buffalo_bill Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 er, the "maintenance " - cost per passenger on a 10 hours flight in First is about 240 USD , food, booze , amenities. The net discounted realistically paid fare covers about 5 tickets eco. example fra-bkk 3200 ? against 650 ?. eco is there to keep the plane flying, the profit comes from biz and lesser from first. Bbill , Airbus Industries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 I seem to recall years back when I worked for Continental, pre degreg and post bankruptcy...the rule of thumb was 30% full to break even, at the average fare, revenue from cargo and mail was extra profit. This actually might work with the numbers BB From AirBus industries gave... Eastern had trips that made a profit just moving mail and freight, sold the seats for dirt, and charged to check bags, full every day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 [color:"green"] In truth, these low cost carriers are a thorn in the ass of every serious airline, and should be stopped. In the case of the US domestic market, the government should stop allowing the market to get saturated to the point no one can make a profit. [/color] Here are the airlines that had a LOSS for the 3rd Q: Delta UAL USAir Here are the airlines that had a PROFIT for the 3rd Q: CO AA Southwest NW Frontier ATA Alaska America West Jet Blue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gobbledonk Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 Thanks, OH - guess what aircraft Garuda are using to fly me to Jaskarta on Dec 14 ? An Airbus A330 .... I hope that jp1 is right, and that you are just being a c*nt :: If its does go down in a ball of flames and screaming children, at least I'll be in Business Class, for the first time in my miserable existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 "...Here are the airlines that had a PROFIT for the 3rd Q: CO AA Southwest NW Frontier ATA Alaska America West Jet Blue ..." With the exception of AA, CO, and NW, the rest are low cost/third rate carriers, who rely on foreign and or low cost maintaince centers to do their work. (With the exception of Alaska Airlines, who I worked for, and loved!! They are probably one of the best examples of how to treat a work force and the passangers, can't say enough good things about them!!) Most of the guys at these centers are not licensed by the FAA, they fall under a loop hole that allows them to work under the center's certificates. Carrier's like Southwest, basically a flying greyhound bus, offers absolutle no services of any kind, this forces the other carriers to do the same in order to compete. Sooner or later, air travel will truely suck, even worse then it does now. At that point, someone will offer an airline with service, and be able to charge higher fares, for now, it remains a cut throat/cut costs to the bone industry. As I stated, the biggest problem is the government allowing everyone and their brother to fly the same routes. I don't like a lot of government intervention, but something has to be done, or no airline will be viable, currently, almost every major carrier is barely keeping their heads above water! Incidently, UAL after all bankruptcy payments and accelerated repayments, actually showed a positive cash flow and a small profit, or so they told us... USAIR it is rumored may re filed bankruptcy soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted December 16, 2003 Report Share Posted December 16, 2003 [color:"green"] Carrier's like Southwest, basically a flying greyhound bus, offers absolutle no services of any kind, this forces the other carriers to do the same in order to compete. [/color] The majors missed the point!! They should simplify their fare structure instead of having dozens of fares for the same seat. That just makes customers feel they are being ripped off. America West simplified its fares and that turned the airline around. [color:"green"] Incidently, UAL after all bankruptcy payments and accelerated repayments, actually showed a positive cash flow and a small profit, or so they told us... [/color] I checked UALs 10-K SEC filing for the 3rd Q. UAL posted a net LOSS of 367 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp1 Posted December 17, 2003 Report Share Posted December 17, 2003 I hope that jp1 is right, and that you are just being a c*nt Artiew, Don't worry. AB aircrafts have the latest state of technology in aviation manufacturing. Many top airlines use AB aircrafts and are quite happy and successful with this planes. In future there will be even more AB flying the skies all over the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooNoi Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Don't worry. AB aircrafts have the latest state of technology in aviation manufacturing. Many top airlines use AB aircrafts and are quite happy and successful with this planes. In future there will be even more AB flying the skies all over the world. No arguments about the latest technology etc. etc., but its all well and good having the technology if pilots at Garuda don't know how to use it!!! Wasn't it Garuda who nearly landed their 747 some years ago at Essendon (Melbourne's regional airport), instead of the main airport down the road? I seem to remember they realised at about 500 feet and pulled-up. Maybe an urban myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentors Posted January 14, 2004 Report Share Posted January 14, 2004 thalenoi said:I flew Bangkok/Zurich last friday night and was not impressed by SWISS. No newspapers when boarding, the lousiest food I had in 30 years flying (totally tasteless), seems they are saving on all items possible, crew, well not any better than BA or Qantas... As for this new plane, the Airbus A340, 8 first class seats, 48 business (looks good) but cattle class is cattle class, 172 seats if I remember correctly, seating is 2-4-2. Not sure leg room has improved over their MD11, I have short legs and when the passenger before me reclined his seat I got uncomfortable. I had a window seat and the only one on the flight to have an empty seat next to me, but there is nothing you can do with a second seat. The in flight entertainement is ok, video on demand is a nice touch, if at least they had decent movies...well, It allows you to begin watching movie number two and three and four... Before landing they were supposed to show a list of connecting flights and gates on the screens but that did not work. Zurich has a new terminal E interconnected by automatic train to terminals A and B, but it takes some time to walk through the corridors, count on 30 minutes as opposed to the 15 you need between gates in A and B. I used to like Zurich exactly because the easy connections... I live very near to the Airport and it has now a contoverse in the Swiss Newspapers about the Marathon till you get to the new Terminal. When i flew to LOS last Autumn i had to check out and in from the train bringing me to the Gate because the train was (after a week) out of order. Iam Swiss national but i never fly with SWISS or former Swissair, and i'am proud of that. But on my latest fly with THAI to LOS and back the service on board was much poorer than before. :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Girlfriend travelled Bkk -London with SWISS and was impressed by the experience. Possibly even better than Malaysian Airlines Economy cabin she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.