You need to be a member to view our links.
Here's a letter that employees received from Jeff Smisek at work today.
"
From: JeffSmisek Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 4:39:31 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) Subject: United to Reduce Flying from Cleveland Dear Cleveland co-worker: I want to let you know that we have made the difficult decision to substantially reduce our flying from Cleveland. We will make this reduction in stages beginning in April. I wanted you to know this information before the press found out, but unfortunately they found out earlier than we planned. I apologize for this getting in the press before we were able to tell you directly. Our hub in Cleveland hasn’t been profitable for over a decade, and has generated tens of millions of dollars of annual losses in recent years. We simply cannot continue to bear these losses. No city has been more supportive of its hub carrier, and no group of employees has been more dedicated to providing great service, but the demand for hub-level connecting flying through Cleveland simply isn’t there. Ultimately, we can’t create demand, but we do have a responsibility to react to it. We must make the right business decisions, even when those decisions are painful, so we can continue to compete effectively and invest appropriately in our business. While our decision to reduce our flying was driven by our continued losses in Cleveland, the timing of the flight reductions has been accelerated by industry-wide effects of new federal regulations that impact us and our regional partner flying. Those new regulations have caused mainline airlines to hire regional pilots, while simultaneously significantly reducing the pool of new pilots from which regional carriers themselves can hire. Although this is an industry issue, it directly affects us and requires us to reduce our regional partner flying, as several of our regional partners are beginning to have difficulty flying their schedules due to reduced new pilot availability. We need to reduce that flying in our most unprofitable markets, which unfortunately are out of Cleveland. As a result, we will be reducing our average daily departures from Cleveland by around 60%. We expect to be able to keep almost all of our mainline departures (reducing only one of our 26 peak day mainline departures), but will need to reduce our regional departures from Cleveland by over 70%. Together, this will reduce our capacity (available seat miles) out of Cleveland by around 36%. We will make these reductions in roughly one-third increments in each of early April, May and June. When the schedule reductions are fully implemented in June, we plan to offer 72 peak-day flights from Cleveland, and serve 20 destinations from Cleveland on a non-stop basis, including to all our hubs, and to key business markets likeLGA, DCA and BOS. We will also serve from Cleveland on a non-stop basis key leisure markets, like FLL, MCO,TPA and RSW. Importantly, our new schedule out of Cleveland will cover 58% of the current Cleveland-originating domestic passenger demand on a non-stop basis, and will permit Cleveland residents to fly to almost every one of the destinations they fly to today, by connecting over one or more of our other hubs. We expect to be able to keep our pilot and flight attendant bases in Cleveland, because we anticipate being able to keep substantially all of our mainline departures from Cleveland. We also expect to be able to keep all of our current technical operations in Cleveland, because we anticipate having the opportunity to work on the mainline aircraft. However, since we handle our regional partners’ flying above and below the wing in Cleveland, we will be forced to reduce staffing in airport operations and in catering because of the significant reduction in regional partner flying. We currently expect a reduction in force affecting up to 430 airport operations positions and approximately 40 catering personnel in Cleveland. Those reductions in force will likely begin in June. Each employee will be receiving detailed information relating to these reductions in the coming weeks. Affected airport operations employees may have system displacement options or other opportunities to maintain employment with United, and we will work with the IAM leadership to explore other programs that may mitigate the impact of these reductions on IAM-represented airport employees. While we cannot change the outcome, we will take every action we can to implement these reductions in a manner that upholds our culture. Throughout this difficult process, we are committed to treating our people with the same level of openness, dignity and respect that our Cleveland co-workers have shown our customers and each other over the years. Our HR team is working hard to support you, and will be providing you with answers and assistance over the coming weeks and months. I regret that we will be forced to reduce staffing in Cleveland, but we have no choice, given the level of continued losses we have suffered in Cleveland, the pressure that the new federal regulations have placed on our regional partners, and our reduction in regional flying. I know that these changes will be difficult for many of you, and this outcome is not what any of us wanted. Sincerely, Jeff |
For once, I did the right thing. Glad I took the early out.
You need to be a member to view our links. |
From flyertalk.com:
Seasonal service: CHS, CUN, NAS, SJU
Eliminated service: ATL, AUS, BFD, BUF, BTV, CLT, CMH, DAY, DUJ, ERI, FNT, FKL, GRR, GSP, MDT, BDL, IND, JHW, MCI, SDF, MSN, MHT, MIA, MSP, YUL, BNA, MSY, OKC, PKB, PHL, PHX, PIT, PWM, PVD, RDU, RIC, ROC, SYR, YYZ
New peak day departures: 72 (-64%, from 199)
New peak day nonstop destinations: 20 (-66%, from 58)
New peak day seats: 6,121 (-51%, from 12,384)
Per comparison to UA interactive flight map, it appears that SAN, SEA, PBI are casualties not mentioned in the screenshot.
