United Pilot Q&A Thread

[nwff]

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

...Frequency is one issue, but so is comfort and product. If UAX can supply 5 CRJ-200's a day to a station, or Mainline can provide 3 E-190's or 3 airbus, then I think the better product wins out over frequency....

As a business traveler I have to agree with AD on this. I view time on the plane as work time, and it is virtually impossible for me (6', 70kg) to work on a CRJ200. While I prefer to fly on UA for E+, upgrades, etc., why should I bother to fly UA on a route flown by a CRJ200 if I can't work enroute, don't have E+ and am contorted and exhausted by the end of the trip? I have no problem maintaining status so I don't need to exclusively fly UA. If I need a flight at a particular time that UA flies as as CRJ200 I'll fly F9, CO, or NW, even if the cost is greater.

One of the few things that (positively) distinguishes UA from its competitors is E+. Properly and competently marketed, it could get a lot of mileage from this among business travelers if more of its UA(X) flights (especially over an hour) were flown by 700s, 170s, or any mainline planes.

[aluminumdriver]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

Many business travelers would disagree about product vs. frequency. IMO, they would accept a crap product if it meant that their time was less impacted.

I would have to disagree. Just read this board. It is complaint upon complaint, and it usually has nothing to do with on-time issues. They're almost all about service, comfort and how they are treated. There is a compromise of course, you can't offer one flight a day versus 4 and say that one mainline flight is enough. But you can go from 5 RJ flights to 3-4 E190 mainline flights with a better product and that would be a plus. Take ATL to IAD. When we flew mainline it was Airbus and 737 service, and it was PACKED, I commuted from there and it was tough. Now, we have shrunk down to 4 RJ's a day, one more than we had mainline, yet the 70 seaters are empty many times. United offered more flights, but the service/product was so poor, that customers went to competitors. I think the product is just as important, if not more important, than frequency.

Originally Posted by ua_to_ord

With all due respect, I disagree with your assertion that Independence Air failed due to a public perception that their CRJ fleet was substandard in terms of comfort. The principal problem with FlyI, in my opinion, is that they expanded too fast, increasing their costs, without first building their brand and customer levels to a sufficient degree. A significant contribution to this failure was the lack of a compelling customer incentive program, particularly in the face of aggressive responses from Mileage Plus. Furthermore, FlyI's costs per ASM with the CRJ were higher than those of the competition (i.e. UA). I have not seen any evidence to suggest that the demise of Independence Air was caused in significant part by a perceived inferiority of the CRJ product.

Well, Independence Air was the former Atlantic Coast Airlines, the absolute worst UAX carrier we had. They went independent because finally United was going to kick them off the UAX list due to service issues and other UAX carriers coming in to underbid them. IA's plan was to offer more flights a day to towns that United flew to. Their marketing? We can fly you to CLT 6 times a day, United does it 3. They didn't succeed because even though I could fly 6 flts a day out of CLT on IA on a 50 seater, if I could fly 3 times a day on a 737 at United, passengers chose the bigger more comfortable jet, better service, better reliability, and better FF program. The frequency did not matter.

Originally Posted by 000123UA

Maybe that's part of what I'm asking. Would the cost to United be the same for operating an E190 in-house or having TCF operate it?

BNA-ORD is $49 one way in L for next week and $153 for tomorrow. There's 50+ open seats on the combined AA/UA regional jets. On these routes I would personally pay as much as a 25% premium to fly a mainline operated E190 instead of a CR7 or an ER4, but I don't know if I'm normal. If UA's expenses for flying 3 E190s (instead of 4 CR7s) went up by 15%, wouldn't UA lose money to people choosing from any of AAs 7 ER4s a day? AA offers lower fares and more frequency - I don't think the average customer will pay more for an E190, especially if their connection time to LHR or NRT is now 4 hours instead of 80 mins.

Comfort/product is important to me, but it isn't everything. This is a marketing question. "Back in the day" (gotta be 2001-ish) I remember AA ran a massive marketing campaign in Chicago - "Nothing But Jets" - they upgraded the G terminal and AA dumped the Saabs and ATRs at ORD. They flew all E-135/140/145s and we were all psyched. Times have changed, but I wonder how successful that campaign was. I wonder if they were able to measurably increase their market share and profit around RJ ops as a result. If so, that would be good evidence that UA could do the same around flying mainline E-Jets.

