I tried to search C-Span for a transcript but no joy. Last Thurs, Doug was part of a roundtable on the aviation industry. I tuned in briefly for him to discuss the pros and cons of charging a premium for aisle seating. I am paraphrasing here, but he didn't rule out the possibility this is something US would do in the future.

If anyone can find the link, that would be helpful. I know he also addressed Buy on Board meals (which he said were cost-neutral), and the TSA.

If US ever decides to charge for premium aisle seat, I hope elites are exempt from the charge. I think NW elites have been complaining about this ever since it was implemented.

LAX

I tried to search C-Span for a transcript but no joy. Last Thurs, Doug was part of a roundtable on the aviation industry. I tuned in briefly for him to discuss the pros and cons of charging a premium for aisle seating. I am paraphrasing here, but he didn't rule out the possibility this is something US would do in the future.

If anyone can find the link, that would be helpful. I know he also addressed Buy on Board meals (which he said were cost-neutral), and the TSA.

He probably did not disclose that the reason buy-on-board is supposedly "cost neutral" is because the vendor keeps all revenue and in exchange for that provides all catering for the F compartment for free. If he were providing facts he would have disclosed that US gains from it through free F catering and no-cost catering in Y. They are paying nothing for catering and getting F catering for free...that is cost negative (lowered cost). But, like most things with them now all facts are not disclosed.

It's very similar to their tripled capacity controls on upgrades and reduction by almost two-thirds on standard mileage free seat availability.

I suppose it's useless to ask you to substantiate any one of your assertions? It's funny that you criticize US for not disclosing facts, when you refuse to back up any of your claims.

I suppose it's useless to ask you to substantiate any one of your assertions? It's funny that you criticize US for not disclosing facts, when you refuse to back up any of your claims.

I'm not trying to extract money from any person, as US is, which requires that they disclose everything all of the time. But, they never disclose capacity control levels, for example. My primary sources are two internal US executives, one an officer, who will under no circumstance be disclosed on this board or anywhere else by me. 'Nuff said, and said for the final time. But, keep asking if you wish to. :)

I'm not trying to extract money from any person, as US is, which requires that they disclose everything all of the time. But, they never disclose capacity control levels, for example.

requires?

no airline has ever disclosed capacity control levels, whether lax or tight. long long ago some used to promise "at least a pair" available every flight, but those days are over. witness UA's recent empty promise to designate a "certain percentage" of seats to awards--- like the packager on The Simpsons revealing that their work was Zero percent recycled, after all "zero is a certain percent".

If US ever decides to charge for premium aisle seat, I hope elites are exempt from the charge. I think NW elites have been complaining about this ever since it was implemented.

LAX
We did during the "Test" phase of the program, now that it's been implimented all SkyTeam Elite's are exempt from the charge

He probably did not disclose that the reason buy-on-board is supposedly "cost neutral" is because the vendor keeps all revenue and in exchange for that provides all catering for the F compartment for free. If he were providing facts he would have disclosed that US gains from it through free F catering and no-cost catering in Y. They are paying nothing for catering and getting F catering for free...that is cost negative (lowered cost). But, like most things with them now all facts are not disclosed.

It's very similar to their tripled capacity controls on upgrades and reduction by almost two-thirds on standard mileage free seat availability.


How does a comment about premium seating turn into a response about not disclosing buy-on-board catering?

And what is "tripled capacity controls"?

Are you kinglobjaw's classmate?

How does a comment about premium seating turn into a response about not disclosing buy-on-board catering?

And what is "tripled capacity controls"?

Are you kingjoblow's classmate?

In case you did not notice it, the OP stated that DP had called buy-on-board "cost neutral". That is how it turned into a comment about "buy-on-board. Remember this: Aisles are not premium seats. They are just seats, and never were "premium" until such time as a few airlines decided to implement another customer gouge that has no basis in cost of goods sold. The issue is Doug and no other US person providing facts and telling the truth. The second paragraph was merely a further descriptor of the same problem outlined in the first paragraph of my post. If one doesn't wish to believe it, the best thing to do is try to book an upgrade or free seat. When you are told "no can do", then check the available seat map. The fact of the matter is, capacity controls have been increased by two-thirds. That has been their plan and that has been their execution of their plan. If that is cool with you, that is cool however.

