Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Are U.S. Airlines In Worse Shape?  
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

I was wondering why U.S. airlines are in such dire shape financially, as compared to the rest of the world? So many airlines in Europe and Asia seem to be reporting increased profits and better projections, even with the high fuel prices. I'm not saying the Europeans and Asians aren't restructuring, becoming more efficient, laying off employees, etc., to deal with the present challenges, but they seem to be weathering the storm better, recovering sooner, and ordering more airplanes.

Were U.S. airlines more effected by 9/11 than elsewhere? Is there more deregulation here than elsewhere, causing a glut of seats? Other airlines worldwide seem to be dealing better, on the whole, with the competition of low fare carriers, too. Do foreign airlines get more security for loans or financial guarantees from their governments? Do American CEOs make too much money?

(I'm not suggesting any of these possibilities are true, I am just trying to understand the discrepancy.)

I know there are exceptions (JAL, Alitalia, VARIG)

Any insights?


I come in peace
76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6598 times:

The biggest reason is because US majors are still putting market share above profits. The underprice the LCC's to protect that "valuable" market share, and they can't cover the costs to operate the flights.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7931 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6585 times:

I must admit, I don't get it either. Airlines like BA, Lufthansa, ANA et al operate in an environment that is more competitive than any US major - take it from me (or Southwest Airlines, who agree with me), easyJet and Ryanair are more hardcore than Southwest or any other US LCC. And yet BA, LH, NH and their brethren provide a service that is far superior to the US majors, and they make money doing it. Perhaps it's a symptom of a general malaise in the USA, although there are other industries that are doing well over there. So I don't get it. It is a shame though, US airlines have such a great history and were pioneers in many areas, and they're really damaging that heritage nowadays. Any Americans have some thoughts? I'm just repeating the opening post here.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6575 times:

The sad thing is, now the so called LCC's here in the United States actually deliver more on board service then the so called legacy carriers.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineSK601 From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 976 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6560 times:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 3):
The sad thing is, now the so called LCC's here in the United States actually deliver more on board service then the so called legacy carriers.

 checkmark  that's exactly the answer to this question:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Thread starter):
Why Are U.S. Airlines In Worse Shape?


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6550 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 2):
So I don't get it. It is a shame though, US airlines have such a great history and were pioneers in many areas, and they're really damaging that heritage nowadays. Any Americans have some thoughts? I'm just repeating the opening post here.

I agree with some of what you say Cedar, I have a theory that probably can not be proved. With the emergence of Southwest airlines "no frills" model and their obvious success. The Major's took one component of the Southwest model "non frills" and used it (saved alot of money). They forgot about all the other things Southwest does to be successful. Like I said its just a theory. The Majors keep charging the same ammount for less and less.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6513 times:

Quoting Goingboeing (Reply 1):
The biggest reason is because US majors are still putting market share above profits. The underprice the LCC's to protect that "valuable" market share, and they can't cover the costs to operate the flights.

Interesting. So how do the Europeans deal with the LCC challenge?

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 3):
The sad thing is, now the so called LCC's here in the United States actually deliver more on board service then the so called legacy carriers.

Yes, this is so ironic. I think the U.S. airlines have a siege mentality - they have reduced service to ridiculous levels. NW has all those TV screens on board in the ceilings of the 757s and 320's, but they don't bother to play anything on them. AC (Canadian, I know) wants to sell pillows and blankets. The frequent flyer programs are much decreased in value due to fees and lack of available seats unless you fork over twice the miles. All sorts of non-ticket revenue schemes... etc. They are making themselves very difficult to fly. I still can't get over: "5 or more hours East Coast to West, and NO FOOD?!?!"



I come in peace
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1979 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

U.S. Airlines are just now discovering the second biggest secret behind LCC success (other than overall lower costs). Point-to-point travel results in HUGELY higher yields than hub networks. European carriers learned this several years ago, and while companies like BA, AF and LH still tout their worldwide networks, in reality they choose to sell a greater percentage of their seats on a point to point basis.

U.S. carriers are just learning this now, which is why we are seeing quite a few carriers de-hubbing their schedules (AA for example), and dumping of unprofitable domestic routes.

The comparison with Asia is not a valid one, because many Asian carriers are either still state owned and/or have labor costs that are only a fraction of their western counterparts.



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6489 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
The comparison with Asia is not a valid one, because many Asian carriers are either still state owned and/or have labor costs that are only a fraction of their western counterparts.