I would argue that Independence (and others) fail(ed) because they don't have a network, not because of a lack of comfort. In contrast, UA survives because of the network. Arguments about alliances aside, United operates the largest fleet of 747-400s in North America, and operates over 100 int'l config widebody aircraft. This is in contrast with 115 for AA, 95 for DL and 47 for NWA. They fill those planes with people that arrive on RJs that lose money on their own. United can afford to lose money on those flights, but Independence couldn't.

I think the real interesting point of this E-Jets discussion is forcing United to get creative and bring the issues of safety and comfort to their marketing. Timing is good with all the discussions on the subject of safety (Colgan, US1549 and AF447), and maybe UA can get innovative about offering safety as a competitive advantage. "United's E-Jets are flown by United's own pilots, trained at our world renowned training center, blah blah, and are maintained by, blah blah - we don't outsource your safety blah blah" - if that message could convince people to pay a price premium to choose UA E-Jets, that would be great.

However, on my flights this weekend I was astonished to see two sets of parents let their kids walk to the lav during a descent through the anvil of a major storm flying into O'Hare (see UA256 Sunday night). Flight crew had asked cabin crew to be seated as they expected moderate turbulence through the descent. We encountered only light turbulence. Those kids would have had broken necks (or worse) if we had hit turbulence like CO128 last week. Despite the melodramatic media, safety remains a low concern for the traveling public. (it is amazing what you see when you're in 51B instead of 1B, )

I don't deal with the contract negotiations, so I can't comment on costs on mainline vs UAX. I know it costs more to carry someone 1 seat mile on a RJ, versus a larger jet, not to mention not having a say over the product put out at one of the many UAX carriers. Having a $49 fare to ORD from BNA is pathetic, and emblematic of why the airlines continue to lose money. That doesn't even cover the cost of fuel to fly you, let alone the cost of operating the jet and airline.

If United pilots were to fly the E-190 at industry rates, I think that is a fair deal. United gets control over their feed product, and United pilots finally have some growth again in their airline. If United wants to go sub-industry wages so they can do it even cheaper on a UAX carrier by outsourcing and playing UAX carriers against each other, then I don't have any sympathy for that, not to mention that it will cause United will go under. Hopefully both sides can come to a good agreement that brings any new aircraft under the United pilots agreement. I know 1450 United pilots on the street that would like to see that new growth.

Cheers,

AD

[000123UA]

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

I know it costs more to carry someone 1 seat mile on a RJ, versus a larger jet

Definitly if the plane goes out full. However a full RJ makes a profit while a half full 733 loses money. If United can only sell 150 seats a day BNA-ORD, they need to minimize the cost of those seats. If they need a frequency of 3/day, then they need three flights of 50, not three flights of 110 or one flight of 150.

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

Having a $49 fare to ORD from BNA is pathetic, and emblematic of why the airlines continue to lose money. That doesn't even cover the cost of fuel to fly you, let alone the cost of operating the jet and airline.

I couldn't agree with you more. However, at this price, there are 50 empty seats tomorrow. There's still too much capacity. What's the solution? If UA cuts frequency any more, they'll just lose connecting traffic to AA, lose more pax and then you really have another Pan Am on your hands. Their *only* viable choice is to cut the size of the planes.

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

If United pilots were to fly the E-190 at industry rates, I think that is a fair deal.

Isn't the problem that there's such a thing as an "industry rate" but there are also "sub industry rates"? What does that even mean? In a free market economy, driven by supply and demand, prices are set by the market. The supply/demand ratio has yeilded a $49 ticket BNA-ORD. Isn't the problem that there are a lot of un/under-employed pilots that are willing to fly for less money and worse conditions that UA mainline pilots?

If so, how can you economically balance that equation as it stands? What *needs* to happen is the customer needs to demand the "best" pilots, not the cheepest pilots.

Maybe ALPA should take all the energy and money spent on fighting management and instead launch a massive consumer-directed campaign about why ALPA pilots should fly them - get consumers to refuse to fly on non-mainline operated flights. Have consumers fly SWA on all UA regional routes.

Maybe UA mgmt should take all the energy and money spent on fighting the unions and instead launch a massive consumer-directed campaign about why United flies all its own flights - safety, consistency, customer service and quality.

