Loadfactors don't matter to most of the UAX carriers. They are paid on a fixed fee per departure system by UA. Whether the CRJ has 5 or 50 people, the UAX carrier gets a fixed amount. UA assumes the risk.

The real danger for the UAX carriers is that a BK UAL will demand lower rates and thus reduce revenue.

That's right. Thank you for reminding me. Still, the extra revenue from a higher load factor must funnel back into UA's coffers.

I do know the UAX airlines are worried about the (flight) service reductions, as it may impact their ability to generate passanger traffic to and from the hubs.

Sea_Tigger,

As someone mentioned, UAX is fee per departure, so all of their routes are "profitable." Mainline is having problems because revenue is currently lower than the system CASM of about 11.35 cents. UAX is currently at 16 cents on their CASM, but are shielded from the ramifications of that by their cost plus contracts. The expanded UAX flying is there primarily to stem losses when nearly all routes at trunk carriers are money losers, shrink capacity without shrinking flight options, and because UA management will try anything trendy to try and get Wall Street off their case(fat chance!). I don't know much about UsAir service cuts, but I would guess that those cuts are a result of the fact that UsAir currently has a limited number of SJ's in it's fleet, and is retiring turboprops.

Brucemcal,
The objection isn't to the formation of a new LCC, it's that Tilton wants it to be a separate corporation with new(non-UA) employees.

Well, god forbid anything UA does makes sense, but it sure seems silly for them to prop-up money-losing routes by UAX, much less try and expand them.

Unless those UAX passangers are bringing in sufficient revenue on United flights from the hubs to cover the cost of flying them into the hubs, it seems to be a mix of insanity and stupidity to keep it going, much less expand it.

What happened to the overcrowded ATC System ? With all the 38-70 seat RJs that seem to be multiplying like rabbits(not fish) what do you think will happen to the on time performance ? Answer : evidently no one expects the economy to turn around in our lifetime. So while all the so-called mainstream airlines are switching to regional jets, the discount outfits are upgrading to new 737 -800s and Airbus 320s.
Guess who will survive ? The US aviation Fleet is really old compared to some of their alliance partners. Whats the difference ?
for one thing the executives of the foreign airlines do not get paid millions of dollars (or Euros).

At his last quarterly financials press conference before "resigning," to pursue other interests, Rono Dutta had some interesting comments about the RJ's. He said that UA only makes money when a pax gets off an SJ and onto a mainline flight. So naturally one of the analysts questioned why he wanted to move the percentage of UAX flying from around 20% up to %40. He didn't have much of an answer, but have no fear Hacker's here!

Isin't Starfish a snyc program motorola uses? I could swear that's the program that came with my Timeport Startac. If so, wouldn't that prohibit UAL from using the name in any public way?


edit-- http://www.starfish.com/ did a little searching after my initial post, and indeed found their IS a company with that name already.

[This message has been edited by GGpillow (edited 02-05-2003).]

They could merge with UPS and be known as "Brown Star Fish". Some of you might know the alternate meaning of this.

Dude, this is an *internal* CODE NAME. Not gonna be marketed to the public like this.

Companies do not necessarily have a trademark on a name under all circumstances, just where copying would cause market confusion. E.g., United Van Lines or United Artists seems to be no problem. Lexis internet research lost their infringement case against Lexus (Toyota) luxury vehicles.

Likewise, a starfish software program or restaurant would probably not block UA if that were also the eventual real name, not merely the code name.

Yet it seems particularly suitable for a project code. (Reminds me of the military!) As I mentioned in another thread, one can chop off one leg from a "parent" starfish, and the piece will eventually grow back into a whole animal.

Appropriate under the circumstances, no?

UAL is in BK, I don't the the judge will allow any assests(route, planes, ect.) to be moved anywhere.

Again, if UAL starts to sell/x-fer stuff the BK judge is going to make sure it goes to the highest bidder, at that point in the game if the assest are to leave UAL then it the BK judge to make sure UAL get the most $$$ for it, that said the LCC could be out bid, and if routes are involved...

Why not? If United can present a plan to it's creditors showing how those assets can make money (or at least lose less then they are now), it is in their interests to allow the BK judge to make the move.

It can (and has been) debated whether or not a "Southwest United" can compete any better (or worse) than the current mainline product.

But until UA releases more details on the economics of such a spin-off airline...

I somehow missed this thread (perhaps because I've been trying to dodge the flame tosses in this forum)...

... but the FIRST thing that popped into my mind was Tom Green in Charlie's Angels.

Advertising gimmick? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif