aa777flyer
Posts: 1017
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 8:45 am

How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 12:11 am

How did UAL wind up to be in almost the worst positition of any airline in the world? I know 9/11 played a major part as did the rapid growth of LCC's. But UA has wound up in a very bad position. AA and UA have followed similar paths throughout history, and while AA still has some issues, UA just cannot seem to get their act together.

Was it the pilot work issue that UAL had in 2000, that started the downward run?
The TSA was created to make the post office look efficient!
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 12:44 am

*They are being massacred at all of their hubs. Denver has F9, Chicago has TZ and WN, Washington now has IAir (not for long), San Francisco and LA are getting more and more low fare service. The NYC focus city has B6 and Song all over it. No matter where they turn someone is getting to them.

*Their payscales have always been some of the highest in the industry.

*They have a pretty diverse fleet (733, 735, 319, 320, 757, 767, 777, 747).

*The pilot fiasco did give them a lot of bad press and publicity. From what I hear, a lot of loyal UA fliers in DEN discovered F9 this way.

And, UA is not the worst positioned airline in the world. As long as the planes with flags on the tails and "low cost" CRJs are flying around, they won't be at the very bottom. UA has a very well known name, a good route network (lots of higher yield Asian flying) and a fleet that can take advantage of the International network. That being said, they are in rough shape.

AAndrew
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 12:55 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 1):
They have a pretty diverse fleet (733, 735, 319, 320, 757, 767, 777, 747).

733/735 are the same fleet

319/320 are the same fleet

757/767 are the same fleet

777 stand alone

747 stand alone

Their fleet is no more diverse than having

MD-80
A300
737
737NG
757/767
777

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 1):
UA has a very well known name, a good route network (lots of higher yield Asian flying) and a fleet that can take advantage of the International network.

Not to mention cash in the bank still (with the last reports that cash balances were going up????), CH.11 proceedings that to this point have been going their way and 4 banks willing to pony up 2.5 billion if they can deal with their remaining cost issues (pensions namely).

Now whether or not the Mechanics and FA's sabotage the whole thing is another question.

C
 
Spike
Posts: 1110
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:08 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:11 am

UA are in the mess that they are simply due to work ethitic and pride. They have none. They should drop their domestic routes (non-hub) and businesses and be taken over by Northwest Orient. imho.
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:25 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 2):
Their fleet is no more diverse than having

MD-80
A300
737
737NG
757/767
777

Yes, it is. UA operates far more subfleets than AA:

1) A319
2) A320
3) 737-300 Non-Shuttle
4) 737-300 Ex-Shuttle
5) 737-500 Non-Shuttle
6) 737-500 Ex-Shuttle
7) 747-400
8) 757-200
9) 757-200 p.s. Transcon
10) 767-300 Domestic
11) 767-300 International
12) 777-200 Domestic Hawaii
13) 777-200 International 1
14) 777-200 International 2

vs. AA:

1) Airbus A300
2) 737-800
3) 757-200
4) 757-200 TWA (in the process of retirement)
5) 767-200
6) 767-300
7) 777-200 International (all soon to be in standardized configuration)
8) MD-80
9) MD-80 TWA

The complexity of operating 14 types, as UA does, especially since they are not consolidated at specific hubs as AA's aircraft are, adds complexity and costs a lot of money for maintenance, training and logistics.
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:32 am

Nope, wrong again. From an operational perspective training is the same on all 737's, the 319/320 fleet, the 757/767 fleet. The 777 an -400 are stand alone, but pretty are pretty much on a static route network. I don't know where you get this "sub-fleet" business from, if you operate a 737 mainline you can operate a 737 shuttle with the same training, same goes for the 757/767/757 ps. There aren't 14 types in the UA fleet, you are just flat out wrong. Aside from spares inventory, cabin config doesn't make a different fleet. Besides, many interior components (seats especially) are shared accross fleets.

C
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:36 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 5):
m an operational perspective training is the same on all 737's, the 319/320 fleet, the 757/767 fleet.

I'm aware of that, there are almost completely (but not completely) common flight and service training standards for the fleets you mentioned.

