Gecas Haults Financing For Regional Jets
- Thread starter javaboy
- Start date
Air conditioned
Advanced
- Mar 18, 2004
- 216
- 0
Just me,
Exactly!
Exactly!
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
700, Why is it your not off here? You continue to insult! What you fail to comprehend, unions can give all day long. But if its not enough, its not enough. We started with a heck of alot more pay and benefits and productivity rules than most. We have been slow to take cuts. The industry changed FAST! What about that could you possibly argue with....
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
usfliboi said:
usfliboi,
What is the matter with you? ARe you for real?
Slow to take cuts? You are not talking to the employees of this co. that gave already $1.2 billion along with 20,000 jobs.
What are you still doing here? I don't think you are an employee at all. Some managment crony spy, incognito...
h34r:
- Banned
- #20
$1.2 Billion for two years for a total of $2.4 billion.
And US Airways' employees were the first to give back in 1992 and the first major airline to delcare bankruptcy after 9/11 and the first to take employee concessions.
So I do not know what airline you work for and for how long, but the good "real" employees of US Air/Ways have been sacrificing for over 12 years due to inept management who have not been able to run an airline for the past 15 years.
And US Airways' employees were the first to give back in 1992 and the first major airline to delcare bankruptcy after 9/11 and the first to take employee concessions.
So I do not know what airline you work for and for how long, but the good "real" employees of US Air/Ways have been sacrificing for over 12 years due to inept management who have not been able to run an airline for the past 15 years.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
The reason US Airways is back in this situation is due to a dramatic reduction of revenue (idustry wide) due to LCC's and Internet booking and increased costs due to security issues and rising fuel costs.
The choice is simple: accept LCC type contracts or have no contract/no job.
US Airways must be competitive across-the-board or it will fail in the not-so-distant future.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
The choice is simple: accept LCC type contracts or have no contract/no job.
US Airways must be competitive across-the-board or it will fail in the not-so-distant future.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot said:
You do file BK due to any of the issues you have noted. You file BK when you no longer have the ability to pay your bills... i.e. out-of-cash. US Airways is out of cash for a number of reasons, including those you've mentioned, but also years of rediculous mis-management, lack of forward planning, and no contingency planning for catastophic events (i.e. terrorist attack, spike in fuel prices, etc).
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #24
Ah, the spin machine at work....
"dramatic reduction of revenue (idustry wide)" - BTS data shows that there have been exactly 4 quarters since 1995 (as far back as their Air Travel Price Index goes) with higher average airfares than now - 3Q2000 thru 2Q2001.
"accept LCC type contracts" - if the company offered one, it would probably go over reasonably well, as concessions go. But they haven't and here we are.
"US Airways must be competitive across-the-board" - and therein lies the problem. If our non-labor costs were as close to the LCC's as our labor costs are, we'd be making money hand over fist. But "competitive across-the-board" seems to mean lowering labor costs across-the-board enough to offset those very high non-labor costs.
Because this company has failed to address the structural inefficiencies that produce those obscenely high non-labor costs, "it will fail in the not-so-distant future."
Jim
"dramatic reduction of revenue (idustry wide)" - BTS data shows that there have been exactly 4 quarters since 1995 (as far back as their Air Travel Price Index goes) with higher average airfares than now - 3Q2000 thru 2Q2001.
"accept LCC type contracts" - if the company offered one, it would probably go over reasonably well, as concessions go. But they haven't and here we are.
"US Airways must be competitive across-the-board" - and therein lies the problem. If our non-labor costs were as close to the LCC's as our labor costs are, we'd be making money hand over fist. But "competitive across-the-board" seems to mean lowering labor costs across-the-board enough to offset those very high non-labor costs.
Because this company has failed to address the structural inefficiencies that produce those obscenely high non-labor costs, "it will fail in the not-so-distant future."
Jim
mwereplanes
Senior
- Jan 21, 2004
- 302
- 0
Jim,
This is what is so hard to understand from the cretin. All of us in PHL and PIT understand what you have just posted but the bedwetters just don't get it. Our reason for being here lies at the feet of the people in CCY who have not addressed the issues you present. Yet, the cowards somehow think our accepting of a land grab contract will magically transform us into something profitable. One would think intelligent men who have the ability to fly a jet around would understand the REAL problem here. But I guess not everyone has the ability to think as well as fly.
