They say the definition of insanity is doing the same crazy things over and over. In this case, continuing to rely on connections through PHL. What is amazing, is the continued belief by managment that the salvation of the company lies in moving more of its customer base through this sewer. What's next, all inclusive vacation fares to Baghdad? 😛h34r:
Another Phl Nightmare
- Thread starter Art at ISP
- Start date
Art at ISP
Veteran
Actually, common sense would dictate that the company make peace with PIT, which IS properly configured to be a hub, and then make PHL just an international gateway. I know they spent a ton at PHL, but I don't think it is money well spent, considering the operational limitations there.
Another move which would make sense (almost a guarantee it won't happen) would be to have RJ service ISP-PIT to alleviate part of the PHL burden.
Then again--we're dealing with Fort Fumble here...will any of this happen?? nahhhhhhh... 😱
Another move which would make sense (almost a guarantee it won't happen) would be to have RJ service ISP-PIT to alleviate part of the PHL burden.
Then again--we're dealing with Fort Fumble here...will any of this happen?? nahhhhhhh... 😱
Art -- please explain to me how you were informed of the flight crew's schedule, including how long their breaks were? Are you a Crew Scheduler? Otherwise, there's no way you could find out. The PHL gate agents have NO access to our personal schedules. They can however, pull up the a/c schedule of that day, but you do not know that the crew stayed with that a/c all day. The crew could have swapped into the a/c right before that leg. The computer does not show that. The only people who know our schedules is Crew Scheduling and the flight crew. There is no way a gate agent can pull up a crew members schedule, only the schedule of the a/c. And as any Express flight crew can attest, we hardly EVER stay on the same a/c all day.Art at ISP said:
Art at ISP
Veteran
Hey folks,
Don't shoot the messenger here--he was just trying to help. Also I am not the average passenger--I am much better informed than some of you think, PLUS I am a licensed pilot.
I don't claim to be an expert or know it all, but I know more than the average passenger.
Let's let it go already--and concentrate on getting management to fix the darned problem!!!
Don't shoot the messenger here--he was just trying to help. Also I am not the average passenger--I am much better informed than some of you think, PLUS I am a licensed pilot.
I don't claim to be an expert or know it all, but I know more than the average passenger.
Let's let it go already--and concentrate on getting management to fix the darned problem!!!
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,123
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree, but, Art, would you bother to connect to ROC from ISP via PIT?Art at ISP said:
At first I thought for sure that U had no real intention of staying at PIT, but know I'm thinking that it is sincere about turning it into a RJ hub. That strategy, especially if accompanied by increased UAL presence/code share, could leverage U's profitability at PHL and maybe even help UAL at ORD/IAD. At least that's what I"m guessing today.
PIT would be a traditional hubbing operation, mostly with RJ's. This will allow U to offer frequency of connectivity through PIT, while focusing on the local O and D market at PHL, with rolling banks and the international connections. I would want to see fewer RJs at PHL with mostly mainline using the jet runways and turboprops using the commuter runway and the F terminal.
UAL could replace it's east coast connectivity from IAD to PIT, retaining connections for it's remaining Europe flights and its Star Alliance partners. (I'd think that UAL would want to avoid the big bill coming soon for IAD's terminal upgrade, if it could.)
However, the city of PHL and the ACAA maybe trying to exact such onerous conditions, including the completetly rediculous condition of guaranteeing wages and pax throughput in exchange for airport rates and charges. I still think that's illegal. It may even be questionable if the state does that with not-airport revenue.
Maybe you'd have a turbo-prop or two from ISP to PHL a day, timed for the business traveller. Then you'd have RJ's through PIT for connectivity/frequency. These frequencies would be sold to U and UAL FF's through the respective websites, having gotten the state of PA to pay down the debt at PIT (benefitting ALL carriers at PIT, by the way) AND maybe, if needed getting more mainline gates at PHL in exchange for fewer of the F gates with loading bridges. Fewer flights at PHL with larger aircraft to reduce congestion but serve the local market, more RJ connectivity through PIT with a feasible PIT cost structure.
Perhaps, it does make sense for the State and Feds to bail ACAA out of a misguided expansion at PIT which can be blamed on all parties (local, state and fed) as well as obviously changed circumstances.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
What? All because US basically said "give us the mecca hub or we leave) in the late 80s?RowUnderDCA said:
Give me a break. If the state is going to eat the debt at PIT then US should get the finger on the leases and it should then be thrown open to all comers (with the new and lower cost structure). Then we'll see how poor of a market PIT really is and see how well a couple hundred more RJs will connect thru PHL.