Hopefully another carrier will fill some of the capacity, I have heard that both JetBlue and Alaska have expressed interest. What about these small airports that are losing service? Sounds like the merger wasn't as great as planned...
Here is an interesting article: You need to be a member to view our links.
Squawk this to bring outside discussion here to this forum too: You need to be a member to view our links.
OK, I kept me mouth shut on "the other website" because I didn't want to sound like sour grapes; but I have to say I don 't believe Smisek's unprofitability statement.
CO in the Kellner years said CLE was profitable and UA in its earliest days said the same thing. If CLE is unprofitable UA deliberately made it unprofitable. If you look at CPE numbers, with every schedule cut, emplanement costs at CLE rose to more than double 2007. The cost of fuel doubled, yeah, but so did CLE yields. How was overhead and G&A allocated? I'd have to see those numbers before I'm convinced.
I feel especially bad for the great CO/UA guys I've known on this board.
Massey has a good point---depends on how the cost is allocated. It was obvious that Ua had way too many gates and the main 8:00am flight bank was great- but misallocated staffing for the rest of the day. The connection banks really were devaluated in the last 15 months and were not listed on most Ual.com schedules.
ATL, MSP, CLT, PHL, PHX and Toronto are all hubs of other airlines and made for logical cuts. Most of the spokes will not really be missed. Mci, Bdl, Rdu, Gsp may be the most missed and have little chance of replacement. With the current number of carriers most likely dropped destinations are of little value to other carriers other maybe Phx. However many expect AA to start cuts and not adds at that location.
This is plan C and was accelerated in the last 8 weeks. Plan B would have been a bit better for Cle. Notice how in the last several weeks the massive cancellation of scheduled regional flights for weather way beyond actual weather problems such as 1/26,27,28. That was the day I knew plan C would be taking place.
The airport will survive- but will not have connecting passengers. Probably will have better departure times for local travels rather that for banks. Good luck to all!!!
Massey, I have thoughts both ways on the CLE operation and if it's losing money.
On one hand, UA is going to be on the hook now for something like $20 million for failing to keep their agreement with the State of Ohio that guaranteed a certain amount of service through 2015. That's serious money any way you look at it, and it tells me CLE is probably losing money right now in CLE.
But for 10 years running? Then why the huge expansion plans that were announced by CO late in 2007? In the spring of 2008, CO added DSM, OMA, GRB, LIT, OKC, TUL, BNA, SAV, CHS and BHM. They were going to add LAN and AZO, but that was the first sign of trouble, when those announced routes were cut before they even got in the air. Then the economy tanked, and the plans were scrubbed. CLE not only lost those 10 cities that they had just started, but by 2011, CO had cut out about 35 destination from CLE, and the hub never recovered.
So I think CLE is losing money-now. But I don't believe Smisek when he said it's been a solid decade of losses. Too bad Anet decided to boot me, as a retired UA employee who spent all my years in CLE, I'd have some choice words for Smisek. But alas, Falcon84 has to live on in this diminished form here.
Just posted this on the UA Facebook page: I wonder if they will remove it or try to answer the question:
So, United, which is the correct statement (or which is the lie)?
1) Comments from Greg Hart on 6/25/12: “Cleveland is to be commended” for encouraging customers to choose United Airlines, said Greg Hart, United’s senior vice president/network. “It is incredibly helpful….Year over year, (Cleveland Hopkins International Airport’s) performance is better than some other hubs in terms of profitability. The hub is in a far better place than it would have been without the efforts of the team in Cleveland.”
2) Jeff Smisek’s letter to employees announcing the cutbacks on 2/1/14: “Our hub in Cleveland hasn’t been profitable for over a decade, and has generated tens of millions of dollars of annual losses in recent years. We simply cannot continue to bear these losses.”
They did "respond" with this standard PR statement: You need to be a member to view our links.
United Communications
I will miss the hub, and I feel deeply sorry for all those at UAL who will lose their jobs. That said, United SUCKED. Airfare was ridiculous (900$ to New York on an ERJ!?) and more of my flights were significantly delayed than made it out on time. Continental was an outstanding airline and a great fit for CLE, but we shouldn't be too sad to lose the likes of United.
I'm hoping this brings an increase in mainline service from the likes of AAL and DAL, as well as increases from SWA and maybe a new carrier too. I'm rooting for JetBlue, they're a great carrier.
Hang in there, guys, there are lots of silver linings here.
Most Users Ever Online: 679
Currently Online:
9 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
707guy: 530
yakc130: 351
masseybrown: 318
Corey Betke: 255
nconrad: 249
michi: 205
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 212
Moderators: 0
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 15
Topics: 1657
Posts: 7300
Newest Members:
Rodneyadott, bertita, perla67, BarbarahatAdministrators: Mark Plumley: 430, Chuck Slusarczyk Jr.: 1425, Cole Goldberg: 271