UNITED AIR LINES TO LAY OFF 950 PILOTS

Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Dighera writes:

Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
seems like a sound strategy to me.

How does that work?

Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
airlines.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Pretty well, which is why it is a goal for most companies, not just
airlines.

Fewer flights increases utilization of assets? Examples?

Mxsmanic wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:

Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
seems like a sound strategy to me.

How does that work?

You don't know how capital asset utilization works? It's a fundamental
factor in running a service-oriented transportation business, especially
an airline.

On Jun 29, 2:38*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Larry Dighera writes:
I expect to see a lot more of this sort of thing occurring as the
economy worsens:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...ot-memo-june23...
* * Today we announced initial details concerning the first wave of
* * pilot furloughs resulting from our plans to take 100 aircraft from
* * our mainline fleet due to record high oil prices and a softening
* * U.S. economy. The first notices to furlough approximately 100
* * pilots for the flying month of September will be issued in
* * mid-July.

* * By the end of 2009, when we expect to complete the full reduction
* * of our 94 B737 aircraft and six B747s (see June 4 NewsReal), we
* * anticipate the need to furlough approximately 950 active pilots..
* * This process is one of the difficult but necessary steps we need
* * to take to size our business appropriately to reflect the current
* * market reality....

Companies that try to reduce costs rather than increase revenue eventually
tend to fold, because you can only reduce costs to zero (and you'll go out of
business long before that), whereas you can increase revenue indefinitely..
Cost-cutting is easy for even the stupidest corporate officers to understand,
but it's a poor, short-term, emergency measure, not a competent way to manage
a company.- Hide quoted text -

increase revenue indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
companies that have done that? and just out of interest which
companies have you managed? or perhaps you are simulating company
management?

terry writes:

increase revenue indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
companies that have done that?

Microsoft, Amazon, Google, General Electric ... virtually all large companies.
They did not become large by cutting costs.

On Jun 29, 8:32*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
increase revenue *indefinately hah, do you want to give us a list of
companies that have done that?

Microsoft, Amazon, Google, General Electric ... virtually all large companies.
They did not become large by cutting costs.

and can you demonstrate they increased revenue continuously , year
after year.?
and then read the following link re amazon slashing 1300 jobs.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5300495.html

all business, look at expenses and revenues.

terry writes:

and can you demonstrate they increased revenue continuously , year
after year.?

I said indefinitely, not continuously.

Mxsmanic wrote:

you can increase revenue indefinitely.

Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
increase revenue indefinitely.

yedyegiss writes:

Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
increase revenue indefinitely.

It depends on the airline. Southwest is doing okay. United is not. They
both exist in the same climate. The difference between them is in management.

Mxsmanic wrote:

yedyegiss writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

you can increase revenue indefinitely.

Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
increase revenue indefinitely.

It depends on the airline.

You failed to explain how, and instead went into your usual paroxysm of
bloviation. In my experience, a person who postulates a solution to a
business problem, such as "you can increase revenue indefinitely," and
then turns out to be incapable of explaining how this can actually
accomplished, tends to be extremely stupid. This applies even moreso
when the person postulating such a solution is in miserable economic
straits, and seems incapable of following his own advice.