In a market driven economy, consumers drive the business. Consumers currently aren't very smart about air travel and demand, first and formost, low fares. Somehow *that* is what needs to change if United pilots are going to get to fly E190s. If it gets forced, it will just as likely cause United to stop operating for good due to dramatic cost increases for flying people to BNA for $49.

[us2]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

Many business travelers would disagree about product vs. frequency. IMO, they would accept a crap product if it meant that their time was less impacted.

While you're right, I think that view is short-sighted. The growth in RJ traffic is a major contributor to congestion, which increases delays since it takes as much airspace to land an RJ as it does an A320 or E-190. Cutting down on the RJ traffic by using larger planes makes a large difference in cutting delays and moving traffic. And, as someone else noted, there's a time cost to flying in an RJ in that it's impossible to get any work done on one.

Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer a better product that is more reliable than a ton of flights that cascades into a mess when there's weather. The flood of RJs helps to create an element of delay-based uncertainty into travel that could be ameliorated by using larger planes on fewer flights. There are some routes that won't have the demand for larger planes; I'm fine with using RJs for those but there are a lot of routes in the UA system, many of which were flown with widebodies at some point in time, that are now flown primarily or exclusively with RJs.

[ConciergeMike]

Originally Posted by 000123UA

<SNIP> get consumers to refuse to fly on non-mainline operated flights.

A) In some cities, this is simply not possible. There are many city pairs at all carriers that have Express divisions where a mainline jet does not see the light of day on that given route. If your Point A and Point B happen to be one of those city pairs, there's nothing you can do. The average consumer is going to take the RJ or prop job and suck it up, because society has not advanced to the point of having the FTer mindset that you can connect in six different places to get to a city not too far away. Most people would think that such an idea is nuts.

Originally Posted by 000123UA

<SNIP> Consumers currently aren't very smart about air travel and demand

B) You answered your own question. Again, the average consumer is something that the average FTer is not, and when FTers attempt to relate their travel knowledge to that of someone that doesn't possess such knowledge, they often end up giving their hypothetical average person way too much credit. The average person is happy if they look out the airport window and see the correct paint job on the plane, and that the plane has wings and engines.

Originally Posted by us2

there are a lot of routes in the UA system, many of which were flown with widebodies at some point in time, that are now flown primarily or exclusively with RJs.

I don't know the UA system all that well, but I find it curious that a route could fall from a widebody to an RJ. Do you have examples?

[000123UA]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

A) In some cities, this is simply not possible.

Few and far between, but you're right. WAS-CHS is a good example of an RJ only market. But as a Chicago flyer, as I look at a sampling of RJ routes, more than 50% have some "mainline" alternative, usually on Southwest.

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

The average person is happy if they look out the airport window and see the correct paint job on the plane, and that the plane has wings and engines.

I think that was my point. I have endless respect for pilots, but ALPA needs to accept the reality that they need to convince customers to prefer them to "sub-industry" paid regional pilots. Management isn't all roses (or really even a couple), but I don't buy the argument that they mistreat employees to get their jollies. The fight between ALPA and management is all about $$$ and only about $$$. Both groups need to either focus on getting customers to show a preference (with their wallets) for mainline operated flights, or accept that flying will continue to be outsourced to cheaper regionals. I do think that both management and employees need to work toward this goal, which means my mainline flying experience needs to be better than an RJ experience. This includes ground staff, cockpit crew and cabin crew. Right now, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that I'd be better off with UA mainline staff over Skywest staff. However, I'd take mainline over messy any day. United as a company comprised of employees (ops and management together) need to make a unified effort or we won't see an end to outsourcing.

We can all agree (I hope) that UAUA's *SOLE* responsibility as a publicly traded corporation is to make money. Everything else they do is operational, in support of that responsibility. However much I would prefer mainline service and mainline staff everywhere, I'll bet that if starting tomorrow they operated all routes with mainline aircraft, they'd enter Chapter 7 by the end of the year. How would they support it? Where would the additional $$$ come from?

[bmvaughn]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

I don't know the UA system all that well, but I find it curious that a route could fall from a widebody to an RJ. Do you have examples?

SEA-LAX?

[000123UA]

Originally Posted by bmvaughn

SEA-LAX?

