OR are the prices just so low that no one can make money regardless?

Cheers

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAAFLT1871 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2333 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5454 times:

I would think JetBlue and Airtran


Where did everybody go?
User currently offlineAlb222 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5433 times:



Quoting FokkerVII (Thread starter):
are the prices just so low that no one can make money regardless?

Low prices, high cost of doing business= loss


User currently offlineRydel From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5412 times:



Quoting AAFLT1871 (Reply 1):
I would think JetBlue and Airtran

I agree, those seem to be pretty profitable airlines. I think TransMeridian (if you call them an airline) has been doing pretty good lately.


User currently offlineFokkerVII From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5371 times:

So it is only the (old) full service airlines that are losing out? Is there a chance of LCCs becoming the only type of airline available? Here in Europe the LCCs are doing very well but there still seems to be enough market for the old guys to make a living.

User currently offlineBravo7e7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1840 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5363 times:

I have a feeling that when Southwest's fuel contract runs out in June(I think), that they will be in a completely different ballpark. Wink

User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5340 times:



Quoting Bravo7e7 (Reply 5):
I have a feeling that when Southwest's fuel contract runs out in June(I think),

I can not wait until that day when WN starts losing money and everybody realizes that the industry is in a crisis. For some reason, some people think that just because WN is making money, that everybody should be and that they are the problem. Hopefully that will be a wake call for some.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting Bravo7e7 (Reply 5):
I have a feeling that when Southwest's fuel contract runs out in June(I think), that they will be in a completely different ballpark.

Actually SWA has fuel hedges in place for varying costs and percentages all the way out to 2009...

From SWA's 4th quarter report...

"Although we are 85 percent hedged in first quarter 2005 with prices capped at $26 per barrel, based on current market conditions, we presently expect first quarter 2005 average jet fuel cost per gallon to exceed fourth quarter 2004's 89.1 cents. We are 85 percent hedged for the remainder of 2005 with prices capped at $26 per barrel; 65 percent in 2006 at $32 per barrel; over 45 percent in 2007 at $31 per barrel; 30 percent in 2008 at $33 per barrel; and over 25 percent in 2009 at $35 per barrel."

(Those percentages/costs will change with time...)

[Edited 2005-03-10 02:09:09]

User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5702 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5263 times:



Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 6):
I can not wait until that day when WN starts losing money and everybody realizes that the industry is in a crisis. For some reason, some people think that just because WN is making money, that everybody should be and that they are the problem. Hopefully that will be a wake call for some.

typical for a WN hater probably lol. if Southwest Airlines is still a LCC which they are and are able to have money then great. i am not saying if WN can do it then the others should. the legacies have put themselves in a position to where they are now. I bet you, if Southwest and all the LCC left..the only people flying would be business flyers and VERY VERY rich people, because we are so adapted to low fares. i hope southwest lives forever and forever, it is because of southwest i am also able to fly on American and other legacy because they are keeping it low.
Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13744 posts, RR: 61
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fact of the matter though is that WN would be bleeding red ink like a stuck pig if not for their fuel hedges - something they're more easily able to do than other carriers thanks to their financial position up to now.

If oil remains this high - and odds are it won't go down anytime soon - they'll have to raise fares to stay afloat, since no Jet-A provider worth their salt will enter into a fuel contract with WN for anything less than $48/bbl going forward.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5702 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5209 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 9):
Fact of the matter though is that WN would be bleeding red ink like a stuck pig if not for their fuel hedges - something they're more easily able to do than other carriers thanks to their financial position up to now.

also not true. Southwest would still be making alot of money, just not as high as ith the hedged fuel. it could be questioned in the future but they still would have made quite a bit of money. but the fact is..Southwest hedged, others didn't and it counts. so...Southwest can STILL make money because MGMT was smarte enough to do so. thats called smarts, and they know how to run an airline.
Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5211 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 9):
Fact of the matter though is that WN would be bleeding red ink like a stuck pig if not for their fuel hedges

Actually, their operating loss would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-40 million (I don't know the exact amount since part of the hedging gain goes to the employees in profitsharing) for the fourth quarter of 2004. Even absent their hedges, Southwest would have been profitable in the third quarter. A loss of $30-40 million would represent an operating margin of negative two or three percent -- hardly "bleeding like a stuck pig" in comparison to the rest of the industry.

