ATC "cancellation" of scheduled carrier flights?

A good friend of mine just got back from London and flew RT on British Airways. He said the service was awesome. The funny thing is the airlines out of Europe are able to do that with fuel much higher in Europe.

Are they subsidized?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bonehenge wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:19:31 GMT, Judah wrote:

Sam Spade wrote in news:5nKHg.14$c07.3@fed1read04:

Like they care about customer service?

Some do. The profitable ones, anyway.


There's more than one?

I thought JetBlue and Southwest were both profitable...

Jose wrote:
Are they subsidized?

No, not any longer. I think all former flag carries in EU-Europe were
privatized in the 90s. A lot of the smaller ones have since gone out of
business or were bought by their bigger competitors.

Judah writes:
Sam Spade wrote
Judah wrote:
Sam Spade wrote
Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:

While discussing reimbursement of hotel bills from a major airline, I
was told that my flight(s) were cancelled BY ATC.

Airlines cancel flights. But, when they cancel because of ATC delays
they are unable to absorb into their fleet operational planning the
airline typically considers that to be a cancellation that they did not
cause. It is not unlike cancellation for weather.

That's a bad customer service policy.

Like they care about customer service?

Some do. The profitable ones, anyway.

I thought "profitable airlines" was an oxymoron.

I've read that the airline industry in toto has yet
to show a net profit for its nearly 100 year history.

Judah wrote:
Bonehenge wrote in
:


On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:19:31 GMT, Judah wrote:


Sam Spade wrote in news:5nKHg.14$c07.3@fed1read04:

Like they care about customer service?

Some do. The profitable ones, anyway.


There's more than one?


I thought JetBlue and Southwest were both profitable...

Southwest has been profitable recently because of fuel hedging. That is
running out.

JetBlue is profitable because they are playing games with amortization
of aircraft costs aided and abetted by AirBus (a subsidized aircraft
manufacturer).

Jose wrote:
A good friend of mine just got back from London and flew RT on British
Airways. He said the service was awesome. The funny thing is the
airlines out of Europe are able to do that with fuel much higher in
Europe.


Are they subsidized?

Jose


If they are, why not ours? I think KLM is. I don't know
about BA.How can American air carriers compete with a higher
Euro AND Government subsidy by the respective Governments?

Not possible

If foreign carriers get US domestic routes its all over but
the shouting.Remember the glory days of Pan-Am and TWA?
America dominated transcontinental traffic.

Why not now?

Two reasons. The FAA is inept and "Bean Counters and Suits"
run airlines in America. The aviation spirit and blood is dying

No new ideas or looking around corners.It's all about
"Bottom Line" and making everyone happy through politically
correct tyranny.

I guarantee the FAA spends(wastes) more tax money on
Diversity classes and social programs kissing the black ass
and investigating if some woman got her feelings hurt than
promoting aviation and new ideas. The FAA is not much better
than HUD. A big Government cluster ****

The passion is gone from American aviation. There is no
leadership or fire in the belly for new ideas

Now everyone is treated like cattle so some rag head *******
don't sue. I say jack all Muslims under 25 up. If they bitch
and whine and are carrying a foreign passport, tell them
tough ****.

That's why American aviation is on the ropes

No balls and politically correct stupidity

Where is Chuck Yeager and Howard Hughes when we need them?

-----Original Message-----
From: MrBiff [mailto Posted At: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:05 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: ATC "cancellation" of scheduled carrier flights?
Subject: ATC "cancellation" of scheduled carrier flights?

...

Where is Chuck Yeager and Howard Hughes when we need them?

I cannot attest to Howard Hughes, but I have heard and met Mr. Yeager
and he was definitely a gentleman. I've never heard him utter a bigoted
or racist remark and he certainly writes with passion, but more
eloquence than Mr. Biff.

While there may be truth to Mr. Biff's claim of more money spent by the
FAA on diversity than aviation, references would be a lot more
persuasive than rhetoric. There may also be some truth to diversity
quashing competence in the aviation industry, but such a racist tone at
that taken by Mr. Biff only fuels the fires of those pushing diversity
at the cost of competence.