Actually it's two good reasons, though, that they are not in such dire straits. They are supported by their governments, and low wages keep their costs down. I get it.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
U.S. Airlines are just now discovering the second biggest secret behind LCC success (other than overall lower costs). Point-to-point travel results in HUGELY higher yields than hub networks. European carriers learned this several years ago, and while companies like BA, AF and LH still tout their worldwide networks, in reality they choose to sell a greater percentage of their seats on a point to point basis.

Thank you for this comprehensive insight. I hope there are more responses...
 bigthumbsup 



I come in peace
User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

I have found it hard to understand how I can be paying less for airfares now then I did 3 or 4 years ago. I live in Southwest Georgia and like to fly from the Albany, GA airport and usually fly to Denver 6-10 times a year for work. Delta is the only airline that serves Albany, GA.

Until 2005, I paid under $600 if I booked two weeks in advance and under $800 if I booked one week in advance, both with Saturday night stays. If I had less then a week notice, I would find another way to fly and not pay the $1200 round trip.

So far this year, I have made four trips to Colorado with anothe rone next week. I am paying between $530 and $570 and been booking some less then 7 days out without any Saturday night stay.

With fuel being double and Delta being in its financial situation, I am amazed at the price I am paying. While I like it, I know that it cannot countinue as they cannot keep flying at that price. It makes no sense to me....


User currently offlineIcarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
Point-to-point travel results in HUGELY higher yields than hub networks. European carriers learned this several years ago, and while companies like BA, AF and LH still tout their worldwide networks, in reality they choose to sell a greater percentage of their seats on a point to point basis.

Sorry but I do not really agree with you, at least for AF!!! Look at the daily percentage of people transiting through CDG every day!!!



Flying is amazing!
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1979 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 6433 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Icarus75 (Reply 10):
Sorry but I do not really agree with you, at least for AF!!! Look at the daily percentage of people transiting through CDG every day!!!


How do you quantify that? Can you compare the stats of transit vs O&D? Paris is a huge O&D market for many of AF's world wide destinations.



It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineIcarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 11):
Can you compare the stats of transit vs O&D?

Sorry for this stupid question but what is exactely the meaning of O&D?  Wink



Flying is amazing!
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1979 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

O&D = Origin & Destination (local point-to-point travel)


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineIcarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 11):
How do you quantify that? Can you compare the stats of transit vs O&D? Paris is a huge O&D market for many of AF's world wide destinations.

First of all, thanks for your explanation!  Wink

I try to put my hands on the statistics about Transit vs O&D.As soon as I'll have them, I'll post.



Flying is amazing!
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6388 times:

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 9):
Until 2005, I paid under $600 if I booked two weeks in advance and under $800 if I booked one week in advance, both with Saturday night stays.



Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 9):
So far this year, I have made four trips to Colorado with anothe rone next week. I am paying between $530 and $570 and been booking some less then 7 days out without any Saturday night stay.



Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 9):
With fuel being double and Delta being in its financial situation, I am amazed at the price I am paying. While I like it, I know that it cannot continue as they cannot keep flying at that price. It makes no sense to me....

This kind of pricing used to take advantage of people who can not know in advance of their travels (business people mostly, whose companies pay for the tickets) but HAD to travel. It was very opportunist of the airlines and constitutes gouging, in my view. I believe that the low fare carriers (with deregulation) do not price gouge in this fashion, and so the majors now have to follow suit. I think the prices you pay are still kind of high. Perhaps Southwest has not yet made it to your neck of the woods?

Also, 9/11 brought business travel down quite a bit, if I remember correctly, it stayed deflated for a few years, and their was an increase in video conferencing, etc. I think the LLCs were instrumental in bringing the business travellers back. The majors are now paying dearly for their long-standing unfair business practices in that regard, until the LLC's came to shake things up, IMHO. The majors are being forced to operate much more efficiantly now - they were likely a little slack when they were "king of the hill."



I come in peace
User currently offlineIcarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6388 times:

OK.My mistake!!!  white 

The last figure I've found for CDG is :
5% for charters
25% for transit
70% for O&D



Flying is amazing!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
Point-to-point travel results in HUGELY higher yields than hub networks.

This is not necessarily true. If managed profitably, hubs can generate enormous yield premiums over other competitive models.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
U.S. carriers are just learning this now, which is why we are seeing quite a few carriers de-hubbing their schedules (AA for example), and dumping of unprofitable domestic routes.

AA is not "de-hubbing" anything. Indeed, they are reducing point-to-point service and instead strengthening their hubs by depeaking them, to more effectively utilize more resources and push more capacity through their hubs using the same or less of their resources (i.e., gates, equipment, people, etc.).