Having carried 17.7 million revenue passengers in the quarter, a fare increase of an average of a dollar or two would have made LUV profitable in the absence of hedging. And Southwest has been moving to reduce their fuel expenses in the future by adding blended winglets to the fleet.

When Southwest starts losing money, you can bet that things are even worse for virtually everyone else in the industry (aside from, perhaps, fee-for-departure regionals).

[Edited 2005-03-10 03:06:14]

User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5143 times:



Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 8):
typical for a WN hater probably

Yeah, naturally I dislike WN, but only because they are a competitor of "my" airline. It's a friendly hatred, just like with people who dislike rival sport teams because they're not theirs. My dislike for WN affects none of my opinions of the airline industry.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 8):
if Southwest Airlines is still a LCC which they are and are able to have money then great. i am not saying if WN can do it then the others should

Yeah, but others are. I find it from mostly the media.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 8):
the legacies have put themselves in a position to where they are now.

Yeah I agree with this. They didn't adapt to change quick enough, and that has hurt them. However, most of the lagacy carriers have indeed changed that in normal situations, they would be making money. It's the damn fuel that's killing them.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 8):
I bet you, if Southwest and all the LCC left..the only people flying would be business flyers and VERY VERY rich people, because we are so adapted to low fares.

Then what we have now is the "glory days" of commercial aviation, when customers decided on what airline to fly by how thick the their steak was, not how cheap their airfares were. Airlines would then be in excellent shape. It wouldn't benefit you, the typical American, but it would defiantly benefit the airlines.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 10):
also not true. Southwest would still be making alot of money

Hahaha, yeah I don't think so. They MAY be making money, but not a lot.

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 10):
thats called smarts, and they know how to run an airline.

No use in arguing about this. I will admit that WN is beautifully run.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 11):
Actually, their operating loss would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $30-40 million

I'm not sure about this, but I too have heard that WN would be losing money if they didn't hedge. If either of you could provide "hard" evidence, that would be great.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineQxq400 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5088 times:

Well we at Alaska/Horizon just received our profit sharing checks. Very small check, but still a check. eyebrow 


Welcome baby Madison Renee
User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5702 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5081 times:

sonofacaptin- more respect to you. your on my list.

i agree with alot of what u said. I understand what you mean by friendly hate. for some reason i have this utmost hate against NWA even tho I have never flown and should keep my mouth shut until I have but something about NWA just irks me lol.

you mentioned fuel. yes thats correct, nothing to do with Southwest Airlines like most people are saying. so someone tell these people to stop blaming Southwest, it isnt helping them for Southwest to be there admittidaly BUT it is not the fault or anything wrong with it.

with WN running mgmt being smart-- naturally. they take risk, and they took a risk in hedging fuel and it has worked perfectly for them. they seem to know the inside and out and where to pick the profitable route. southwest isnt hurting airlines it is doing business, i dont understand how if southwest goes into a war with us airways they say they are killing them but if AA goes into DAL to fight WN people would call it "business" and not killing Southwest. what makes that difference?!?!

you asked for proof about hedging i cannot find it at the moment but i myself have heard Southwest would have still made about 5 million dollars without hedging. ill keep looking
Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25690 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5027 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SOAC:

Sorry, but your defence of the legacy carriers has elements of fine bologna.

We've just had the first successful, across the board, NWAC included, fare hike in some time.

So what does United do? United is losing money like a stuck pig loses blood.

So they lower fares.

Like that makes a whole heap of sense.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSWALoveField From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5022 times:

This is ridiculous. To say, "If WN hadn't hedged fuel.....blah, blah, blah."

You could say that about any airline, but they DID hedge fuel and therefore are smarter and profitable.

Its like saying, "If they didn't make smart management decisions they would NOT be making a profit." Duh, look at the legacies. How can you expect ANY company to make a profit by making "dumb" decisions.

You can take that to the bank and make a deposit. Legacies keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. WN keeps growing and growing and growing.

Regards,

Robb
Dallas, TX

"You can't spell win withouth WN!"


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4994 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 15):
We've just had the first successful, across the board, NWAC included, fare hike in some time.

So what does United do? United is losing money like a stuck pig loses blood.

So they lower fares.