I'm not trying to extract money from any person, as US is, which requires that they disclose everything all of the time. But, they never disclose capacity control levels, for example. My primary sources are two internal US executives, one an officer, who will under no circumstance be disclosed on this board or anywhere else by me. 'Nuff said, and said for the final time. But, keep asking if you wish to. :)
So your entire argument boils down to "trust me". How persuasive. Does your officer pal read FT? Does he mind that you keep posting "insider facts"? Does he even exist? Let me guess: He's dissatisfied with the current regime, and working through you bring about massive, customer friendly changes, right? We'll have no capacity controls, US will undercut all other airline's fares by at least $100, and all fees will be a thing of the past.

In the meantime, you get to post any made up "facts" you want, and attribute them to the mystery officer. How nice for us.

One other question about your officer. Does he know you are trading US stock, and bragging on the internet about your internal source who is an officer of the company? Is he familiar with the phrase "material non-public information"? Are you?

One other question about your officer. Does he know you are trading US stock, and bragging on the internet about your internal source who is an officer of the company? Is he familiar with the phrase "material non-public information"? Are you?
Interesting point. Way back when I was a broker I had several customers investigated by the SEC for trading on non-public information. I can assure you that it was not fun for me or them. And the SEC always found out about the trades in the strangest of ways. hmmmm.

Of course the only investigations I was apart of was when the client made money so therefor I don't think any one on this board has to worry..... :D

I'm not trying to extract money from any person, as US is, which requires that they disclose everything all of the time. But, they never disclose capacity control levels, for example. My primary sources are two internal US executives, one an officer, who will under no circumstance be disclosed on this board or anywhere else by me. 'Nuff said, and said for the final time. But, keep asking if you wish to. :)

Pheonix, I think you have really worn out your welcome here. Even where we agree I have to say that your lines are getting tired. You re-hash the same points over and over again on every thread.

First, just because US it trying to make money doesn't mean they have to disclose anything to their customers. Even as a public company they only have to disclose some select things to investors. Items of information such as their rather clever offloading of providing meals to a 3rd party company that assumes all the risk could be a considered proprietary information that gives them a competitive advantage. They probably don't WANT this information to get out because the believe it gives them an advantage in the marketplace.

As for "'Nuff said" if you can't post the name of the sources than don't post your opinions as supposed facts. What you post, sans any backing, are your opinions, and we all know what they say opinions are like.

Finally, Please, PLEASE just leave us alone if you don't have anything new to say. You're stock on this board has become so low that even if you do have an interesting thought or piece of information no one is listening anymore anyway.

Sean

Another link for you, PineyBob. This Unisys 'Scorecard' resulted from a conference where the participants were invited to "look back" at 2006 from where they thought the industry would be in 2015, and the lessons that they thought would be learned by the carriers that would be successful (or even around) at that point.

Seems the general conclusion was that product differentation and connecting to the customer would be traits that help ensure success.....

Scorecard (http://www.unisys.com/eprise/main/admin/micro/doc/_May_06_Scorecard.pdf)

Jim

We did during the "Test" phase of the program, now that it's been implimented all SkyTeam Elite's are exempt from the charge

Obviously, I don't follow ST news all that much and it's good to know that NW backed off and exempt elites from the surcharge!

LAX

Cost neutral simple means we don't make money

Is that the US management team member "we" or the kinglobjaw-type "we"?

I should think anyone who cares about US and US' future would be concerned that a faithful customer of the likes of PineyBob is this upset. In my short time on this forum I'm aware of a lot of regular posters that have quietly disappeared. Here's one who cares enough to speak up and gets abused for it?