Indeed, American has commonly attributed its huge improvement in year-over-year unit revenue, and their dramatic overperformance relative to the industry in unit revenue, to their effective management of their hub-based systems.

[Edited 2006-02-25 17:49:55]

User currently offlineCptGermany From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 86 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

I believe that the reason for the profitability of some European and Asian carriers lies in the fact that they have a larger percentage in international and intercontinental traffic. On this market, low cost carriers are still weak and do not offer many alternatives.

LH, for instance, loses money in their intra-Euroean ("KONT") network whereas their intercontinental/long-haul traffic makes all the money.

DL just realized that there is a much better profit in intercontinental traffic and hence they move all their widebodies to this market.

I predict, however, that once low cost carriers start to launch intercontinental traffic on a grant scale, legacy carriers such as BA, LH, AF, and KLM will see a new and dangerous challenge.


User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6357 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 6):
They are making themselves very difficult to fly. I still can't get over: "5 or more hours East Coast to West, and NO FOOD?!?!"

You get food. The airlines aren't out to provide you with a full course meal, but they provide you with supplements (peanuts, granola bars, crackers, chips, etc.) from your origin to destination where you can get much better food at either end. The airlines also don't prevent you from bringing food on board the aircraft where you can potentially bring on a full course meal freshly prepared from one of the airport vendors.



It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11121 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6342 times:

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 18):
I believe that the reason for the profitability of some European and Asian carriers lies in the fact that they have a larger percentage in international and intercontinental traffic. On this market, low cost carriers are still weak and do not offer many alternatives.

Agree 110%.

Domestic travel markets are the breeding ground for low-cost airlines, because of the inherent savings over flying internationally, and as such, the airlines with a higher exposure to their domestic market will come up against far greater low-cost competition. This is certainly the case in the U.S., by far and away the largest domestic air travel market on earth, whereas there is no other airline anywhere else on earth is simoultaneously faces an enormous domestic market that they are highly exposed to, and, secondly, a domestic market increasingly dominated by low-cost carriers.


User currently offlineGeorgiabill From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 572 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6307 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I will give you the KISS(Keep it simple stupid)theory as to why so many US airlines are performing so poorly financially. They lack creative, pro active management. None of the so called legacy carriers with the exception of Continental and American have made significant changes in their operational philosophies. Most of the carriers see cutting service, ending flights and dropping cities as the cure all for their problems. Delta has decided more international routes is the key to their survival. America West if you can not beat them buy them theory reguardless of the labor mess you have created. Let's not forget the file for bankruptcy protection management theory. Delta perhaps is an example of how to lose significant money while operating under bankruptcy. Here's my theory for success put a good product at a reasonable fares and have your employees hold a portion of the stock so they will have a vested interest in the company. Happy employees + logical route structure + efficent fleet + good service at a fair price = success. Just my 2.5 cents worth.

User currently offlineINTENSS From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 18):
I believe that the reason for the profitability of some European and Asian carriers lies in the fact that they have a larger percentage in international and intercontinental traffic. On this market, low cost carriers are still weak and do not offer many alternatives.

LH, for instance, loses money in their intra-Euroean ("KONT") network whereas their intercontinental/long-haul traffic makes all the money.

I predict, however, that once low cost carriers start to launch intercontinental traffic on a grant scale, legacy carriers such as BA, LH, AF, and KLM will see a new and dangerous challenge.

CptGermany hits closest to the answer of the original question with the above statements.

Quoting CptGermany (Reply 18):
DL just realized that there is a much better profit in intercontinental traffic and hence they move all their widebodies to this market.

This is the only portion I disagree with. They didn't "just realize" anything....they've known what's more profitable for many many years now. However, only NOW have they decided to give up the domestic market share war and begin using these widebodies to generate more revenue (and hopefully profit) from the int'l routes.

Contrary to popular belief (from alot of the posts on this site) U.S carriers are some of the leanest airline companies from all over the world. European carrers have for years had higher cost structures. Obviously, the margin here has been eroding.

Larger "legacy/flag" carriers around the globe are in for a world of hurtin' if (WHEN!) typical LCC/LFC's begin to offer their products internationally over longer distances around the globe. Who would like to start up a LCC/LFC to feed JetBlue at JFK or LGB? Southwest @ PHX, MCO or BWI? AirTran @ ATL? It's only a matter of time people.....

-Rich


User currently offlineOryx From Germany, joined Nov 2005, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6292 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
Actually it's two good reasons, though, thatnthey are not in such dire straits. They are supported by theirngovernments, and low wages keep their costs down. I get it.


