Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LAXintl wrote:Regarding comments about United flying less than AA, lets remember todays market reality of crappy leisure fares and lack of business travel.
Flying for the sake of flying might only increase losses. Yes it can generate short-term cash flow as someone like AA needs to cover its heavier debt burden, but throwing capacity into an already terribly priced market is not exactly a recipe for profitability.
Imo, let United look to manage capacity prudently with an eye on running flying that is atleast breakeven, and not chase market-share when it really does not pay to do so.
Also let's not forget, we might be on the cusp of another virus wave, as COVID cases rise in more than half the states and starting to approaching numbers seen during last summers surge that could lead to another set of restrictions, which means the capacity being thrown out for periods like May, might be for not.
gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them.
LAXdude1023 wrote:2) The airlines are following the numbers and the money. Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them.
MIflyer12 wrote:gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them.LAXdude1023 wrote:2) The airlines are following the numbers and the money. Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them.
You two really have offered nothing to refute LAXintl's argument. Carriers need planes full enough - at avg fares high enough - to cover costs. There were plenty of years 2001-2010 where AA and UA (and NW and DL...) flew lots of people and still lost money. The mantra for the legacies 2011-2109 was 'capacity control.' A few carriers have clearly lost that. Look at yields when 1Q earnings come out in 2-3 weeks. I predict AA will not be at the top of that list.
That jet fuel at $0.42/gallon from April '20 is long gone. Prices have been on a steady upward trajectory for five months and are approaching 2019 averages.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/gulf_coa ... spot_price
Flying more doesn't always mean more income.
LAXdude1023 wrote:Its more of a low revenue vs. no revenue situation. No one is going to make any money for a while.
LAXdude1023 wrote:Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them. Maybe California would shut down again if they decided to, but no matter what happens with case loads, places like Texas and Florida definitely will not.
UPlog wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Its more of a low revenue vs. no revenue situation. No one is going to make any money for a while.
If the added revenue does not cover your variable cost, you end up even deeper in the red.
Sometimes its better just not sell something, or fly the flight if it does not generate the revenue to cover its cost.
If you believe airlines and analyst, it was practicing capacity discipline across the industry that helped it generate record earnings the last decade.
Imo, the only ones that can chase such traffic are the low-cost producers - not AA, DL or UA with their high legacy cost base.
From what we hear, United believes it has reached an equilibrium where it can become cash breakeven this month. Good for them.
intotheair wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them. Maybe California would shut down again if they decided to, but no matter what happens with case loads, places like Texas and Florida definitely will not.
That’s not going to happen again in California. The case rates in the state are among the lowest in the country, and Newsom’s recall election is a certainty. There’s no public health or political will to lockdown again.
UPlog wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Its more of a low revenue vs. no revenue situation. No one is going to make any money for a while.
From what we hear, United believes it has reached an equilibrium where it can become cash breakeven this month. Good for them.
calpsafltskeds wrote:Regarding the below from the 1st Qtr thread, Google Earth shows a few hangers at Mobile Downtown (KBFM) and some airbus USAir aircraft that appear in the scrapping process. Also, an Ex-UA 752, no FedEx is shown in the painting process. Maybe N851UA is getting paint - I can't see any paint activity since the merger re-paints.
"Anyone know why N851UA is scheduled to ferry to BFM today as UA2750? 2750 would indicate maintenance, I presume, but I don't recall UA having any A319 maintenance work done at BFM in the past https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N85 ... /KIAH/KBFM"
MIflyer12 wrote:gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them.LAXdude1023 wrote:2) The airlines are following the numbers and the money. Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them.
You two really have offered nothing to refute LAXintl's argument. Carriers need planes full enough - at avg fares high enough - to cover costs. There were plenty of years 2001-2010 where AA and UA (and NW and DL...) flew lots of people and still lost money. The mantra for the legacies 2011-2109 was 'capacity control.' A few carriers have clearly lost that. Look at yields when 1Q earnings come out in 2-3 weeks. I predict AA will not be at the top of that list.