Of course, a judge will impose the labor cost savings this company is wanting. That will buy a short amount of time for the incompetents in CCY to attempt a pullout of the dive they put us in. At that point maybe these cowards who blame it all on labor and are willing to accept the imposed work rules will finally get it.
But I doubt it.
mr
This is what is so hard to understand from the cretin. All of us in PHL and PIT understand what you have just posted but the bedwetters just don't get it. Our reason for being here lies at the feet of the people in CCY who have not addressed the issues you present. Yet, the cowards somehow think our accepting of a land grab contract will magically transform us into something profitable. One would think intelligent men who have the ability to fly a jet around would understand the REAL problem here. But I guess not everyone has the ability to think as well as fly.
Of course, a judge will impose the labor cost savings this company is wanting. That will buy a short amount of time for the incompetents in CCY to attempt a pullout of the dive they put us in. At that point maybe these cowards who blame it all on labor and are willing to accept the imposed work rules will finally get it.
But I doubt it.
mr
USA320Pilot said:
Since when did HP become our biggest LCC competitor? I never even heard them mentioned as a "comparison carrier" until recently. What happened to our other LCC competition, WN, B6 and FL? They dont even exist anymore? Since when did HP= the only LCC we can compare to? If the company were serious about getting "LCC TYPE" contracts, then they need to compare to more than HP. This isnt " LCC Type" contracts, its HP type contracts and IMO, thats two entirely different things. :down:
OK, and just to keep things on topic here, what if they are stopping financing for the 70 seaters so when the pilots scope is broken in court they can convert the orders to 90-106 seaters and continue to deliver them. Seems plausible?
tadjr said:
Seems plausible, only if somebody is willing to invest in US Airways. I am sure the production differences are not major between the -170 and the -190, and could probably be taken care of in short order by Embraer. In fact, Embraer may already be considering a contingency plan where US Airways' delayed -170 delivery positions are transfered to an acceleration -190 program for jetBlue. I have no specific information regarding such a transaction, it indeed seems plausible.
usair_begins_with_u
Veteran
- May 9, 2004
- 623
- 0
BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector BS Detector!!!!!
Uair has 1.3 Billion in cash.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #29
"Uair has 1.3 Billion in cash"
In one sense true, but not in the sense that matters. According to the BK filing, U had $750 million in usable cash on Sept 10. Of that, $725 was required by the ATSB to be on hand on Sept 30. That leaves $25 million in cash that really matters - the kind you can spend. So how long could we have paid the bills without filing for BK?
Jim
In one sense true, but not in the sense that matters. According to the BK filing, U had $750 million in usable cash on Sept 10. Of that, $725 was required by the ATSB to be on hand on Sept 30. That leaves $25 million in cash that really matters - the kind you can spend. So how long could we have paid the bills without filing for BK?
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #30
"OK, and just to keep things on topic here, what if they are stopping financing for the 70 seaters so when the pilots scope is broken in court they can convert the orders to 90-106 seaters and continue to deliver them. Seems plausible?"
Well, the company had already negotiated with Bombardier to reschedule (postpone) some of the deliveries and change them to the CRJ-700. If scope is broken, these could probably be converted to the CRJ-900 pretty easily - if there's financing available.
As for the Embraer's, what you're saying makes sense IF if had been the company that suspended the orders AND the E190/195's were being produced. But it seems from the media accounts that it was Embraer that suspended deliveries - not the company. And the E-190 is nearly a year away from certification, last I saw. I haven't seen anything that indicates that the E-195's for certification testing are even being produced yet.
My question is whether this is the first hint of a breeze that will blow the houwe of cards down, or merely a temporary setback.
Jim
Well, the company had already negotiated with Bombardier to reschedule (postpone) some of the deliveries and change them to the CRJ-700. If scope is broken, these could probably be converted to the CRJ-900 pretty easily - if there's financing available.
As for the Embraer's, what you're saying makes sense IF if had been the company that suspended the orders AND the E190/195's were being produced. But it seems from the media accounts that it was Embraer that suspended deliveries - not the company. And the E-190 is nearly a year away from certification, last I saw. I haven't seen anything that indicates that the E-195's for certification testing are even being produced yet.
My question is whether this is the first hint of a breeze that will blow the houwe of cards down, or merely a temporary setback.
Jim
Similar threads
- chipmunn
- American Airlines