To the contrary, NWA is ACTIVELY seeking billions for its emergence from bankruptcy - the airline has billions in capex needs (DC-9 fleet replacement, widebody fleet growth, facility improvement projects) that its current and projected cash flow streams cannot cover.

To the contrary, NWA is ACTIVELY seeking billions for its emergence from bankruptcy - the airline has billions in capex needs (DC-9 fleet replacement, widebody fleet growth, facility improvement projects) that its current and projected cash flow streams cannot cover.
Capex is NOT the same thing as exit financing...very different, if you were to take a look at the airlines capex over the past 20 year NWA has the lowest, CO has one of the highest

One of the real problems with the industry (which I believe is exactly what Doug was talking about) is that it's too difficult to airlines to go out of business....look at the number of times US went through chapter 11 in the past few years.....the Govt doesn't want it to happen, the employees don't want it to happen, the unions don't want it to happen, the management doesn't want it to happen so when the Aircraft manufacturers and engine manufacturers make you an "offer you can't refuse" (my apologies to Don Corleone) you take it.....

[QUOTE=sts603]no offense - UA is one of the best of, if not the best of in the country in many, many, many regards....

I was refering to the time frame that DP took over AWA.
Back then United was terrible!

I'm curious why so many people here don't give credibility to "unamed" sources? Have you ever read a newspaper? How many times do news reporters cite "an unamed source?" It happens all the time. Remember Watergate? And if you think "insiders" aren't willing to talk, or disclose information, you're seriously misguided. It happens all the time. Furthermore the information that has been reported here is hardly earth shattering, and I seriously doubt anyone's job would be in jeopardy if discovered.

To question whether the info is accurate, try booking a 25,000 saver award on the new US. Its pretty obvious capacity has been decimated.

Phoenix Flyer: I enjoy your posts.

I'm curious why so many people here don't give credibility to "unamed" sources? Have you ever read a newspaper? How many times do news reporters cite "an unamed source?" It happens all the time. Remember Watergate? And if you think "insiders" aren't willing to talk, or disclose information, you're seriously misguided. It happens all the time. Furthermore the information that has been reported here is hardly earth shattering, and I seriously doubt anyone's job would be in jeopardy if discovered.

To question whether the info is accurate, try booking a 25,000 saver award on the new US. Its pretty obvious capacity has been decimated.

Phoenix Flyer: I enjoy your posts.

Me thinks you're either Phoenix Flyer (thus violating the multiple handles rule) or a good friend of PHX Flyer, given that your post repeats the same point about award availability that PHX Flyer started his campaign out with.

That being said, you can actually find saver award availiability if you look hard enough (of course, the way the new website is set up, it's much harder to find availability than under the old US website). If you're looking at the summer travel season, it may not be easy to find saver awards. But that's because, well, it's summer, and people have this remarkable habit of travelling on vacation during the summer.

On the "unamed source" issue: Have you noticed that many newspapers and media outlets require two sources (unamed or otherwise) before publishing a story. Plus, the media recognizes that if they're wrong, they're exposing their outlet to defamation lawsuits, not to mention the possibility that the government itself will conduct a hunt to see who provided the information to the reporters involved (see recent ABC story on being told that the Federal Gov't was tracking through phone records who called ABC News prior to a story going out that the Administration didn't like). So the media is a bit more careful than a poster on an internet bulletin board, or a blog.

Why do we not give credibility to PHX Flyer's "unamed sources" - it's because when asked, PHX Flyer never provides anything to back up the wild assertions he or she has made since appearing on this Board. So when he says it's an officer at the new US and he can't tell who (ignoring the fact that the officer is looking at disclosing information to a third party that US wouldn't be happy about - not to mention potential SEC issues) - credibility is strained.

Edited it all out, 'cause doesn't make sense with all the unrequetsed edits.

This thread had better stick to the original topic. And a brief perusal of http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php is in order for a whole slew of members.

Some posts in this thread were responses to deleted posts, and thus had to go. Some were edited. This exercise is getting old, quickly.