THe problem with PIT is that the county did what US wanted in the first place.
elmerfishpaw
Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Messages
- 56
- Reaction score
- 0
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 2,123
- Reaction score
- 1
Mr/Ms ByFour:
I understand you sentiment regarding the actions of U, but U's abrogation of its leases was conducted under the supervision of a Federal judge, so I believe that U must be treated by the ACAA as any air carrier wishing to use facilities at PIT. TO do otherwise would violate the ACAA's grant assurances to refrain from economic discrimination. If ACAA were to manage to reduce its debt, all carriers and potential carriers would have to benefit to the extent that each carrier agrees to like conditions of use of the facilities. I am beginning to understand that U's hub and hub-support facilites at PIT have financial participation from more than just ACAA or at least that's what Roddey implies with his over-bearing involvment in ACAA's business.
Be that as it may, and I re-emphasize that I sympathize with your point, it is beyond obvious that the Pittsburgh region has the economy and market of 2003 and the airport of 2003. These do not seem to be matching up. However, the airline/airport system in the US needs capacity for the future, especially runway and airspace capacity. PIT has that in abundance. To maintain the facility out-of-mothballs, which is preferable, ACAA and the region may need to make compromises.
Perhaps, ACAA and local/state officials could agree with a strict use-it-or-lose-it provision in new leases, or a common-use agreement for gate allocation. These provisions are expensive to retain to the sponsor's discretion, but valuable to preserve the utility of the asset.
Now, using small jets to occupy gate space is another question, but it is much more relevent to airports under congestion than to PIT, anytime in the next decade or so.
I understand you sentiment regarding the actions of U, but U's abrogation of its leases was conducted under the supervision of a Federal judge, so I believe that U must be treated by the ACAA as any air carrier wishing to use facilities at PIT. TO do otherwise would violate the ACAA's grant assurances to refrain from economic discrimination. If ACAA were to manage to reduce its debt, all carriers and potential carriers would have to benefit to the extent that each carrier agrees to like conditions of use of the facilities. I am beginning to understand that U's hub and hub-support facilites at PIT have financial participation from more than just ACAA or at least that's what Roddey implies with his over-bearing involvment in ACAA's business.
Be that as it may, and I re-emphasize that I sympathize with your point, it is beyond obvious that the Pittsburgh region has the economy and market of 2003 and the airport of 2003. These do not seem to be matching up. However, the airline/airport system in the US needs capacity for the future, especially runway and airspace capacity. PIT has that in abundance. To maintain the facility out-of-mothballs, which is preferable, ACAA and the region may need to make compromises.
Perhaps, ACAA and local/state officials could agree with a strict use-it-or-lose-it provision in new leases, or a common-use agreement for gate allocation. These provisions are expensive to retain to the sponsor's discretion, but valuable to preserve the utility of the asset.
Now, using small jets to occupy gate space is another question, but it is much more relevent to airports under congestion than to PIT, anytime in the next decade or so.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
You still don't seem to understand:RowUnderDCA said:
U wants out of the leases. All the ACAA has to do is say "sure."
They then lower the cost by reducing the debt, and they don't enter into any new leases that are not use-it-or-lose-it. U then either maintains a presence, or the county can seek other entrants. It's that simple.
I don't particularly care that U ran to the judge to get the leases overturned, and neither does the ACAA, the county, or the state of PA.
Really, what is U going to do--file suit against the ACAA for unfair practices after they went to abandon the hub? I will move back to PIT so that I can sit on that jury. U wanted out. If the ACAA says "see ya" you will not find a judge on the planet who will do anything about what follows.
As an aside, you guys might want to consider the difference between Roddey and Dave--Roddey is currently running a county that is in the black and in remarkably good fiscal shape considering the circumstances and he was an extremely sucessful in the private sector before he ran for office. I think what U fails to realize is that Roddey is better at the art of making money than U has ever been and he's not going to bend over and take it from a company that could not pay it's bills, ran to the judge for survival, and still can't pay it's bills. I personally hope that Rendell has that same attitude.
Furthermore, I can name dozens of PROFITABLE businesses in Western Pennsylvania (or PA as a whole) that are far better recipients of any kind of state aid to the tune of $500 million than US. That have not given the region the finger.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
I'm simply not a fan of giving breaks to businesses that have done nothing but had the hand out for years (witness the original construction of the new terminal, the new hanger that never happened, and now this).PITbull said:
The more I think about this, it's a losing proposition either way. If the states caves and "Reduces" the debt, the state is out $500 million for a few thousand jobs. While I don't want to sound insensitive, it's far, far to high of a dollar per job figure. If they don't cave, you get a non-hub airport and fewer jobs. In two or three years when US goes under or is sold (and I truly do believe that to be Dave and Dave's exit strategy), PIT gets the axe as a hub anyway. Might as well do it now.
I think the other important thing to consider is this: no other reasonably sized and currently non-hub city is going to cut a sweetheart deal for US in today's economy and in light of the stunt with PIT. PHL will not take the RJ load. It's operationally impossible, and a new runway is 10 years off, at least.