Since when did the actions of one speak for the whole. I am sure UA lowering ticket prizes has a reasone, for no airline bleeding that much would do it for the "fun of it".

Quoting Mariner (Reply 15):
Sorry, but your defence of the legacy carriers has elements of fine bologna.

Can you please point this out to me? Maybe I could defend myself if I knew what you were talking about.

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 16):
This is ridiculous. To say, "If WN hadn't hedged fuel.....blah, blah, blah."

All we are trying to say is that the industry as a whole is going through a crisis, and that even WN would be losing money if it hadn't done some amazing planing. You know an industry is in trouble when in normal cases, everybody would be losing money.

Quoting SWALoveField (Reply 16):
Legacies keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. WN keeps growing and growing and growing.

It's hard to go on the offensive, when you need to play defense.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4972 times:



Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 9):
since no Jet-A provider worth their salt will enter into a fuel contract with WN for anything less than $48/bbl going forward.

EA CO AS - I don't mean to single you out, it's simply that the wording of your post easily lent itself to an example of how misunderstood the futures market is on these boards.

There is a 100% certainty that you could buy an unlimited quantity of Jet-A at $25/bbl for future delivery as soon as the financial markets open in the morning. You may not like the premium you'd have to pay for it, but if you wanted it, there'd be someone who'd make a market for you. In its most simplest terms, the futures market is like buying and selling options in the stock market, except it's for delivery of fuel or orange juice or pork bellies at a set price on a certain date, rather than if your stock option is in or out of the money on the expiration date. You pay a price (aka the "premium") for this contract, it's not free.

Note ScottB stated in Reply #11: "part of the hedging gain goes to the employees in profitsharing"

If hedging was just a set of direct contracts with fuel suppliers, there would be no profit to share, it would simply be the fulfillment of a contract.

Hedging in the quantities of fuel Southwest requires, over the time span stated in their quarterly report, shows significant sophisticated investment strategies that are developed over time, and by more than just a couple of executives taking a lunch break from stealing passengers from other airlines, and involve hundreds of millions of dollars put at risk.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25690 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4944 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SOAC:

"However, most of the legacy carriers have indeed changed that in normal situations, they would be making money."

(i) If you subtract the additional cost of fuel several of the legacy carriers would still be losing a very great deal of money.

Just for the record, how much did United lose in January? It was considerably more than their additional fuel cost.

And how much cash did US Airways burn through in January?

Please note that is OUR money now - US Airways has dipped below the ATSB threshold and is actually using taxpayer guaranteed money to survive.

(ii) It wasn't just United. I believe US Airways started a system wide fare sale at the same time as United.

(iii) Continental announced today that Delta's previously announced fare cuts would cost them (Continental) an additional $50 million in revenue - on top of the $150 million in lost revenue they had already announced.

Since even Delta admits they're going to be losing (even more) money with their new fare structure, I fail to see the sense of it.

(iv) You and I have discussed US Airways new FLL mini-hub before. How much did certain of those routes cost them to establish, routes abandoned within weeks of starting?

I could go on, but I don't see the point. I find it difficult to see how the legacy carriers have changed to the point that, in normal circumstances, they would be making money.

However, I agree with you on one very important point - the industry, the entire industry, is in crisis.

But how it is that airlines like Qantas and Cathay Pacific are reporting record profits in spite of the cost of fuel?

When the day comes that some of the US legacy carriers abandon the obsession with market share and go for profits (or at least break even) instead, then we might get somewhere.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4927 times:



Quoting Alb222 (Reply 2):
Low prices, high cost of doing business= loss

very good and valid point.. overcompetition forces them to dump their prices for every sake, so no wonder many of them dump every product and service and face bancrupcy now.. this happens in a less-regulated market. A standartization of products and 'perfect competiton' (i.e. price), and the loss of every particularity... in the long-term, the social costs hill be high and the prices will rise, too (but esp the former is scarry)

Quoting FokkerVII (Reply 4):
So it is only the (old) full service airlines that are losing out? Is there a chance of LCCs becoming the only type of airline available?

I hope not... LCC are boring, have no love and are only good in the short-term... transport is so important that we need to ensure that overcompetition does not kill or negatively alter the sector


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4920 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
And how much cash did US Airways burn through in January?

I am not sure about UA, but I do know that US WOULD have made money this past year if fuel was not so high.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
It wasn't just United. I believe US Airways started a system wide fare sale at the same time as United.