There are still a couple mainline flights/day.

COS-DEN-COS used to be a mix of DC-10, 757, 737 and 727. Now it is all RJs. I can't think of a route that went from exclusively widebody to exclusively RJs, though.

[bmvaughn]

Originally Posted by 000123UA

There are still a couple mainline flights/day.

Sure, if you route via SFO... but all SEA-LAX (and vv) flights are currently CR7s.

[ConciergeMike]

Originally Posted by 000123UA

I think that was my point.

<snip>

Both groups need to either focus on getting customers to show a preference (with their wallets) for mainline operated flights, or accept that flying will continue to be outsourced to cheaper regionals. I do think that both management and employees need to work toward this goal, which means my mainline flying experience needs to be better than an RJ experience.

It was sort of your point, but the counter that I was trying to make is that the average person doesn't book flights based on equipment. Very frequent fliers and road warriors are the subsets of people that are most likely to do that. The infrequent flier that is looked down upon (sometimes with verbiage that makes them out to be subhuman) in some parts of FT is the person who doesn't care, so long as the plane doesn't crash. It's educating that populace that is difficult. That's why I maintain that when the average FTer tries to put themselves in the shoes of an infrequent traveler, they simply can't do it. (I'm certainly not saying that I can - I don't fly enough to hold a status, but I'm a wealth of useless information.) Anyway, getting the masses to conscoiusly make a decision to book mainline flights is nearly impossible. Walk up to 100 people on the street and ask them if they have a preference for mainline or regional flying. They will probably respond with the name of their favorite airline, if they have one. That's the kind of intelligence deficit you are up against if you're the guy at ALPA trying to design that marketing campaign.

Originally Posted by 000123UA

COS-DEN-COS used to be a mix of DC-10, 757, 737 and 727.

No wonder UA can't comprehend the concept of black ink. I remember flying EWR-COS on CO when I was about 15 years old...when I got there, I thought to myself: "This craphole gets nonstops from the East Coast?"

[000123UA]

Originally Posted by bmvaughn

Sure, if you route via SFO... but all SEA-LAX (and vv) flights are currently CR7s.

Right, duh. Yea, those mainline are all non-non-stops.

[000123UA]

Originally Posted by ConciergeMike

It was sort of your point, but the counter that I was trying to make is that the average person doesn't book flights based on equipment.

<snip>

It's educating that populace that is difficult.

<snip>

That's the kind of intelligence deficit you are up against if you're the guy at ALPA trying to design that marketing campaign.

Definitely agree. My "point" is probably convoluted, lol. The discussion/question for AD was an open-ended hypothetical about *how* ALPA and UA mgmt might work together to achieve the same ends. They *should* all want a profitable airline, which means coming together on the seemingly key issues of capacity, cost and demand.

I am by no means trying to say "duh guys, just run a few ads and suddenly everyone will want to fly mainline." However, if we take the attitude that "the populace" can't be convinced, then aren't we accepting the reality that more flying will be outsourced and the future of UA as we know it is decidedly in danger? The ALPA position, without a shift in consumer preference, is untenable. UA is losing money. Outsourcing less flying means increased cost. Unless that can be coupled by increased revenue, then UA will only fail faster. The onus is on the entire UAUA team to drive revenue up.

The exciting part is that *maybe* UAUA can increase revenue by making an investment (which is perhaps AD's point), but isn't usually the message ALPA sends. They tend to send the message that they want to do the flying (read: increase cost), but that increasing revenue is decidedly management's problem. That's a no-win attitude.

[stanfordhokie]

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

Take ATL to IAD. When we flew mainline it was Airbus and 737 service, and it was PACKED, I commuted from there and it was tough. Now, we have shrunk down to 4 RJ's a day, one more than we had mainline, yet the 70 seaters are empty many times. United offered more flights, but the service/product was so poor, that customers went to competitors. I think the product is just as important, if not more important, than frequency.

I agree. It's really sad how the world's busiest airport has nearly become entirely a UX station. I don't like having to schlep around on the RJ's when connecting to, or arriving from, an international flight at IAD, especially when I'm a premium fare passenger.

I'm definitely flying DL quite a bit this year to/from ATL.