I don not think so. Since the implementation and enforcing of the "one time and that's it rule" of the European community several carriers have been forced to exit the market (Sabena), have been swallowed (Swiss) or have merged (KLM + AF) which reduced or limited the number of available seats. On the other hand many USA carriers keep on flying under chapter 11 protection. There is just not that demand to fill all the available seats. I believe that if one of the big carriers went bankrupt a few years ago all the other would be healthy today.

[Edited 2006-02-25 18:16:16]

User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2481 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6279 times:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 7):
The comparison with Asia is not a valid one, because many Asian carriers are either still state owned and/or have labor costs that are only a fraction of their western counterparts.

Bingo. I'm willing to bet that their landing fees are also less expensive and that some are at least partially government subsidized.



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
25 SSTsomeday : I don't understand your point. I was speaking, in my post, to the reality of "no more reasonable service" on the majors. I don't think peanuts or sna
26 AsstChiefMark : Someone who can't eat before or after a 3 hour flight is either a brittle diabetic or a waxing nostalgic. Besides...Who really WANTS airline food? An
27 Burnsie28 : Can't agree with you there, there are a lot more flights, cities, options and destinations in the US then europe. ANA operates in a very little LCC w
28 DavidT : At least form what I see there's a distinct different between LCCs and mainline carriers here. LCCs are skimpy on the services and proud of it. They
29 Atmx2000 : The yield premiums come from gouging the O&D passengers traveling non stop on hub routes. The LCCs take these yield premiums away when they fly the s
30 Andaman : I can see your point but but what comes to AY it's perhaps 50%
31 SSTsomeday : Well on a 7 AM flight... I want my EGGS! I see your point. When they DID serve food, we complained about the quality of it, didn't we? I guess I am l
32 We're Nuts : Because we're the USA, and what the rest of the world does, we do better!
33 QXatFAT : Well yes that is true. We all complaind about the meals, I still complain about the meals on HP when I fly from FAT-PHX-DTW. It is a buy your own mea
34 Post contains images Poitin : That pretty much covers it all, I think and worth at least a quarter.
35 Amhilde : Yeah well, SK manages to do everything backwards- their food is disgusting AND they have high fares! Regarding the fares in Germany- that sounds like
36 Supa7E7 : Almost everything in this thread is wrong. USA has the most flights of anywhere, FAR more than Europe which has more people. There is NO comparison wh
37 Tango-Bravo : Unlike BA and LH, the U.S. legacies, besides putting market share and load factors ahead of profits, have added to their sorry state by dumbing down
38 Usdcaguy : The main reason why European airlines have done so much better than their American counterparts is that they have been able to leverage international
39 Cairo : The airlines are in worse shape in America because of their excessive employee count and a long tradition of high overall employee costs. Compare numb
40 Srbmod : I can sum up why in six words: The Airline Deregulation Act Of 1978 The CAB kept airfares realistic, so that airlines could actually make money. Befor
41 Jetdeltamsy : For starters, the legacy carriers in the United States have until VERY recently been paying wages and benefits based on the regulated environment tha
42 Tango-Bravo : Hmmm... as in the legacies' crazed obsession with replacing mainline service with RJs on routes where it makes little or no sense while the LCCs offe
43 Commavia : This is just simply untrue, and I think you'd find quite a few people who would tell you so. It has been a common myth expressed by many people in th
44 Ckfred : One thing people forget is that the price of oil hasn't affected European carriers to the degree that it has affected U.S. carriers. OPEC prices oil i
45 INTENSS : Too much to reply to on here....I'll just pick one: No kidding, every airline strives to be a LCC. Over the past couple of years and moreso into the n
46 RedFlyer : Commavia: you bring up some interesting points in your posts. I'd like to address some of them... Perhaps, but it's a fact that P2P routes will always
47 We're Nuts : That's crap. I dare you to back it up.
48 SSTsomeday : Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 36):The best-run airline in the USA, Southwest, loses money (on aviation) and will continue to.[/quote] How can that be true? W
49 We're Nuts : He thinks they are only making money because of their fuel hedging, even though a second grade understanding of mathematics would blow that "theory"
50 MrComet : Blah, Blah, Meals, Hubs, Ammenities, Blah, Poor management, Blah, Blah. I think it's pretty simple: Bullseye 1. This is huge. Also: - Most carriers li