When you are desperately in need of money, you do desperate things.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
And how much cash did US Airways burn through in January?

You can't judge how much an airline makes in a year over the typically worst month for an airline.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
Please note that is OUR money now - US Airways has dipped below the ATSB threshold and is actually using taxpayer guaranteed money to survive.

What's with all this hatred towards US, you are going to get your money back, even if US goes out of business.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
Since even Delta admits they're going to be losing (even more) money with their new fare structure, I fail to see the sense of it.

I'm still convinced DL did this to put US out of business. This is MY personal opinion though.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
You and I have discussed US Airways new FLL mini-hub before. How much did certain of those routes cost them to establish, routes abandoned within weeks of starting?

I liked the fact that US was willing to take a risk to find some new revenue. In normal cases US would still be flying these routes today. However, because US doesn't have the cash to support a new struggling route, they couldn't afford to keep with it.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
I find it difficult to see how the legacy carriers have changed to the point that, in normal circumstances, they would be making money.

How can you not see!!! Legecy carriers have transformed themselves to be more competitive. You can't see this because you are only thinking near-future. You assume that just because they are losing money, they haven't changed at all. But the truth is that have.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
But how it is that airlines like Qantas and Cathay Pacific are reporting record profits in spite of the cost of fuel?

How many $25 fares do you see at Qantas and Cathay Pacific. The reason they are making money is because they are "allowed" to pass the prize of the raw goods to the ticket prizes. US legacy carriers can't because of the competition of LCC. They can't even charge $200 fares anymore because all their customers would flock to other carriers.


Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
When the day comes that some of the US legacy carriers abandon the obsession with market share and go for profits (or at least break even) instead, then we might get somewhere.

Wow. Are you telling me that UA and US aren't worried about making a profit, that they only care about market share. You need to wake up and realize that the legacy carriers are DESPERATELY searching for profits.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

>>>You need to wake up and realize that the legacy carriers are DESPERATELY searching for profits.

I think Mariner has been "awake" long enough to know what's what...  sarcastic 


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25690 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SOAC:

In order, by numbers:

(i) I did not say otherwise.

(ii) When you are desperate in need of money you cut fares so you get even less money. That is not what I would call sound airline management. Consequently, I have little sympathy for managements who do it.

(iii) That's not my point. My point is that US is burning through cash at an alarming rate. Alarming to me, at least. I am glad you are not alarmed.

(iv) I don't "hate" US. I don't hate anyone or anything, how can I possibly "hate" a corporation?

I do think that US has suffered through stupid management, and continues to suffer through stupid management. The difference is that now they are doing it with my money.

And at this rate, I (we?) am not going to get my taxpayer money back. US is below the threshold.

(v) I think DAL / KDAL), USA - Texas">DAL / KDAL), USA - Texas">DAL / KDAL), USA - Texas">DAL would rather put Airtran out of business.

(vi) If you don't have the cash to support a struggling new route, you don't start it. Very few new routes make money from Day 1, most take several months to break even.

So, we squander what money we have on routes that will lose us more money. Yep, that's a good plan.

Beyond which, the natural head turn for people from Panama City - which does not have a great tourist trade, for obvious reasons - is to the US west coast, not the east coast.

And why set up a mini-hub at a congested airport likr FLL? Any delays, and the whole hub system is up the creek.

(vii) I'm thinking short term? At the start of this, you said "when you are desperate you do desperate things" but now you say that I'm the one thinking short term?

(viii) Qantas has just reported a record profit of half a billion dollars in six months - despite the success of Virgin Blue, a ruthless LCC.

Cathay Pacific has no domestic routes, all it's routes are competitive with other international airlines, including the US airlines, who will, as we know, undercut their mother in law to get someone in a seat.

(ix) So we come full circle. The legacy carriers cannot make money at the present fare levels, so several of them cut fares.

Why?

Obviously it isn't to make a profit, since they can't. I can see that, and I don't have a Harvard MBA.

Therefore it is about market share.

And, SOAC, believe me, it isn't the LCC's who are leading the fares down.

cheers

mariner

[Edited 2005-03-10 10:14:34]

[Edited 2005-03-10 10:21:35]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4797 times:



Quoting SonOfACaptain (Reply 21):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 19):
But how it is that airlines like Qantas and Cathay Pacific are reporting record profits in spite of the cost of fuel?

