Economic Impact Study Finds Pittsburgh Air Hub ...

[oldiebutgoody]

U already has the money, and the loan has already been underwritten. Complaining to the ATSB does little good now.

Not exactly. Anytime someone misrepresents their intent in order to profit serious lawsuits CAN, and often do, prevail. If you lie on your taxes, you pay a penalty and maybe go to jail. If a lawsuit gets filed on PA's behalf (and I think that it is a distinct possibility if U attempts to pull out of PIT), You really believe that the ATSB can't reconsider? I'll bet it can, especially if a major presence in PIT was part of the business plan used to exit chapter 11, and that would likely result in U having to renegotiate most of it's financing.

 

[mrplanes]

IMHO:

PIT is valuable to Der Seiglemiester as a hub. That is why the money was spent on the study. Ah, but the rub is what kind of hub. This will be a RJ hub with only enough mainline flights to support limited nonstop service that can't be accomplished out of PHL, DCA or CLT. They are attempting to lower the costs so we can turn PIT into the largest RJ hub in the country. Remember "super regional carrier"? This is easy to see if you look close enough. Is it a good plan? Maybe. Maybe not. He is in uncharted waters here. But if anyone out there thinks PIT is going to remain a mainline hub, you are sadly mistaken. It is not in Seigel's plan.

This group reminds me of the Clinton administration. They can justify all kinds of unseemly and dishonest (if not downright illegal) behavior because they think the ends justify the means. And the ends, in this case, is dismantling a major airline piece by piece until they get it to a 3 to 1 RJ to mainline aircraft count. That's the long term goal. Figure it out on your own. Do the math.

If any of you have a shot at transferring out of PIT now on your own terms and selling your house while there is still a market now would be the time. The handwriting is as plain as day. If you choose to read it.

mr

 

[PITbull]

mrplanes,

You know I humbly respect you and mean no disrespect to your post, but,
truly, for the company to do an "impact" study means they NEED Pittsburgh. Period.

Pittsburgh local officials AND state reps know this as sure as we are all on these boards speaking to each other about this very exact thing.

Think about it, out of the bases, where in the hell are they going to put these 400 RJs, if they could care less about Pittsburgh and its grand facility to accomodate this part of U's business plan?

I think U needs Pittsburgh. Yes, at a lower cost, BUT DEFINITELY NEEDS PITTSBURGH AIRPORT.

 

[FlyingHippie]

Great. A study from the lawfirm of Siegel, Glass & Cohen - proud graduates of the American School of Proctology. I'll translate the study in two complete sentences: "Dear Pennsylvania, please bend over so we can s*rew you out of more money. Fondly, Dave "The Scoundrel' Siegel

PitBull. If US needs PIT SO BAD, why weren't they doing a deal sooner? These guys dont' deal in good faith. Nobody should trust them, they haven't earned it.

 

[Mike W]

Disregard

 

[OldGuyinPA]

What would be the impact to the state if instead of giving USAirways (a financially weak carrier)a $600 million dollar debt reduction or they just gave $600 million to SWA (a financially strong carrier) to come into PIT and replace USAir...ways.

 

[USFlyer]

What would be the impact to the state if instead of giving USAirways (a financially weak carrier)a $600 million dollar debt reduction or they just gave $600 million to SWA (a financially strong carrier) to come into PIT and replace USAir...ways.

US is not asking for the state to give it money. It is asking for the state to invest in PIT as an airport, mainly helping to pay down its (the airport's) debt. When/if this happens, this will also make PIT a more attractive airport to Southwest and others, further strengthening air service in western PA. Also, you're dreaming if you think WN will "replace" US. Sure, point to point, but nowhere near the level of flights PIT has now.

 

[hscottm]

US is not asking for the state to give it money. It is asking for the state to invest in PIT as an airport, mainly helping to pay down its (the airport's) debt. When/if this happens, this will also make PIT a more attractive airport to Southwest and others, further strengthening air service in western PA. Also, you're dreaming if you think WN will "replace" US. Sure, point to point, but nowhere near the level of flights PIT has now.

USFLyer-

Its a pretty fine line of whether the state is 'giving them money' or not.

While they wont get a check for $31 million in annual reduced fees (i.e, the amount beng discussed as annualized amount of a $500M reduction in the debt), the fact that they would no longer have to pay that means essentially the 'state is paying that money for them'. The fact that it would never go through their cash flow account is darned near irrelevant.

Not trying to pick nits, but they want the state to pay some of their bills (which they agreed to in contract, etc).

 

[USFlyer]

Look at it this way: If US pulls out, finding another airline to pay those high fees is going to be very tough. So it's in the airport's best interest -- REGARDLESS of whether US stays -- to reduce that debt. The debt service is spread across all carriers in proportion to the amount of service they have. So, US pulls out ... Southwest, jetBlue, etc. would have to add a ton of service to keep the per passenger fees reasonable w/o any debt reduction.