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 5):
I don't know where you get this "sub-fleet" business from, if you operate a 737 mainline you can operate a 737 shuttle with the same training, same goes for the 757/767/757 ps.

I never said that a 737 FA can't operate all 737s. I never said that. However, it absolutely makes an operational difference if you have a 737 Shuttle config running ORD-LGA, which then has to be subbed for a non-Shuttle 737 with eight fewer seats. This is just a minor example, but they are operationally two different configurations and thus require more advanced logistical planning and scheduling, and thus add complexity.

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 5):
There aren't 14 types in the UA fleet, you are just flat out wrong. Aside from spares inventory, cabin config doesn't make a different fleet.

Nobody said there were 14 types in the UA fleet -- I don't know where you got that from. I said there were 14 subfleets in the UA fleet, and I think I illustrated my point.
 
EMBQA
Posts: 7798
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:52 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:38 am

Simple...... Spending more then what was coming in.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:41 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
The complexity of operating 14 types, as UA does,

Read above. In this business "type" has a meaning. You did say it.
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:41 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
Simple...... Spending more then what was coming in.

Too true, too true.  Smile
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 1:43 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 8):
Read above. In this business "type" has a meaning. You did say it.

I apologize, you are correct. Let me rephrase that:

The complexity of operating 14 subfleets, as UA does, especially since they are not consolidated at specific hubs as AA's aircraft are, adds complexity and costs a lot of money for maintenance, training and logistics.
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:01 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 10):
costs a lot of money for maintenance, training and logistics.

?? heavy maintenance for each fleet type is only performed at certain dedicated facilities. Small maint items, granted, are going to be an issue, but that happens with any airline that serves a city with more than one a/c type. It really isnt that big of a deal to swap a mainline 320 for a Ted 320 or shuttle configd 737 for a mainline. Additionally, couldn't AA (or any major that has 2 different configurations) face the same issues with their 777 A vs. B or their 757-231 vs. 757-223, Pratt vs. RR powered (from a maint and parts perspective)?

C
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:07 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 11):
It really isnt that big of a deal to swap a mainline 320 for a Ted 320 or shuttle configd 737 for a mainline.

It can be in a high-volume, oversale or high-F volume, high-yield situation.

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 11):
Additionally, couldn't AA (or any major that has 2 different configurations) face the same issues with their 777 A vs. B or their 757-231 vs. 757-223, Pratt vs. RR powered (from a maint and parts perspective)?

Yes, every airline naturally must face this if they operate more than one aircraft type, but AA is dramatically reduced the impact of this on its operations by very smartly reducing the number of aircraft it operates at different hubs, which cuts down on maintenance, logistics, handling, material and labor costs:

AA types operated at DFW: 5
AA types operated at ORD: 4
AA types operated at MIA: 5
AA types operated at LAX: 6

UA types operated at ORD: 8
UA types operated at DEN: 8
UA types operated at SFO: 8
UA types operated at IAD: 8

I did not isolate the TED A320s from mainline, even though obviously it would be a major operational change if a TED A320 had to sub for a United A320.
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:13 am

what are you people going to do when that pig shuts down?????what airline will be in your scope then, im all for free speech but some of us will be going into rehab at the thought of no more ual bashing going on in here....commavia....you are just plane wrong about a lot of stuff you post here....and Aa757first....go to pilotpay.com that will show what every airline pilot makes in the usa....it just goes to show you that you can pay more money to a WN pilot than a ual,aa or even nw and still make cash...
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:17 am

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 13):
what airline will be in your scope then, im all for free speech but some of us will be going into rehab at the thought of no more ual bashing going on in here

I am not bashing any airline. I hope that UA survives and prospers; we are simply discussing how UA, once arguably the strongest airline in the world, got to a place where it is now in bankruptcy, laying off thousands and trying to eliminate its employees' pensions.

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 13):
commavia....you are just plane wrong about a lot of stuff you post here

What, specifically?
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:31 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 12):
It can be in a high-volume, oversale or high-F volume, high-yield situation.

EXTREMELY rare incident, where in you have a high yield A320 at a station that can't be swapped for another 2 class on a lower yield and then sub the Ted a/c, but again...very rare.