How many $25 fares do you see at Qantas and Cathay Pacific. The reason they are making money is because they are "allowed" to pass the prize of the raw goods to the ticket prizes. US legacy carriers can't because of the competition of LCC. They can't even charge $200 fares anymore because all their customers would flock to other carriers.

Yes but some of the major European carriers are making money and they have to deal with the fuel situation and major LCC competition (and the lo-cos over here very publicly said they weren't going to add fuel surcharges to tickets)

It is easy for the legacy carriers to blame the fuel situation, but there is far more to look at than that. Those huge losses posted by the likes of DL are not about fuel. Yes the fuel makes it worse, but is not the whole story. They are still suffering from the excess of 2000, when they placed huge aircraft orders, agreed large pay deals with the workforce and the like, prior to the US economic downturn of 2001.

Additionally, thanks to Ch.11 in many ways they are dragging each other down. They can reorganise, push through wage/labor reform, lower fares, etc that hurt those carriers that are not in Ch.11. This then weakens them and drags them down to the same level. That's not blaming any particular carriers - they've got to save their business and if that means taking advantage of Ch.11 then the option is there. But it does mean that it tends to keep some weak carriers alive to the detriment of the other carriers.

In the current climate, there are too many legacy carriers in the market to make any of them remotely healthy.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
25 Icebird757 : The only 3 airlines here in the US that are making a profit are Southwest, JetBlue and AirTran. Most everyone else is losing money.
26 Coronado : I dont think fuel has as much to do with the losses of the legacy carriers as their management would like us to think. Pure and simple their losses ar
27 N1120A : Alaska also turned a profit, as do several regionals
28 Goingboeing : Ah...the quest to be number 1 in market share. What the legacies don't see in the LCC's is that the LCC's are quite content to be number 2 in market
29 MidnightMike : Southwest has been making a profit for the past 20-30 years, fuel is the cost of doing business, whether high or low. If the fuel prices are high, th
30 Post contains images SonOfACaptain : Yeah, when you are in the slowest season and nobody is flying. Every year around this time airlines always make a price cut to try and lure passenger
31 A332 : The reality of today's airline industry around the globe is frequencies and low fares... that's what the people want. If the majors can't cut it and c
32 Goingboeing : In between your fits of laughter, think a moment. Southwest enters the PIT / KPIT), USA - Pennsylvania">PIT / KPIT), USA - Pennsylvania">PIT market.
33 Coronado : Son of a Captain what the heck does the age of a corporation have to do with their debt level. Have you looked at a balance sheet for a company like 3
34 OPNLguy : >>>WN has only been really growing in the past decade. Really?
35 Atcrick : I agree that most airlines are losing money but to state that WN, B6 and FL are the only carriers making a profit here in the US is incorrect. Alaska
36 Mariner : SOAC: Once again, by the numbers: (i) No. Everyone else - in this slow season - raised prices. Even NWAC. (ii) You cannot be more alarmed than I. You
37 SonOfACaptain : I don't have time to respond to your other statements but I thought I had to clarify this. I "laughed out loud" because you said I wasn't worried abo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Strongest US Airlines At The Moment? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 07:43:59 by ArmitageShanks
Next Wave Of Cuts At US Airlines Is... posted Fri Apr 29 2005 01:03:12 by AkjetBlue
US Airlines And The Middle East posted Sat Dec 25 2004 10:58:02 by Kkfla737
US Airlines And The 737-600 posted Sat Oct 18 2003 00:59:44 by COEWRNJ
Non-US Airlines In The US posted Tue Nov 27 2001 14:09:53 by Gsoflyer
US Airlines In The Pacific: Which Ones Dominat? posted Fri Oct 19 2001 16:43:57 by Zeus01
US Airlines In The 1970s posted Sun Oct 7 2001 04:02:51 by DETA737
Which 30 Airlines Is The Largest Airlines? posted Mon Sep 24 2001 12:45:53 by Victor
When Are The Major US Airlines Retire The DC-10? posted Mon Aug 28 2000 06:39:54 by MSPMAN
Schedule Of Former Us Airlines Flights CDG-USA posted Sat Oct 21 2006 21:05:39 by Airlittoralguy