Funny thing is you whined on and on about frikin' RES systems, but yet you failed to even mention that you were wrong about posting bookings information. You had no comments on the fact that Ted's costs are still way out of wack against your direct competition, that high loads are meaningless to prove success of failure of a given airline, or that the concept of a stratified pricing structure is the most effective way of increase incremental revenue for an airlines.
Back to the RES side of things. Qantas is splitting off a significant portion of their domestic operations to JetStar. It appears this stage JetStar will have a the secondary market in OZ
, long term forecast are for potential up to 30% of the market, maybe even the entire domestic system except the Cityflyer flights in the future.
Recognizing that cost is the real competitive advantage in the Australian market they have look at streamling the fleet to A320's. Sounds familiar doesn't it?
This is where it begins to change. They are completely segmenting off JetStar from QF
. It will have a new HQ
, new management with salaries significantly less than QF
staff. New pilot and FA
pool also at a significantly lower pay grade. They will have their own RES system (not public which one it is yet so I cannot dilvuge that). QF
will be codesharing on JetStar, JetStar will be displaying in GDS', although they will encourage web bookings to keep costs down.
In general, varies by airline, the cost per booking in the large mainframe systems is something close to $.25 a segment. For the new web based RES systems the cost is less than half that.
UALPHLCS, you complain about training costs. Although there is additional training, the long term beneftis outweight any short term hits. Using this new RES system it is capable of doing all the same things as the legacy systems for a fraction of the cost. Links between the Apollo and these web systems is almost completed and expected to be available when JetStar begins flying. The need for additional HW
is small and comparing the maintenance of a TPF
system to a server based one is light years apart.
This is my favourite statement so far, "IF
the savings were that much better they would do it. OBVIOUSLY, then the savings are not what you IMAGINE."
The saving are that good. If you don't believe me just ask Qantas, Air Tran, Spirit, Virgin Blue, Virgin Express, JetBlue, etc., why they went with these web based systems?
didn't switch because they didn't have the balls to break TED from UA
. It's the same airline. Christ the use the airline code. It's the same airline with different products. That's it. The fact that they have lower fares is meaningless because the cost structure is exactly the same as UA
. The fact that they added more seats, and more frequency does not make up for the fact that the cost baseline remains the same.
I keep harping, this is a well worn path of failure. CO
Lite, MetroJet, Delta Express, increasingly Song, and I would argue UA
Shuttle were all failures. As long as you are paying your pilots over $200,000 a year, the flight attendents $40,000 a year, the same inventory system, membership in Star Alliance, interline bags, high cost airports, etc. How is it different from UA
? No First Class?
You defend UA
management for starting TED, yet you deride them in the next breath as hopeless and incompetent. Spoken like a true union employee.
God help the rest of the airline industry and put UA
[Edited 2004-02-12 21:31:44]