But you still haven't explained how it is efficient to have 757s powered by two different types of engines. Also, the interior config issue isn't that big of a deal, AA is faced with the same problem, aren't they with their "New Look" interiors vs. the Old Look interiors or the TWA interior vs. the AA interior.

C
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:36 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 11):
It really isnt that big of a deal to swap a mainline 320 for a Ted 320

There are twelve First Class seats on the mainline A320s. Obviously, there are no First Class seats on Ted A320s. So lets see:

I'm getting $183 between PHL and ORD on UA for Coach and $1,083 for United. So, if someone paid full price for the First Class seat, that's $900 back to the passenger. Plus, hopefully a free flight in First Class on the passenger's next flight. So at a .15 CASM (First Class, remember), the average trip would then cost United around $135 or so. So they just lost $1,135, plus meal vouchers by using that Ted A320.

That's the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Joe Hotshot, an Elite member, decides he has missed out on his First Class seat too many times. So he gets a new frequent flier card, only instead of Mileage Plus on the side, it says AAdvantage or OnePass.

I don't know how well United keeps their Ted A320s isolated. I know for a fact Continental did a miserable job keeping their Lite planes separated, leading to product inconsistency.

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 13):
Aa757first....go to pilotpay.com that will show what every airline pilot makes in the usa....it just goes to show you that you can pay more money to a WN pilot than a ual,aa or even nw and still make cash...

I visit that site frequently. United does not use their pilots as efficiently as Southwest does. And let's remember, fuel still costs SWA $27 a barrel.

AAndrew
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:38 am

commavia...the fleet issues...there is no sub fleet as you have elluded to, AA operates 5 type of a/c and ual ops 5 as well...there is no difference other than seat config on the 737, the 777 difference is payload and range, you stated that advanced planning goes into a/c swaps....ive seen it done in 5-10 mins...if we were to go with your method of logic then nwa would win hands down on all the different sub fleet types...
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:40 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 16):
United does not use their pilots as efficiently as Southwest does

Southwest doesnt fly internationally long haul, so yes naturally, UA pilots are going to have, on average, less segments a day and more layover time, it is an apples to oranges comparison. A closer comparison would be to look at just Ted scheduling vs. WN
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:45 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 18):

Southwest doesnt fly internationally long haul, so yes naturally, UA pilots are going to have, on average, less segments a day and more layover time, it is an apples to oranges comparison. A closer comparison would be to look at just Ted scheduling vs. WN

Well that's very nice, but the passenger travelling between LAX and DEN doesn't give a damn that United has an international network. He only cares the Frontier can get him there for $6 less.

AAndrew
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:46 am

Quoting Spike (Reply 3):
UA are in the mess that they are simply due to work ethitic and pride. They have none. They should drop their domestic routes (non-hub) and businesses and be taken over by Northwest Orient. imho.

First of all, lets look to the British for work ethic and pride, oh-ok. Secondly, UA's employees are turning in all time bests for performance. The intent to repurchase is at its highest, their on time performance is at the top of the industry, their complaint rates are down, a productivity is at record levels.

BTW...it is Northwest Airlines, not Northwest Orient....but then again you must be stuck in the days when Great Britain actually had industry and produced something.
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:47 am

Here's my slice of the pie,

United Airlines has yet to understand the consequences of their mass spending. Sure they are cutting back and making changes just not enough and in the wrong places. Post 9/11. Say what you want but 9/11 was the nail in the coffin. It is my impression that United has yet to understand how bad its going to be now that 9/11 has occurred and they have yet to change the structure of their airline. It takes CH.11, cut backs, and layoffs, sadly, to get the picture through to the airlines.

Pre-9/11 it was all about what the airline wanted to bring to the industry and they all spent what cash they had to do so. Now that 9/11 has happened and the economy is in the shit can the airlines can't do what they want to shape the industry, the industry is going to shape them.

United used to be the big fish in a small pond but the pond just got a whole lot bigger and now they're going to have to fight to survive. Sure they have cash in the bank but what the hell are they going to fall back on if what they have hits the $hit fan again. Unfortunately they have the wrong business structure and poor management. In the end it all comes down to who runs the show. Anyone can turn a company into the top dog and likewise anyone can turn a company into a bankrupt corp. I'm not to familiar with United's management but if you sit back and look at it. They're still fighting to survive. It shouldn't be like this. If other airlines can do it than so can United. It is going to take a lot of reworking, time, effort, cut backs, etc. to get the airline into a constantly profitable airline.

