Closing of West Coast Cities
- Thread starter N603P
- Start date
USAirBoyA330
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
At this point I would believe USAIR is run by Martians. Who knows.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Ditto. My non-FRA transatlantics will leave US as of the end of PIT-LGW. The remainder of my travel with US is typically to and from SFO/LAX.
If Dave thinks they can shrink to profitability by gouging customers on the east coast only, they he''s in for a helluva shock when B6 gets those EMBs...
If Dave thinks they can shrink to profitability by gouging customers on the east coast only, they he''s in for a helluva shock when B6 gets those EMBs...
I just don't understand. With the NW/CO codeshare you didn't have one carrier dropping a number of routes and giving them to the other. One simply put their flight number on routes they didn't serve, but which the other carrier did.
I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren't they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?
I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren't they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?
----------------
On 7/19/2003 8:49:22 PM 737nCH11 wrote:
I just don''t understand. With the NW/CO codeshare you didn''t have one carrier dropping a number of routes and giving them to the other. One simply put their flight number on routes they didn''t serve, but which the other carrier did.
I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren''t they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?
----------------
On 7/19/2003 8:49:22 PM 737nCH11 wrote:
I just don''t understand. With the NW/CO codeshare you didn''t have one carrier dropping a number of routes and giving them to the other. One simply put their flight number on routes they didn''t serve, but which the other carrier did.
I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren''t they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?
----------------
PMJI, but you''re talking about entirely different alliances.
Having one * partner dropping routes, only to have them picked up by the other is typical.
I know many here were very happy to see U join the * alliance. However, I don''t think that they realized what would happen once U became a member of the death *.
U will still sell tickets to all of the dropped destinations; it''s just that the passengers will be flying on a * partner. Good luck to everyone at U.
gilbertguy
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2002
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 0
----------------
On 7/19/2003 7:00:01 PM N603P wrote:
Several rumors of all the west coast flying being transfered to our code-share partner United.Can anyone elaborate on these rumors? Target date is December 1st.
US defines West coast as anything West of the East coast!!!
On 7/19/2003 7:00:01 PM N603P wrote:
Several rumors of all the west coast flying being transfered to our code-share partner United.Can anyone elaborate on these rumors? Target date is December 1st.
US defines West coast as anything West of the East coast!!!
bankernclt
Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2002
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
If this rumor is true, which I hope it isn''t, would UAL start flying non-stop to CLT from LAX, SFO, SAN and SEA? I believe UAL already flys non-stop PHL to LAX and SFO. I can''t imagine U''s largest hub, CLT, would be without non-stop service to LAX and SFO. I would think that U would want to continue non-stop service to all of UAL''s hubs, LAX and SFO, along with non-stop service to large UAL focus cities such as SEA.
USAirBoyA330
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 724
- Reaction score
- 0
I think this rumor is getting fueled with the terminal moves and club closings in SFO/LAX. I spoke with the gate agent and we are closing the LAX/SFO USAirways Clubs and moving into United's terminal. But when you look on the COB listings there are job postings for LAX in regional sales and such. I think moving terminals is a great idea esp. in LAX. You can't even move for all the Southwest drama and United's terminal will be easy for our PAX to make connections for codeshare flights.
----------------
On 7/20/2003 8:58:11 AM bankernclt wrote:
If this rumor is true, which I hope it isn''t, would UAL start flying non-stop to CLT from LAX, SFO, SAN and SEA? I believe UAL already flys non-stop PHL to LAX and SFO. I can''t imagine U''s largest hub, CLT, would be without non-stop service to LAX and SFO. I would think that U would want to continue non-stop service to all of UAL''s hubs, LAX and SFO, along with non-stop service to large UAL focus cities such as SEA.
----------------
On 7/20/2003 8:58:11 AM bankernclt wrote:
If this rumor is true, which I hope it isn''t, would UAL start flying non-stop to CLT from LAX, SFO, SAN and SEA? I believe UAL already flys non-stop PHL to LAX and SFO. I can''t imagine U''s largest hub, CLT, would be without non-stop service to LAX and SFO. I would think that U would want to continue non-stop service to all of UAL''s hubs, LAX and SFO, along with non-stop service to large UAL focus cities such as SEA.
----------------
UAL would likely pick up the CLT nonstops to LAX, SFO, and SEA (which are UAL hubs) moments after U drops its service. U''s nonstop service to SAN would likely be the last to go.
USAirBoyA330, the * alliance is run by LH and UAL. Didn''t you find it odd that Tilton (UAL''s CEO) sponsored U''s * membership? Did you think that his sponsorship came for free? You are about to find out why it''s called the death *.
Art at ISP
Veteran
----------------
On 7/20/2003 9:00:32 AM USAirBoyA330 wrote:
I think this rumor is getting fueled with the terminal moves and club closings in SFO/LAX. I spoke with the gate agent and we are closing the LAX/SFO USAirways Clubs and moving into United''s terminal. But when you look on the COB listings there are job postings for LAX in regional sales and such. I think moving terminals is a great idea esp. in LAX. You can''t even move for all the Southwest drama and United''s terminal will be easy for our PAX to make connections for codeshare flights.