That jet fuel at $0.42/gallon from April '20 is long gone. Prices have been on a steady upward trajectory for five months and are approaching 2019 averages.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/gulf_coa ... spot_price
Flying more doesn't always mean more income.
gwrudolph wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them.LAXdude1023 wrote:2) The airlines are following the numbers and the money. Pandemic or not, if people are flying, that’s business for them.
You two really have offered nothing to refute LAXintl's argument. Carriers need planes full enough - at avg fares high enough - to cover costs. There were plenty of years 2001-2010 where AA and UA (and NW and DL...) flew lots of people and still lost money. The mantra for the legacies 2011-2109 was 'capacity control.' A few carriers have clearly lost that. Look at yields when 1Q earnings come out in 2-3 weeks. I predict AA will not be at the top of that list.
That jet fuel at $0.42/gallon from April '20 is long gone. Prices have been on a steady upward trajectory for five months and are approaching 2019 averages.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/gulf_coa ... spot_price
Flying more doesn't always mean more income.
I understand that more flying doesn’t necessarily mean more income. However, taking the risk losing loyal customers might not work well in the long run. That’s my point.
AA and WN certainly are taking a more aggressive approach
Midwestindy wrote:UPlog wrote:LAXdude1023 wrote:Its more of a low revenue vs. no revenue situation. No one is going to make any money for a while.
From what we hear, United believes it has reached an equilibrium where it can become cash breakeven this month. Good for them.
Sounds like most carriers are at that mark, AA & a couple others haven't updated guidance yet though, so not sure how many others exactly.
gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them. I sign up for their FF program. I use them again as a result. Oops, bye bye United.
Moreover, if they don’t grandfather status for another year, all the more reason for the United loyal to move over to AA as well.
It really is the same old way of managing through crisis at United—recoil. Interestingly enough, no matter who is running the show, it is always the same reaction.
jayunited wrote:It is far to early for any of the US3 to extend 2019 status to January 2023 a decision like that would not be made until August or September.
jayunited wrote:Midwestindy wrote:UPlog wrote:
From what we hear, United believes it has reached an equilibrium where it can become cash breakeven this month. Good for them.
Sounds like most carriers are at that mark, AA & a couple others haven't updated guidance yet though, so not sure how many others exactly.
It is without question that of the US3 AA has been the most aggressive especially out of DFW and CLT. But what I'm wondering is this both Delta and United announced they've broken even this month no more negative core cash burn. AA so far hasn't made any such announcement so I wonder if United would have been equally as agressive at AA in chasing bottom of the barrel fares would we still have hit break even one year after the airline went from 100% capacity down to 10% or would we still be burning millions of dollars per day chasing $60 dollar fares?
As frustrated as I am by UA's April and the first 2 weeks of May's schedule, when I step back and really look at the situation starting from last March/April where UA was burning over $100 million dollars a day to now it does temper my frustration.gwrudolph wrote:Risky strategy IMO.
The customer doesn’t care about all of these reasons. AA has more service and better prices, I book with them. I sign up for their FF program. I use them again as a result. Oops, bye bye United.
Moreover, if they don’t grandfather status for another year, all the more reason for the United loyal to move over to AA as well.
It really is the same old way of managing through crisis at United—recoil. Interestingly enough, no matter who is running the show, it is always the same reaction.
If you really believe this is more of the same old way of managing United through a crisis then you haven't been paying attention at all and it really is insulting to the people who work for this airline who've lived through and done the hard work to get United to where we are today. This is not the same old way of managing that was found during bankruptcy, or the financial crisis. United has expanded the network domestically, we've expanded our short haul international reach and our long haul international reach we have maintained all of our aircraft, we've continue to invest in our Polaris/PE product, we've continued some capitol investment projects, we've taken delivery of new aircraft, accelerated the delivery of 737MAX jets, placed an order for more MAXs and the list goes on and on.