The whole United situation is distressing to all and I do wish them the best of luck.

Thanks,

Matt
"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
 
B747-437B
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 2:49 am

Quoting Aa777flyer (Thread starter):
How did UAL wind up to be in almost the worst positition of any airline in the world?

From http://www.airwhiners.net/whine_cheez/20021212.htm

Quote:

The company that a scant three years ago was hailed as arguably the most successful, largest and most profitable airline in history is now incapable of scrounging together enough loose change to make a routine debt payment.

Don't kid yourself with euphemisms like "spring cleaning", "fresh start" and other cuddly terms that serve no purpose other than to deny the obvious. Make no mistake folks. The company is BANKRUPT. Insolvent. Delinquent. That is what you call folks who can't meet their obligations.

There has been much finger pointing as to who is to blame for this fiasco. AFA blames IAM who blames ALPA who blames the ATSB who blames management who blames Osama Bin Laden. Personally, I think that although Osama was the catalyst that accelerated this freefall into the stygian depths of airline purgatory, UAL was committed to the slippery downward slope well in advance of 11 September 2001. UAL's true day of reckoning was 26 August 2000; the day that James Goodwin and Rick Dubinsky shook hands across a table in Elk Grove.

Charismatic leadership is essential for a good airline to maintain its industry leading position. Through history, UAL has been driven by leaders such as Pat Patterson, Dick Ferris and even Steven Wolf, all of whom left their mark upon the proud legacy of the friendly skies. Unfortunately ESOP created an environment where organized labor wound up with far too much of a say in how the company is run, and of course labor has a vested interest in ensuring that each leader is more ineffective than his predecessor. James Goodwin was a wonderful guy who dedicated his entire life to serving the airline he loved, but he had about as much charisma as a bowl of jello with just slightly more intelligence to boot.

When Goodwin and Rick Dubinsky faced off during the Summer From Hell, it was a mismatch worthy of any of the Buffalo Bills' Superbowl appearances. Simply put, on most issues Goodwin didn't stand a chance - and he fired wide right on the ones he might have been able to salvage. Dubinsky and his ALPA attack dogs mauled management to the point where capitulation to their ridiculous demands was the only humane course of action remaining by the time the end of August 2000 rolled around.

UAL was able to be so profitable in the late 1990s mainly because their labor costs were below those of the competition, thanks to the cost reductions that were made available through ESOP. As revenue soared amid the dotcom boom, UAL's profit margins also grew beyond anyone's wildest dreams as "Rhapsody in Blue" became "Rhapsody in Green" to reflect the sweet sound of money jingling into the corporate coffers. Unfortunately, due to a mixture of greed and stupidity, they then made the mistake of pegging their costs to the absolute apex of revenue. So when the economy inevitably tanked, the only sound emnating from Elk Grove was a loud SPLAT when the airline's high speed free fall finally arrested itself via impact on the pavement below as the airline's financial books played "Rhapsody in Red" in a B-flat key.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:05 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 15):
But you still haven't explained how it is efficient to have 757s powered by two different types of engines.

It isn't, which is why AA is steadily drawing down the number of PW-powered ex-TWA 757s it operates, and doesn't even maintain the PW engines but sends them out because there are less than 50 of them.

Quoting Uadc8contrail (Reply 17):
there is no sub fleet as you have elluded to, AA operates 5 type of a/c and ual ops 5 as well...

So, an ex-Shuttle 737-300 with 120 seats is the same as a non-Shuttle 737-500 with 104 seats, and on and on? Of course these are subfleets within the large A320 family, 737 family, 767 family, etc.

Further, even using the loosest definition of a "type of a/c," UA operates at least seven (A320 family, 737 family, 747, 757, 767, 777) and AA operates six (A300, MD80, 737, 757, 767, 777).
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:31 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
Further, even using the loosest definition of a "type of a/c," UA operates at least seven (A320 family, 737 family, 747, 757, 767, 777) and AA operates six (A300, MD80, 737, 757, 767, 777).

