baglady

Agreed - based on reading the employees boards, they were recently given a memo to up their customer service. It may have something to do with that timing indeed. Also, as you pay more for flights, you expect a bit more with that - not that I feel I'm "entitled" to more, but it does go hand it hand (dollars vs service). You make a very good point.

baglady

They are both a class act. ^ to them

bocastephen

The gesture by Larry and Jeff speaks volumes about their leadership and commitment to the organization and their fellow employees - it also speaks volumes about their executive colleagues at competing carriers, who are unlikely to follow, and even more likely to demand bonuses and extra compensation in exchange for their own cost and job cutting initiatives.

Best hopes and wishes for CO rank and file - let's pray this downturn is a fast one and things return to some degree of normalcy as soon as possible.

With the federal investigation into oil speculation underway, I pray we will see sub-100 oil again soon.

colpuck

Cnnmoney.com has picked up the story.

Lurker1999

I wonder if this means the BOS-IAH flights will be cut down further since there's quite a few of those that use 733s. Also I'm guessing BOS-EWR is going to suffer heavily with this reduction. Can you imagine an all Q400 route? The only reason to fly BOS-NYC on CO would be if you're connecting in EWR, otherwise DL shuttle makes so much more sense.

Olton Hall

It's hard to judge if EWR-BOS flights will see much change. They are still keeping 35 735's around after the propopsed cuts according to the chart.

BearX220

BOS-EWR is an ideal stage length for the Q. They can probably fill the planes, undercut the DL and US shuttle tariffs, and make money. And I expect the vast majority of CO pax flying BOS-EWR are connecting through to other cities.

If CO is watching how the Q has affected Alaska / Horizon operations (very positively), I think any sub-500 mile route from a CO hub may be a canddiate for getting Q'ed. (And it's a more comfortable plane to ride in than the 145, for example.) It's an efficient, comfortable aircraft that makes sense in this hellish environment.

rtiggi

Gosh.. I hope not.. My CLE to Chicago plans have already been screwed by the Midway departure. I am not sure that I can deal with the annoyance of ORD and a jacked up price...

sxf24

UA is only adding 66-70 seat regional aircraft. Although better than 50 seat flying, this will be their demise.

Olton Hall

The Q's are fine if everyone is skinny (narrower seats) and the air is calm. When you get into the slightest turbulance, you get shaken up pretty good. They do have great acceleration.

Larrude

Every time that I am on one of the flights to or fro GLA, even in November, they are pretty full.

formeraa

Actually, the 752's are one of the lowest CASM aircraft.

spin88

From a thread pulled together by several folks on the AA boards, feel free to add to/correct the information, I don't have a per hour burn figure for the 777ER

Per hour burns:

767-200ER.......1,400 gal
767-300ER.......1,600 gal
A320.................820 gal
AB6................1,700 gal
MD-80...............935 gal
757-200...........1050 gal
737-800.............750 gal

Using UA/AA seat Counts:

MD-80: 935/(AA:140 seats) =6.68 gal/seat/hour
752: 1050/(AA:188 seats) =5.59 gal/seat/hour
738: 750/(AA:148 seats) =5.07 gal/seat/hour
763: 1600/ (UA Domestic: 34F/210Y) = 6.55 gal/seat/hour
763: 1600/ (UA International: 10F/32C/151Y) = 8.29 gal/seat/hour
A320 820/ (UA 12F/126Y) = 5.94 gal/seat/hour
762: 1400 /(AA transcon: 9F/30C/119Y) = 7.86 gal/seat/hour
300-6 1700/ (AA:16/251Y) = 6.36 gal/seat/hour


Also, the promised 20% on the 787 is a big deal given these numbers, with all of the larger planes being less fuel efficent (except the 777, which I understand is better on a seat/hour basis than even the 738).

finally, if these numbers are correct, then AS and CO are sitting pretty They would have the best fleets by far...

EWRuser

The Scotland flights must be doing pretty well or Delta wouldn't have added JFK-Edinburgh very recently. In a 752, by the way (which, once again, is in fact very efficient relative to existing planes with comparable mission capability). More generally, Delta's recent moves are testament that CO's ex-EWR TATL policy is successful, as in plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. I know I'm repeating myself, but I just don't see these flights high on the at-risk list. (CGN might be special due to the new LH DUS-EWR, I have no inside regarding the effect of that.)

CO FF

Here's an interesting way of looking at the stats:
18 new 739ERs @ 173 seats each = 3114 new seats
Cut 20 735s @ 114 seats each = 2280 cuts
Cut 47 733s @ 124 seats each = 5828 cuts

So, this is cutting 5000 seats of net lift capacity per day, which is a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of CO. If you use a rough number of 25 FAs and 10 pilots per narrowbody (cited on the UA thread re their cuts - I can't vouch for it), this net reduction of 50 a/c means 500 pilots, 1250 FAs and (I presume) hundreds of ramp, gate, ticket, etc. staff.

Economically, the 739s will operate far more efficiently both on fuel (see below) and staffing (1 FA per 43.25 pax, vs 1 per 31 on 733 and 1 per 38 on 735).

I was one of the people who put this together on the AA board. You have to take these #s with a grain of salt for a bunch of reasons: I don't know if these were stage-length adjusted fuel use figures; I don't know what engine type(s) they apply to; I don't know if they are for a/c with winglets. There are a whole lot of variables here that impact these #s.