Also, Southwest, jetBlue, etc. can add service NOW if they want to -- it's not like there isn't a shortage of gates at PIT. Just for every flight US drops, the fees for the other carriers goes up. It's a bad downward cycle for the airport, in my opinion.

 

[delldude]

general concensus on pgh talk shows last night was to U:"screw ya,and don't let the door hit in the can on the way out" :down: :blink: <_<

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Folks-

U already DUMPED its obligation to ACAA in bankruptcy. I believe that U's long term obligation to guarantee that debt is legally gone. In fact, if I recall correctly, ACAA dropped its objections when U agreed to increase the value of that abrogated obligation and ACAA got some 'share' or cents on the dollar.

U is now just a potential major tenant like any other carrier wishing to serve PIT. (putting aside whatever agreement is keeping them in their gates til January. I don't know if this is a standard 'holdover' or if ACAA is just letting the stay and keep paying rent.)

If ACAA were to convince the state or county to re-finance the bonded indebtedness, or default, then the costs would be reduced to EVERY AND ALL users of the airport on a reasonably equitable basis. By law, I think, ACAA cannot treat carriers that are willing to agree to similar terms, differently.

In other words, ACAA cannot say we'll rent to SWA and not U, because U's CEO is a poo-poo head. Or if they do, they eventually will not get any more Federal money, unless they get the law changed.... Oh, darn... I'll do the research!!! Check out 49 USC 47107 (a)(1) and (2) and (3). (I knew I had read this somewhere.... I'm no lawyer, but I'd think the below would apply)

"The Sec. or Trans may approve a project grant..... for airport development... only if the Sec. receives written assurances..... that

(1) the airport will be available for public use [including airline operations] on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination;

(2) air carriers [including U, despite its recent bankruptcy behavior and obnoxious attitude] making similar use of the airport will be subject to substantially comparable charges-
(A) for facilities directly and substantially related to providing air transportation; and
(B) regulations and conditions, except for differences based on reasonable classifications, such as between- (i) tenants and nontenants; and (ii) signatory and nonsignatory carriers; [I don't think this would include previously bankrupt and not previously bankrupt]

(3) the airport operator [ACAA] will not withhold unreasonably the classification or status of tenant or signatory from an air carrier that assumes obligations substantially similar to those already imposed on air carriers of tha classification or status..."

Hey, maybe there is an exception for air carriers that pay their employees less than they used to, or that went through bankruptcy or that are run by obnoxious capitalists, but I'd doubt it, considering the business regulatory culture of the USA in the new millenium.



I'd hope that ACAA can muster the $$ to move forward without hitching its wagon to any carrier and can agree to lease gates on a 'use or loose' basis and not give control to the carriers [U or other].

btw, I do now think that U does want to operate midatlantic at PIT.

 

[USHenry]

general concensus on pgh talk shows last night was to U:"screw ya,and don't let the door hit in the can on the way out" :down: :blink: <_<

Im not surprised, talk radio is filled with negativity. If you invented a cure for cancer tomorrow, some talk show host would be calling it a liberal ploy to enter brainwashing chemicals into your body, and a bunch of ditto-heads would be calling up and agreeing with personal testimony of how their neighbor across the street was involved in a clinical trial of the substance and turned homosexual.

 

[PITbull]

Row,

And our fear along with the state is that that is all U really wants and will commit to for all those millions they want from PA and PIttsburgh. ..MId-freggin-Atlantic will not cut it for us here in Pittsburgh, and we will be raising "bloody hell" with our state reps.

I am hopeful tht the state reps will not "forsaken" the emplyees here as U management has....time will tell.

 

[ITRADE]

I don't know why ANYBODY would believe ANYTHING that this group presents. They have shown themselves to be liars and master manipulators in EVERYTHING they have done. If the PA leaders fall for this, they're in for a real eye opening once they give away the farm and get NOTHING in return!

Well, if you want the info from another source, consider the following:

American Airlines' plan to reduce capacity at St. Louis Lambert Field (AW&ST July 21, p. 34) is likely to have a long-term negative impact on job development in the St. Louis metropolitan area, according to a study by Jan K. Brueckner, economics professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ... Brueckner estimates the reduction will cause the loss of 2,000 jobs at the airport alone. The reduction of air service quality, in bother passenger and freight sectors, will have a longer term impact on the business climate. In previous statistical studies of the ties between airline traffic and urban area employment, Brueckner has determined that a 10% cut in passenger traffic translates intoa a 1% reduction in metro area employment. Using that 10-1 relationship in calculations, he predicts that gruadually over the years the St. Louis area will have about 50,000 fewer jobs than it would if Lambert Field had remained a hub.

AW&ST - Sept. 15, 2003.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

All well and good, I don't doubt anything that article says. My point was that PIT and PA can come to any kind of agreement they want with Siegel and gang. It doesn't mean that you'll get this bunch of dishonest, untrustworthy people to live by it.