My plan: if you must lower the costs, refuse to grant US (or any other new entrants) anything but "use gate or lose gate" leases in the future. So now you have a lower cost airport that you can't gate-camp at. Roddey then puts on a full-court press to LUV, B6, etc. I'd even throw in an EMB maintenance facility. For B6, of course.
Oh, and ensure that no further state money is spent on anything at PHL that US wants. Like, say, a NEW RUNWAY.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Clue,
You get no argument or confrontation from me. If I were NOT an employee, as a PA tax payer, I would be pissed as hell. Its one thing if U wants to leave, stay, bring in MAA or not, partly or all. That's there business. But the minute they want tax payer dollars to help them with the decision to stay or go, and in my minds eye with no benefit to the state, Locals or LABOR, then I see no point in absorbing more debt with no assurances that U is taking any fair risk or if they will even stay in the forwarding years.
I am a U employee, and my view is slightly biased. I want the biggest bang for my tax dollar and my job security....because livable wage employement puts back into the coffers of Pennsylvania, short tern and long term. I say, if they cannot assure a mainline presence with a minimum flights in PIT...."bye bye birdie."
If they are looking for Mid Atlantic only here in PIT, then as a local comunity, I would ASSIST with a few dollars only, in building a hanger and Reservation on the committment that U stays for years (in writing). But I would not give them a savings on the leases.
Higher money given comes with higher stakes!
You get no argument or confrontation from me. If I were NOT an employee, as a PA tax payer, I would be pissed as hell. Its one thing if U wants to leave, stay, bring in MAA or not, partly or all. That's there business. But the minute they want tax payer dollars to help them with the decision to stay or go, and in my minds eye with no benefit to the state, Locals or LABOR, then I see no point in absorbing more debt with no assurances that U is taking any fair risk or if they will even stay in the forwarding years.
I am a U employee, and my view is slightly biased. I want the biggest bang for my tax dollar and my job security....because livable wage employement puts back into the coffers of Pennsylvania, short tern and long term. I say, if they cannot assure a mainline presence with a minimum flights in PIT...."bye bye birdie."
If they are looking for Mid Atlantic only here in PIT, then as a local comunity, I would ASSIST with a few dollars only, in building a hanger and Reservation on the committment that U stays for years (in writing). But I would not give them a savings on the leases.
Higher money given comes with higher stakes!
From the original (earlier, critical post by av8or):
"There was a time shortly after 9/11 that all the pax were compliant and pleasant and afforded us the respect and authority that we deserved, but no longer. The old "i paid for this ticket i'm going to do whatever i want" attitude is back, worse even than before. And of course the company won't back up crewmembers. I remember hearing stories of the company appologizing to pax and cowtowing to their wishes when they were not complying with crewmember instructions"
Compliant? Av8or, get serious. Life is not Sunday School. Sure, there's a lot of loudmouthed idiots traveling (and a bunch of very nice people as well), but if you think you can lobotomize the customers, you're smoking dope.The crap they spew about having things coming has its origins in your marketing department, where. until they figured out half their US1's were making status on less than the cost of a single Envoy ticket to Rome, used to make those kinds of promises to the pax. Meantime, kid, this is America. What made this country great was our individual curiousity, and the willingness to question authority. Compliant??? You should work in Europe. That's compliant. Having lived there a number of years, I finally concluded that the basic difference between Americans and their overseas compatriots was, when we get to a jam at the intersection, the European waits, and the American cuts through the gas station. I got your compliant. When they clean up Philly, you'll get compliant. In the meantime, watch yourself walking through gas stations....and remember the name of your company...it starts with US (with apologies to marketing).
"There was a time shortly after 9/11 that all the pax were compliant and pleasant and afforded us the respect and authority that we deserved, but no longer. The old "i paid for this ticket i'm going to do whatever i want" attitude is back, worse even than before. And of course the company won't back up crewmembers. I remember hearing stories of the company appologizing to pax and cowtowing to their wishes when they were not complying with crewmember instructions"
Compliant? Av8or, get serious. Life is not Sunday School. Sure, there's a lot of loudmouthed idiots traveling (and a bunch of very nice people as well), but if you think you can lobotomize the customers, you're smoking dope.The crap they spew about having things coming has its origins in your marketing department, where. until they figured out half their US1's were making status on less than the cost of a single Envoy ticket to Rome, used to make those kinds of promises to the pax. Meantime, kid, this is America. What made this country great was our individual curiousity, and the willingness to question authority. Compliant??? You should work in Europe. That's compliant. Having lived there a number of years, I finally concluded that the basic difference between Americans and their overseas compatriots was, when we get to a jam at the intersection, the European waits, and the American cuts through the gas station. I got your compliant. When they clean up Philly, you'll get compliant. In the meantime, watch yourself walking through gas stations....and remember the name of your company...it starts with US (with apologies to marketing).