----------------
On 7/20/2003 9:00:32 AM USAirBoyA330 wrote:
I think this rumor is getting fueled with the terminal moves and club closings in SFO/LAX. I spoke with the gate agent and we are closing the LAX/SFO USAirways Clubs and moving into United''s terminal. But when you look on the COB listings there are job postings for LAX in regional sales and such. I think moving terminals is a great idea esp. in LAX. You can''t even move for all the Southwest drama and United''s terminal will be easy for our PAX to make connections for codeshare flights.
----------------
Now if we assume that US moves into the UA terminals, and the clubs are closed, what arrangements will be made for US Club members flying on US flights (assuming that they keep them?) Current rules for Red Carpet Club only allow us to use UA club if on UA metal.
One would assume that they would make some arrangement for us, but to assume that this management would do anything that made good business or customer service sense is likely asking too much.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
737nCH11:
737 said: "I just don't understand. With the NW/CO codeshare you didn't have one carrier dropping a number of routes and giving them to the other. One simply put their flight number on routes they didn't serve, but which the other carrier did. I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren't they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?"
Chip answers: I agree with you. The only way either airline derives revenue from the alliance is when a passenger flies on their aircraft. Furthermore, long haul has a lower CASM; therefore, in certain markets it does not make sense for either carrier to abandon certain city pairs. Finally, there are DOJ code share restrictions between hubs that require each airline to operate in these markets. Meanwhile, there are a number of Wall Street reports this weekend, where people are trying to figure out what is going on, that something is brewing between UA & US. Will it occur? Who knows, but informed people are talking about it, again.
Best regards,
Chip
737 said: "I just don't understand. With the NW/CO codeshare you didn't have one carrier dropping a number of routes and giving them to the other. One simply put their flight number on routes they didn't serve, but which the other carrier did. I realize that U generates additional revenue by feeding UAL and vice versa, but aren't they going to lose more than they gain by pulling out of those markets?"
Chip answers: I agree with you. The only way either airline derives revenue from the alliance is when a passenger flies on their aircraft. Furthermore, long haul has a lower CASM; therefore, in certain markets it does not make sense for either carrier to abandon certain city pairs. Finally, there are DOJ code share restrictions between hubs that require each airline to operate in these markets. Meanwhile, there are a number of Wall Street reports this weekend, where people are trying to figure out what is going on, that something is brewing between UA & US. Will it occur? Who knows, but informed people are talking about it, again.
Best regards,
Chip
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
These "alliances" that U has joined will be the death of U mainline and the mainline employees. We here are dying a Slow death, and bleeding and suffereing as employees every day that passes.
Seen this way back. That's why I have showed such resistance to "joinings Dave's team, and conceding to concessions that were unrealistic to the survival of the employee.
U will consist of MDA jobs, and if you want to work for U, and can live on those wages and benefits for your life time and family....good luck and hope you win the lottery.
And those of you who continue to delude yourselves and others that UAL will not pull out of BK, and U will just grow, and buy routes and take over the planet, pull your head out of your azzes so you can see the light.
Seen this way back. That's why I have showed such resistance to "joinings Dave's team, and conceding to concessions that were unrealistic to the survival of the employee.
U will consist of MDA jobs, and if you want to work for U, and can live on those wages and benefits for your life time and family....good luck and hope you win the lottery.
And those of you who continue to delude yourselves and others that UAL will not pull out of BK, and U will just grow, and buy routes and take over the planet, pull your head out of your azzes so you can see the light.
MarkMyWords
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,900
- Reaction score
- 1
I just love it when someone picks up a rumor and stirs the pot, and everyone comes out as an expert, and has the inside scoop. PLEASE, gimme a break. There is no way we are going to fold up our west coast cities, there is no way that UAL is going to replace our service out of SAN, LAX, SFO, SEA, etc. We will continue to feed customers, on our metal, to LAX, SFO and DEN to destinations that we don''t serve out west.
PITbull
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 7,784
- Reaction score
- 456
Mark,
Glad to see you address this.
You may not be mangement as you say, however, you do speak with such conviction for someone who is not suppose to be "in the know" or circle.
Anyway, hope your right. I do know that U has to maintain 279 mainline aircraft...so it puzzles everyone, employees and PAX what U is up to.
Another furlough for Sept. 1 (170 f/as) when mangement alledges that the flight reductions for Sept are temporary, and in profound light of the fact that just in June, 6 weeks ago, the company would not permit the 200 f/as who accepted a 4 month furlough to extend. Company rationale, we would need them in October. This appears to be very schizophrenic decisions by mangement when they now attempt to explain their reasoning.
So, what gives?
Glad to see you address this.
You may not be mangement as you say, however, you do speak with such conviction for someone who is not suppose to be "in the know" or circle.
Anyway, hope your right. I do know that U has to maintain 279 mainline aircraft...so it puzzles everyone, employees and PAX what U is up to.
Another furlough for Sept. 1 (170 f/as) when mangement alledges that the flight reductions for Sept are temporary, and in profound light of the fact that just in June, 6 weeks ago, the company would not permit the 200 f/as who accepted a 4 month furlough to extend. Company rationale, we would need them in October. This appears to be very schizophrenic decisions by mangement when they now attempt to explain their reasoning.
So, what gives?