Finally why should United on March 31, 2021 grandfather 2019 status to another year? AA, DL, and UA have all done a status match over the past 12 months and right now American isn't offering any type of status match they are only offering a status challenge in which customers have to pay upfront to even enter the challenge. With travel on the rise it is highly doubtful AA would bring back a status match at this point because there is no upside in it for the airline. Also each of these airlines have already extended customers 2019 status through January 31, 2022. It is far to early for any of the US3 to extend 2019 status to January 2023 a decision like that would not be made until August or September.
gwrudolph wrote:
Additionally, I must point out that nowhere did I state or suggest they should extend now, March 31, 2021. What I said was “if they don’t . . . “ implying that the combination of making it harder to be loyal to United and the fact that some might have a full year of start over could make it more enticing to consider finally switching over AA or DL loyalty
jayunited wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
Additionally, I must point out that nowhere did I state or suggest they should extend now, March 31, 2021. What I said was “if they don’t . . . “ implying that the combination of making it harder to be loyal to United and the fact that some might have a full year of start over could make it more enticing to consider finally switching over AA or DL loyalty
How is United making it harder for customers to be loyal when they already lowered the qualifying threshold for every published elite tier in 2021 for 2022 status? United lowered the threshold in the fall of 2020.
Silver: 3,000 PQP/8 PQF or 3,500 PQP (2021) v.s. 4,000 PQP/12 PQF or 5,000 PQP (2019)
Gold: 6,000 PQP/16 PQF or 7,000 PQP (2021 v.s. 8,000 PQP/24 PQF or 10,000 PQP (2019)
Platimum: 9,000 PQP/24 PQF or 10,000 PQP (2021) v.s 12,000 PQP/36 PQF or 15,000 PQP (2019)
Premier 1K: 13,500 PQP/36 PQF or 15,000 PQP (2021) v.s 18,000 PQP/54 PQF or 24,000 PQP (2019)
United also offered bonus PQPs to all Mileage Plus members on their first 3 trips booked in Q1. General members could earn a 50% bonus on each of their first 3 trips, while elite member could earn a 100% bonus on each of their first 3 trips.
The notion that United is making it harder for loyal customers to remain loyal is not true. United has lowered the threshold for the entire year and for members who taken advantage they've earned bonus PQPs on up to 3 of their roundtrips taken in Q1 2021.
If someone wants to switch over to AA or DL and start the long climb all over again that is their choice which I respect but it isn't because United is making it harder for customers to reach premium status and a decision on extending customers 2019 status through January 2023 will be made later this year.
jayunited wrote:gwrudolph wrote:
Additionally, I must point out that nowhere did I state or suggest they should extend now, March 31, 2021. What I said was “if they don’t . . . “ implying that the combination of making it harder to be loyal to United and the fact that some might have a full year of start over could make it more enticing to consider finally switching over AA or DL loyalty
How is United making it harder for customers to be loyal when they already lowered the qualifying threshold for every published elite tier in 2021 for 2022 status? United lowered the threshold in the fall of 2020.
Silver: 3,000 PQP/8 PQF or 3,500 PQP (2021) v.s. 4,000 PQP/12 PQF or 5,000 PQP (2019)
Gold: 6,000 PQP/16 PQF or 7,000 PQP (2021 v.s. 8,000 PQP/24 PQF or 10,000 PQP (2019)
Platimum: 9,000 PQP/24 PQF or 10,000 PQP (2021) v.s 12,000 PQP/36 PQF or 15,000 PQP (2019)
Premier 1K: 13,500 PQP/36 PQF or 15,000 PQP (2021) v.s 18,000 PQP/54 PQF or 24,000 PQP (2019)
United also offered bonus PQPs to all Mileage Plus members on their first 3 trips booked in Q1. General members could earn a 50% bonus on each of their first 3 trips, while elite member could earn a 100% bonus on each of their first 3 trips.
The notion that United is making it harder for loyal customers to remain loyal is not true. United has lowered the threshold for the entire year and for members who taken advantage they've earned bonus PQPs on up to 3 of their roundtrips taken in Q1 2021.