51 Nzrich : As for Profit in NZ the most profitable routes are the ones to small towns/cities with no or little competition flying to bigger cities ..I would gues
52 Shamrocka330 : I have no sympathy for the US "majors" at all. In the last 4 years, the airlines have soaked up $15 to $20 billion of public subsidy and loan guarant
53 Jumpseat70 : Before deregulation, the only way a US airline could lose money was if no one flew them. They all charged the same for flights. European Airlines were
54 AirNZ : Absolute, and unadulterated, nonsense!
55 Post contains images Halls120 : It's easy to understand - it's called competion. I fly IAD-OAK several times a year to visit the folks. Before B6 entered the market, I routinely pai
56 Commavia : While I fully understand the points raised by others regarding hubs, I still maintain that hubs are a strong, efficient and economically viable means
57 RedFlyer : I'd like to add to my post above and address your comment that one reason hubs "aren't going anywhere anytime soon" is because the legacies have mass
58 We're Nuts : Indeed, hubs are anything but "efficient". They are predatory, which makes them profitable. And now the majors are trapped into an antiquated system
59 Commavia : I don't think airlines will ever divest of their hubs -- IMO, it's never going to happen. Hubs are just too good at doing what they do. Just about ev
60 Atmx2000 : I think the biggest problem with the hub model is the pricing model. Connecting flights via hubs are discounted relative to nonstop flights to and fr
61 Letsgetwet : I can't imagine a internationally focused airline operating a network of flights from the US without hubs. It has never been done and IMHO never could
62 MalpensaSFO : Arent you forgetting Alitalia, Air New Zealand, Olympic, British Midland(BMI), Japan Air Lines, Air Tahiti Nui, and Garuda Indonesia?
63 1MillionFlyer : You have not even addressed the oversupply of seats, your comment cannot be "backed up" No they don't Unless you have been in a coma for the past 5 y
64 Art : I agree. From what I have read, there appears to be an obsession with sacrificing all one's profit (and more) on the altar of market share. As a baff
65 Supa7E7 : Search the forum for Southwest and their corporate ledger. Their overall flight operations lose money, quite a lot actually. But their finance departm
66 Post contains links and images 1MillionFlyer : If you can read an income statement then you would know every airline lately is making PROFIT from "Flight Operations". LOL It's those darn marketing
67 Letsgetwet : Although WN deserves credit for being profitable, $548 million profit for 2005 on $7.5 billion in revenue is nothing to brag about. In any other indu
68 We're Nuts : It's all relative.
69 Post contains images Halls120 : You really crack me up. I live 30 miles from IAD. I don't live near any of the airports you mentioned. I'm supposed to drive to any of the airports y
70 1MillionFlyer : You made a rather poor generalization that WN requires 2 stops or more coast to coast. You cannot refute thatyour comment is incorrect, even out of t
71 Post contains images Halls120 : LOL, I'm not sure I want to "refute that my comment is incorrect," but I'll gladly defend it. WN has ZERO nonstops from BWI to OAK. All of their OAK
72 Post contains images 1MillionFlyer : Dude you are said "WN requires 2 or more stops to coast to coast" They do not. I provided a fact that they do have 1-stop or non-stop from 90% or mor
73 Post contains links VV701 : The problem with this thread is that while Americans may well know the US situation and Europeans their airlines situation neither of us are thaqt wel
74 RedFlyer : SQ with it's home population of 3.4 million flies many multiples of "foreign" travelers. I fly SQ whenever I transit the Pacific to Asia. Yet, I'm no
75 VV701 : Sorry. Obviously I was not clear. Other US replys have said that European airlines do better because they have a greater proportion of international
76 VV701 : Have just read the thread 'MAS to Stop Unprofitable Routes'. This confirms what I thought. It says that 66 of Malaysia Airlines 114 international rout
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...
Why Are Airlines Lacking In Service? posted Mon May 14 2001 22:12:35 by GF-A330
Who Is In Worse Shape? posted Thu Aug 11 2005 11:09:43 by PiedmontINT
Why Are Orders In Round Numbers? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 16:16:55 by PM
Why Are Airlines Trying To Crush Eachother? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 16:38:17 by F9Animal
Why Are Airlines Eliminating First Class? posted Wed Mar 2 2005 05:30:06 by Blackhawk144
Why Are Airlines Wanting Baghdad So Much? posted Mon May 12 2003 09:52:46 by United777
Why Are Airlines Taking Their Logo Off? posted Thu Jan 3 2002 05:58:46 by Vafi88
WHy Are Airlines Fleeing Jo'burg? posted Sat Jan 27 2001 21:15:15 by Planenutz
Why Are Airlines Pulling Out Of Pakistan? Answer.. posted Wed Sep 6 2000 21:17:41 by Jet Setter
Why Are Airlines Avoiding Ywg? posted Wed Jun 14 2000 16:38:02 by Jets