And if AA flew to Sydney, Hong Kong, and Singapore etc... they would have the 747-400 also. That would be seven and seven...btw..UA's planes are all PW powered (including parts of the IAE)

Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
So, an ex-Shuttle 737-300 with 120 seats is the same as a non-Shuttle 737-500 with 104 seats, and on and on?

Yep, just about perfect, if you take a -300 that is operating with the average load factor of 81% you have 96 pax comfortably accomodated in a -500. Plane leaves within :14 of scheduled departure, and everyone is happy (including those that got bumped up to first class)
 
daron4000
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:17 pm

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:37 am

I don't have a single idea of what Commavia and AA757 are trying to get across. First of all, you compare TED to Continental's problem with product deferentiation. Well, this hasn't happened with TED at all, nor with PS, so United seems to be on top with that one. Second, fleet types aren't based on seats and interior, but plane type of which UA has 5. If you want to get picky, don't look at the interior, but engines and that kind of thing.
Lastly, what was the summer from hell?
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:38 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 24):
And if AA flew to Sydney, Hong Kong, and Singapore etc.

I am not disputing UA's need for all those aircraft types, particularly the widebodies and even more particularly the 747s, I am simply stating that the more airplane types, models and subfleets any airline operates, the more complexity is inherent in their operations. The only overlap I can see is the A320 vs. 737, but I understand how UA is really sort of stuck there (i.e., no $!).

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 24):
Yep, just about perfect, if you take a -300 that is operating with the average load factor of 81% you have 96 pax comfortably accommodated in a -500. Plane leaves within :14 of scheduled departure, and everyone is happy (including those that got bumped up to first class)

But it is still a different aircraft type. It still requires planning and logistics and drives complexity and inefficiency within the operation.
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:39 am

Summer 2000, ALPA, in order to get the contract they wanted brought UAL to a standstill with CHAOS like tactics...wasn't it called CREEP?
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 3:42 am

Quoting Daron4000 (Reply 25):
Second, fleet types aren't based on seats and interior, but plane type of which UA has 5.

Five?

A319
A320
737
747
757
767
777

Yes, I know, the A319 and A320 are from the same family but again, they are operationally two different aircraft.
 
UAMAYBACH1239
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:46 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:05 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
Yes, it is. UA operates far more subfleets than AA:

1) A319
2) A320
3) 737-300 Non-Shuttle
4) 737-300 Ex-Shuttle
5) 737-500 Non-Shuttle
6) 737-500 Ex-Shuttle
7) 747-400
8) 757-200
9) 757-200 p.s. Transcon
10) 767-300 Domestic
11) 767-300 International
12) 777-200 Domestic Hawaii
13) 777-200 International 1
14) 777-200 International 2

Wrong!

Operating these "subfleets" has no impact when it comes to MX.

As a matter of fact this was the logic in having subfleets. The thought was to have a/c fitted for the specific routes. i.e.....a 757 used for the 48 states, would not need to be fitted with overwater life preservers, thus giving the a higher take off weight. Less fuel burn, and less dry weight.
 checkeredflag 
a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:17 am

Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 29):
Operating these "subfleets" has no impact when it comes to MX.

I know that the maintenance in 99% the same on the 777 Domestic vs. International, but operationally it is not.
 
Kahala777
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:28 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:21 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 24):
And if AA flew to Sydney, Hong Kong, and Singapore etc... they would have the 747-400 also

American Code-Shares Sydney with Qantas
-American Airlines served Sydney with DC-10/707

American Code-Shares Hong Kong with Cathay Pacific/Japan Air Lines

American Code-Shares Singapore with Cathay Pacific/Japan Air Lines

Look for a War between American and United with the advent of China!


Regards - Kahala777
 
aa777jr
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:03 pm

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:23 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
Nobody said there were 14 types in the UA fleet -- I don't know where you got that from. I said there were 14 subfleets in the UA fleet, and I think I illustrated my point.

BURNED!  Smile
A liberal is a man who is right most of the time, but he's right too soon.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:39 am

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 24):

And if AA flew to Sydney, Hong Kong, and Singapore etc... they would have the 747-400 also.