I think Mr. Yeager would care less about the color of a person's skin or
their gender, and would place great value on their ingenuity,
responsibility, and competence. We should all be so magnanimous.

In article vM1Ig.118$c07.112@fed1read04, Sam Spade
wrote:
There's more than one?


I thought JetBlue and Southwest were both profitable...

Southwest has been profitable recently because of fuel hedging. That is
running out.


Southwest has been profitable every year for some 30+ years. Their fuel
hedge has expired and been renewed several times. The fuel hedge isn't
the reason that they've been profitable, it is simply one of the
reasons. The big reason is that management runs the company well and
treats the employees well. In turn, the employees work hard for the
company and the customers. That "big reason" is missing in most of the
other major carriers.

I am concerned, however, that Southwest is beginning to lose its spark,
and mess with a model that has worked well for 30+ years.


JKG

Jonathan Goodish wrote:



Southwest has been profitable every year for some 30+ years. Their fuel
hedge has expired and been renewed several times. The fuel hedge isn't
the reason that they've been profitable, it is simply one of the
reasons. The big reason is that management runs the company well and
treats the employees well. In turn, the employees work hard for the
company and the customers. That "big reason" is missing in most of the
other major carriers.

I am concerned, however, that Southwest is beginning to lose its spark,
and mess with a model that has worked well for 30+ years.


JKG

I should have said Southwest has been profitable recently primarily
because of fuel hedges.

When Herb stepped down the special status of the employee groups is
slowly descending into the morass that is typical of all U.S. airlines.

The other reason SWA has made money is by operting only one type of
aircraft (one of the cheaper to buy and maintain). It prevents them
from being an international carrier, though, which means they are not
full service in that sense.

They have also saved money by not playing with the other airlines, such
as interline baggage transfers, which does not serve their customers well.

Having said that, all in all, SWA does better than most, but not as good
as they used to. And, their fares are generally higher than the
compeition, although they seem to be able to gloss over that.

I use American often to fly LAX to IAD for $350 or so round trip. I
also use SWA to fly SNA to OKC, $650 rount trip.

Airlines don't need to be full service. That's exactly why they are not
making a profit. Each of the majors is trying to be all things to all
people and compete with every other airline on every front. With the
exception of a few airlines, they have lost the concept of value and have
made their seats into commodities, competing only on price.

It doesn't have to be that way, but the majors are run too poorly to do
anything about it. The majors could choose niche markets just like SWA and
JetBlue have done and then they would be able to charge a fair price for
their tickets and make a buck.

Instead, they try to compete with JetBlue and SWA by cutting every cost
they can - charging for food and standby changes, reducing the quality of
maintenance on the planes, reducing the quality of the staff, and reducing
the amount of legroom so they can fit a few extra seats (even though the
net result is many flights end up empty), Basically they have reduced the
value of the service they offer - making it worth less than the $300 you
paid to get to LAX because it is such a miserable experience... They are
putting themselves out of business.

Sam Spade wrote in news:uTeIg.165$c07.55@fed1read04:

Jonathan Goodish wrote:



Southwest has been profitable every year for some 30+ years. Their
fuel hedge has expired and been renewed several times. The fuel hedge
isn't the reason that they've been profitable, it is simply one of the
reasons. The big reason is that management runs the company well and
treats the employees well. In turn, the employees work hard for the
company and the customers. That "big reason" is missing in most of the
other major carriers.

I am concerned, however, that Southwest is beginning to lose its spark,
and mess with a model that has worked well for 30+ years.


JKG

I should have said Southwest has been profitable recently primarily
because of fuel hedges.

When Herb stepped down the special status of the employee groups is
slowly descending into the morass that is typical of all U.S. airlines.

The other reason SWA has made money is by operting only one type of
aircraft (one of the cheaper to buy and maintain). It prevents them
from being an international carrier, though, which means they are not
full service in that sense.

They have also saved money by not playing with the other airlines, such
as interline baggage transfers, which does not serve their customers
well.

Having said that, all in all, SWA does better than most, but not as good
as they used to. And, their fares are generally higher than the
compeition, although they seem to be able to gloss over that.

I use American often to fly LAX to IAD for $350 or so round trip. I
also use SWA to fly SNA to OKC, $650 rount trip.