If someone wants to switch over to AA or DL and start the long climb all over again that is their choice which I respect but it isn't because United is making it harder for customers to reach premium status and a decision on extending customers 2019 status through January 2023 will be made later this year.
Golfmikey wrote:The rest of May schedule is out it looks like...it is updated until 6/2
AC4500 wrote:Golfmikey wrote:The rest of May schedule is out it looks like...it is updated until 6/2
It looks like the same exact schedule as the first two weeks of May. Not really seeing anything different that's noteworthy.
LAXintl wrote:Here is photo of new LAX hangar complex coming together.
https://i.ibb.co/QX7bHXh/2021-03-31-114519.png
Once complete, United will consolidate all its LAX techops on the eastside of the field and vacate the former CO complex on the westside.
ChaseP wrote:Maintenance Update:
N851UA (Airbus 319) entered BFM for heavy maintenance.
BFM (Mobile Downtown) is, along with BQN (Aguadilla), a new heavy maintenance base that is opening for United.
Storage Update:
N14102 (Boeing 757-200) is scheduled ferry (UA2724/02) from RWO to GSO for heavy maintenance before re-entering service.
Nicknuzzii wrote:AC4500 wrote:Golfmikey wrote:The rest of May schedule is out it looks like...it is updated until 6/2
It looks like the same exact schedule as the first two weeks of May. Not really seeing anything different that's noteworthy.
Yes, agreed.
I’m not really understanding how just today they claimed leisure travel was back and now they cut a lot of EWR pure leisure routes by more than half.
Is UA being forced to give up flying from EWR because of the runway construction? I’m sorry but there is no reason to fly EWR-ATL 1x a day on Sundays, on a regional jet. Or BNA less than daily. EWR-ORD 4x a day isn’t that great either.
AC4500 wrote:Golfmikey wrote:The rest of May schedule is out it looks like...it is updated until 6/2
It looks like the same exact schedule as the first two weeks of May. Not really seeing anything different that's noteworthy.
Nicknuzzii wrote:AC4500 wrote:Golfmikey wrote:The rest of May schedule is out it looks like...it is updated until 6/2
It looks like the same exact schedule as the first two weeks of May. Not really seeing anything different that's noteworthy.
Yes, agreed.
I’m not really understanding how just today they claimed leisure travel was back and now they cut a lot of EWR pure leisure routes by more than half.
Is UA being forced to give up flying from EWR because of the runway construction? I’m sorry but there is no reason to fly EWR-ATL 1x a day on Sundays, on a regional jet. Or BNA less than daily. EWR-ORD 4x a day isn’t that great either.
jayunited wrote:Nicknuzzii wrote:AC4500 wrote:It looks like the same exact schedule as the first two weeks of May. Not really seeing anything different that's noteworthy.
Yes, agreed.
I’m not really understanding how just today they claimed leisure travel was back and now they cut a lot of EWR pure leisure routes by more than half.
Is UA being forced to give up flying from EWR because of the runway construction? I’m sorry but there is no reason to fly EWR-ATL 1x a day on Sundays, on a regional jet. Or BNA less than daily. EWR-ORD 4x a day isn’t that great either.
You are correct there are some domestic destinations that remain frustratingly low however during the second half of May United is adding flights and/or increasing capacity out of EWR to destinations like BQN/BDA/AUA/SDQ/SJU/MBJ/SEA/PDX/MSY/CHS/SAV and other destinations.
For the month of March United averaged 145 daily departures out of EWR. In April and the first 2 weeks of May United will average around 170 daily departures out of EWR. Starting in the second half of May that number jumps up to 203 daily departures. I get it, the pace is painfully slow but United is slowly restoring more flights to EWR, what has changed is where those flights are being added.
Also we have to ask ourselves how many people are planning a vacation in New York City?
It is going to take time to get United's operation at EWR back to 450 daily departures which is where we were at pre-pandemic.
LAXintl wrote:
“Domestic leisure demand has almost entirely recovered,” Kirby said. “It tells you something about that pent up desire to travel, the pent up desire to remake those connections.”
“Business demand is still down over 80%, and of course international borders, particularly long-haul, are still closed,” he said. “So those are huge chunk of our business that are still almost at zero, but it’s really nice to see that recovery.”
United is flying more than 100% of its 2019 capacity to Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, and South America, where some countries have reopened to Americans.
STT757 wrote:
I was watching a YouTube video of a flight leaving LAX, the new hangar looked huge.
adamblang wrote:Domestic leisure travel demand back to pre-pandemic levels, airline CEOs say - The Points Guy“Domestic leisure demand has almost entirely recovered,” Kirby said. “It tells you something about that pent up desire to travel, the pent up desire to remake those connections.”
“Business demand is still down over 80%, and of course international borders, particularly long-haul, are still closed,” he said. “So those are huge chunk of our business that are still almost at zero, but it’s really nice to see that recovery.”
andUnited is flying more than 100% of its 2019 capacity to Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, and South America, where some countries have reopened to Americans.
psa1011 wrote:adamblang wrote:Domestic leisure travel demand back to pre-pandemic levels, airline CEOs say - The Points Guy“Domestic leisure demand has almost entirely recovered,” Kirby said. “It tells you something about that pent up desire to travel, the pent up desire to remake those connections.”
“Business demand is still down over 80%, and of course international borders, particularly long-haul, are still closed,” he said. “So those are huge chunk of our business that are still almost at zero, but it’s really nice to see that recovery.”
andUnited is flying more than 100% of its 2019 capacity to Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America, and South America, where some countries have reopened to Americans.
Interesting, although I am seeing a number of UA routes that were to resume in May but are now pushed into June, and I wouldn't be surprised to see more delays. Much of SFO's domestic routes were going to resume 5/6, and are now pushed to 6/3. Obviously some of this is due to slower business, but SFO-MSY/FLL/TPA seem like they would have resumed as leisure routes already.
sldispatcher wrote:
I would not trust much in the way of any domestic schedule past 6/2 at this point.
Acey559 wrote:Not exactly network or fleet related, but we just received an ALPA email stating that pilot hiring will resume effective immediately. This seems to hint that the schedule will be increased in the next few months.
AC4500 wrote:sldispatcher wrote:
I would not trust much in the way of any domestic schedule past 6/2 at this point.
I wouldn't trust ANY part of the schedule past 6/2 at all.
“With vaccination rates increasing and travel demand trending upwards, I’m excited to share that United will resume the pilot hiring process that was halted last year,” Bryan Quigley, United’s senior vice president of flight operations, wrote in a staff note on Thursday, which was viewed by CNBC. “We’ll start with the approximately 300 pilots who either had a new hire class date that was canceled, or who had a 2020 conditional job offer.”
cosyr wrote:Dear Mods,
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this is why I think the Fleet and Network threads need to be split up again. I think the experiment has failed. The conversation is psychophrenic at times. I've asked several fleet related questions in the first quarter, that went completely ignored, because discussions about network and monthly schedules went back and forth for pages. Also, you were forced to break things up by quarter, because this disjointed thread has gotten too long.
I understand the reasoning, that the topics are sometimes related, but I would rather subscribe to two threads and read each of them, but be able to discuss the topic I want without a separate conversation happening at the same time, that runs away with the whole thread.
FSDan wrote:cosyr wrote:Dear Mods,
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but this is why I think the Fleet and Network threads need to be split up again. I think the experiment has failed. The conversation is psychophrenic at times. I've asked several fleet related questions in the first quarter, that went completely ignored, because discussions about network and monthly schedules went back and forth for pages. Also, you were forced to break things up by quarter, because this disjointed thread has gotten too long.
I understand the reasoning, that the topics are sometimes related, but I would rather subscribe to two threads and read each of them, but be able to discuss the topic I want without a separate conversation happening at the same time, that runs away with the whole thread.
I agree with this. Separate fleet and network threads would be great. There's inevitably some duplication of discussion, but it's manageable.