[aluminumdriver]

Originally Posted by 000123UA

Few and far between, but you're right. WAS-CHS is a good example of an RJ only market. But as a Chicago flyer, as I look at a sampling of RJ routes, more than 50% have some "mainline" alternative, usually on Southwest.



I think that was my point. I have endless respect for pilots, but ALPA needs to accept the reality that they need to convince customers to prefer them to "sub-industry" paid regional pilots. Management isn't all roses (or really even a couple), but I don't buy the argument that they mistreat employees to get their jollies. The fight between ALPA and management is all about $$$ and only about $$$. Both groups need to either focus on getting customers to show a preference (with their wallets) for mainline operated flights, or accept that flying will continue to be outsourced to cheaper regionals. I do think that both management and employees need to work toward this goal, which means my mainline flying experience needs to be better than an RJ experience. This includes ground staff, cockpit crew and cabin crew. Right now, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that I'd be better off with UA mainline staff over Skywest staff. However, I'd take mainline over messy any day. United as a company comprised of employees (ops and management together) need to make a unified effort or we won't see an end to outsourcing.

We can all agree (I hope) that UAUA's *SOLE* responsibility as a publicly traded corporation is to make money. Everything else they do is operational, in support of that responsibility. However much I would prefer mainline service and mainline staff everywhere, I'll bet that if starting tomorrow they operated all routes with mainline aircraft, they'd enter Chapter 7 by the end of the year. How would they support it? Where would the additional $$$ come from?

Well, if they did all routes on mainline only, you would be right. I'm not talking about that. Most RJ routes are already unprofitable, but United uses them to maintain a presence. The problem is when you become overly reliant on RJ's and pull down seats and flying, loss of passengers becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. When you pull down flying that used to support mainline flying, and use only RJ flying, you eventually drive out all the customers that used to fly you, resulting in even smaller RJ service or fewer flights, eventually pulling out due to lack of demand. If you live in JAX now, or PBI, FLL or MIA, why would you even think of flying United now, our presence is so small. Do I really want to fly a small RJ all the way to ORD, so I can fly another RJ to SDF? Or, I can fly a MD-80 to ATL then another MD-80 to SDF. I remember flying full planes from JAX-IAD, PBI-ORD, MIA-IAD, FLL-IAD, BUR-DEN, ORD-PHX, CHS-IAD, etc..and now we're down to essentially RJ's. Stations that are now only (or mostly) RJ that used to be mainline just off the top of my hat - CMH, SDF, RIC, ORF, CHS, MIA, FLL, PBI, JAX, MDT, MHT, BRL, CED, GRR, CVG, MEM, BNA, KNOXVILLE, BHM, JAN, SAT, BUR, just to name a few. However, many of those same stations still command large jets from our competitors, which somehow make a profit using the larger jets.

With fares as low as they are, you cannot be profitable on smaller jets with fewer seats, it still costs $$ to move them. When costs are lower, you actually need more seats to spread the costs around to make up money, as well as carry cargo which makes a lot of money. $50 fares on a RJ cannot make money, so why are they still offered? Makes no sense. Reduce the flights, make it a couple larger aircraft, now charge $100 fares (just as an example) and you probably have a profitable flight once or twice a day. United made a lot of money in the 90's using large aircraft. They now bleed money and rely on RJ's for 40% of their flying now, coincidence?

I don't want this thread to end up off on a tangent, but just to quickly expound on the ALPA doing more to get bigger jets, or promoting the safety aspect for sales purposes, it won't happen. First, no airline goes out touting it's safety record because there is just an unwritten rule not to do it. Each airline knows they are just one accident away from becoming a bad statistic, and they don't want competitors trying to use that against them either. So, they kind of stay quiet on the safety aspect. Without a pilot induced accident in 30 years, it is a good PR issue for United, but they won't do it.

Two, up on my soapbox for a moment, ALPA won't work against more RJ's for regional carriers and push larger jet issues since they represent both the mainline pilots at United as well as many many regional pilots at regional carriers. Thus, we get silence from ALPA National on the issue. Our own ALPA MEC works with management to try and save jobs and get more flying to mainline flying, and they make sure that management knows that trying to get E190's to UAX will not happen.

Thanks for the discussion. Next topic?? ;-)

AD

[ConciergeMike]

Originally Posted by aluminumdriver

BUR-DEN

Is this UA management's most frequently traveled route?