1st..i would use them instead of a oneworld partner....2nd) they would have 777s for those routes....

given that they are going to china next year, and india in a few years..they are going be using 777's for those routes too....
"Up the Irons!"
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 5:41 am

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 31):
-American Airlines served Sydney with DC-10/707

Non-stop? It isn't the same product if it isn't non-stop.

Commavia - operationally, the A319 and A320 are identical, except for seat count. The same crew that brings the 320 in can take a 319 out. aside from seat count, there is NOTHING different between the aircraft. I am sorry, but I don't see the point in your argument. The reality of operational flexibility (or lack thereoff) does match with your theory.
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:02 am

commavia,
what is operationally different between the 319/320 and the 733/735??????the only thing i can come up with is the o.e.w. and fuel cap.....
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:25 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 1):
Washington now has IAir (not for long

Watch it . . .

Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 29):
Operating these "subfleets" has no impact when it comes to MX.

That was what I was thinking, too - the basic components necessary for swapping out parts would remain the same among the aircraft, for example, of the 737 family. And for the longest time, I thought that UA had 7 types, but since the 319 and 320 can be counted among the same family, it must be 6.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
avek00
Posts: 3159
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:33 am

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 36):
Quoting Aa757first (Reply 1):
Washington now has IAir (not for long

Watch it . . .

I think Mike Boyd summed up the truth on DH perfectly:

"I-Air has just reported its latest results, and they're the financial equivalent of a coyote date. Ugly. Cutting to the chase, the carrier would need to maintain its current 68% load factor, and almost double its average fares to break-even. Try that in an environment where consumers choke on a $10 fare increase. I-Air reported ASM costs of over 18 cents a mile, operating against airlines with costs less than half that figure.

The point of all this is that much of the 68% load factor has been generated via low fares. Those low fares have in turn stimulated some impressive enplanement gains at a number of airports. That part is great. The dodgy part is that those fares - some as low as $29-$59 bucks - are unsustainable. At some point, probably within the next three months, those fares are going to evaporate."
Live life to the fullest.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1181
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:39 am

You could say the same about PanAm and TWA. Was it the ESOP? Was it the pilots? Was it 9/11? Or just a huge combination? I will leave it to other "experts" to declare a definitive reason.

All airlines faced the same hardships post 9/11, so I don't think that in itself is the reason, maybe the catalyst. Some people say the problems at UAL started a lot earlier than 9/11.

For the future, after they get the pensions out of the way, what happens then? Is that the final hurdle for them to clear and then finally declare an exit date. Or will something else appear to extend their stay under court protection?

Hopefully we shall have a clearer picture where UAL is going after the hearings next week. I say hopefully because I do not believe the current management have any clue.
 
aa757first
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:40 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:40 am

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 36):
Watch it . . .

Sorry, if the truth hurts...  ouch 

AAndrew
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:43 am

With fuel factored in isn't I-Air CASM something like $0.21? Yikes, that isn't pretty! You are correct about doubling fares, or the other alternative, turn in 136% load factors...one of the two.
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:44 am

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 38):
You could say the same about PanAm and TWA. Was it the ESOP? Was it the pilots? Was it 9/11? Or just a huge combination? I will leave it to other "experts" to declare a definitive reason.

I think it was probably a confluence of all of these things at the same time, the proverbial "perfect storm" for airline financial disaster.

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 38):
All airlines faced the same hardships post 9/11, so I don't think that in itself is the reason, maybe the catalyst. Some people say the problems at UAL started a lot earlier than 9/11.

Very true. UA is not in the state it is in today only, or even mostly, because of 9/11. UA had systemic problems long before 9/11.
 
bravo7e7
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:43 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:48 am

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 16):
There are twelve First Class seats on the mainline A320s. Obviously, there are no First Class seats on Ted A320s. So lets see:

I'm getting $183 between PHL and ORD on UA for Coach and $1,083 for United. So, if someone paid full price for the First Class seat, that's $900 back to the passenger. Plus, hopefully a free flight in First Class on the passenger's next flight. So at a .15 CASM (First Class, remember), the average trip would then cost United around $135 or so. So they just lost $1,135, plus meal vouchers by using that Ted A320.

Yeah, and all the F seats are filled by full fare paying passangers. Smile

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 16):
That's the tip of the iceberg. Mr. Joe Hotshot, an Elite member, decides he has missed out on his First Class seat too many times. So he gets a new frequent flier card, only instead of Mileage Plus on the side, it says AAdvantage or OnePass.

Or Mr. Joe Hotshot decides he is missing out on MRTC, so he decides to get a new frequent flier, only instead of AAdvantage it says Mileage Plus.

Quoting Aa757first (Reply 16):
I don't know how well United keeps their Ted A320s isolated. I know for a fact Continental did a miserable job keeping their Lite planes separated, leading to product inconsistency.

100% isolated. The only thing that occasionally happens(VERY rarely) is that Ted is switched with mainline. They have completely separate route networks.
 
commavia
Posts: 9793
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:57 am

Two great ways for UA to cut down on operating costs, simplify its network and reduce expenses is to follow AA in two regards:

1. Depeaking hubs: UA did this already in ORD, obviously the UA hub where depeaking was most desperately needed. I think it could also probably work in DEN, and maybe SFO (I know that flights have to be timed for Asia connections, but AA did it in MIA where most flights are timed for Caribbean/South America connections).

2. Isolating aircraft at hubs: UA can isolate certain aircraft types at certain hubs by, for example, flying all the 737s only on the West Coast and taking them out of ORD and IAD, or by removing all the 757 flying (which relatively small) from DEN and concentrated those aircraft at other hubs. It cuts down considerably on materials, maintenance, equipment and staffing costs and makes the operation run more reliably with fewer move ups and swaps.
 
galapagapop
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:15 pm

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:58 am

It may not be as much sub fleets and pilot training but the aircraft themselves. But different aircraft require different parts. Pilot costs are only a fragment of the costs. I think NW and AA have proved that when used on proper sized routes the Dc-9 family, especially the stretches, is perfect for most airlines and are still extremly efficient even when compared to 738's and A320/A319's. While those 733's are not helping, especially the way UA uses them. WN makes it work by turning them so quickly, but thats not what UA does. Also one could argue UA's hub locations are somewhat an issue. DEN has been bad ever since moving the airport completely out of the city and is delay prone. ORD has AA basically matching UA on most routes. Not to mention WN on the other side of the city. IAD has DH but IAD is an extremly delay prone airport overall. SFO is probably one of their better areas to operate from despite OAK gaining service from LCC's, but SFO has good international possibilities for UAL. But I'm sure there are som other reasons but those are a few.
 
Kahala777
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:28 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:59 am

Quoting Aa777flyer (Thread starter):
How did UAL wind up to be in almost the worst positition of any airline in the world?

Years and Years of taking the market, passengers, and employees for granted! Not to mention Management and its many lost chances to capitalize on markets!

Quoting CTHEWORLD (Reply 34):
Non-stop? It isn't the same product if it isn't non-stop

What is your point? Singapore is not served nonstop from the United States on United Airlines! Singapore is served only via Narita, and Hong Kong!

Regards - Kahala777
 
bravo7e7
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 1:43 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 8:01 am

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 45):

Years and Years of taking the market, passengers, and employees for granted! Not to mention Management and its many lost chances to capitalize on markets!

What are you talking about????????????
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 8:27 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 7):
Simple...... Spending more then what was coming in.

Ain't that the truth. Why fly United from DEN when Frontier is there?
 
Kahala777
Posts: 1513
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:28 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 8:46 am

Quoting JeffM (Reply 47):
Why fly United from DEN when Frontier is there?

Ask the many people that have left United Airlines for Frontier and there basic pricing system, frequent flier program, and outstanding service!

Quoting BRAVO7E7 (Reply 46):
What are you talking about????????????

Have you seen the mess that United Airlines has dug itself into since the late 1990's?


Regards - Kahala777
 
CTHEWORLD
Posts: 463
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27 am

RE: How Did UAL End Up In This Shape?

Mon May 09, 2005 9:22 am

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 45):
What is your point?

Sorry, I meant for Sydney. A pax will choose non-stop -400 service over hop scotch service on a twin.