No Plan By Us Airways To 'pack Up' And Leave Pit
- Thread starter ClueByFour
- Start date
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Just one more point...for any deal(s) to proceed (PIT hub, 60 A320 family aircraft, a corporate combination, etc.) US Airways must first prove it can survive. Therefore, there must be agreement between all interested parties on the Transformation Plan and its successful integration.
Furthermore, all of the issues with United must be satisfactorily dealt with, regardless of whether or not a deal occurs between the business partners.
Regards,
Chip
Furthermore, all of the issues with United must be satisfactorily dealt with, regardless of whether or not a deal occurs between the business partners.
Regards,
Chip
- Banned
- #50
Chip,
GET IT THRU YOUR SKULL!
THERE WILL BE NO IAM OR AFA CONCESSIONS.
Don't you ever learn? They took your pension after they said they would not, you can trust them the IAM and AFA for one will not.
How many times do you put your hand over an open flame to realize it burns?
GET IT THRU YOUR SKULL!
THERE WILL BE NO IAM OR AFA CONCESSIONS.
Don't you ever learn? They took your pension after they said they would not, you can trust them the IAM and AFA for one will not.
How many times do you put your hand over an open flame to realize it burns?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #52
Chip makes some valid points...
The ATSB backed load covenents don't prevent a corporate combination. Once the loan amount is down to $500 million, a merger is possible. Of course that won't be until 2008 barring early payment.
I also believe that United will face increased scrutiny by the ATSB. While UAL appears to be making good progress in getting its house in order, any decision by the ATSB may be influenced by the history of these loans. Results have been unclear at best. America West is, so far, a success story and seems to have been able to use the ATSB loan to buy time to get turned around. US Airways is uncertain at best, maybe even doubtful. The loan has, so far, only prolonged the inevitiable. The next 6 months will be decisive.
Finally, there's southwestern PA. I see this as two different issues. One is the airport (ACAA, hub, maintenance facilities, etc), the other is the other facilities that Chip mentions.
As for the airport issues, I see ACAA as having the upper hand to some degree. If they do nothing, U has to decide to stay or go. If the decision is to stay, there's extra cost if the lease isn't resigned - about $1 million a month by published estimates. Money that U can scarcely affort to spend considering our liquidity vs the ATSB limits. If the decision is to go, there is lost revenue because of lost passengers. Money that U can scarcely afford to lose considering our liquidity vs the ATSB limits. Add in LUV's coming entry into PHL with the resulting lowering of yields there (is it an accident that two of the initial markets are among the highest yield from PHL?) and PIT should be looking more and more attractive as a mainline hub for U.
The other facilities are either leased from private owners (RIDC, Greentree, etc) or leased from a government entity other than the ACAA. This separates them somewhat or entirely from the negotiations over the airport facilities.
Jim
The ATSB backed load covenents don't prevent a corporate combination. Once the loan amount is down to $500 million, a merger is possible. Of course that won't be until 2008 barring early payment.
I also believe that United will face increased scrutiny by the ATSB. While UAL appears to be making good progress in getting its house in order, any decision by the ATSB may be influenced by the history of these loans. Results have been unclear at best. America West is, so far, a success story and seems to have been able to use the ATSB loan to buy time to get turned around. US Airways is uncertain at best, maybe even doubtful. The loan has, so far, only prolonged the inevitiable. The next 6 months will be decisive.
Finally, there's southwestern PA. I see this as two different issues. One is the airport (ACAA, hub, maintenance facilities, etc), the other is the other facilities that Chip mentions.
As for the airport issues, I see ACAA as having the upper hand to some degree. If they do nothing, U has to decide to stay or go. If the decision is to stay, there's extra cost if the lease isn't resigned - about $1 million a month by published estimates. Money that U can scarcely affort to spend considering our liquidity vs the ATSB limits. If the decision is to go, there is lost revenue because of lost passengers. Money that U can scarcely afford to lose considering our liquidity vs the ATSB limits. Add in LUV's coming entry into PHL with the resulting lowering of yields there (is it an accident that two of the initial markets are among the highest yield from PHL?) and PIT should be looking more and more attractive as a mainline hub for U.
The other facilities are either leased from private owners (RIDC, Greentree, etc) or leased from a government entity other than the ACAA. This separates them somewhat or entirely from the negotiations over the airport facilities.
Jim
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Moderator:
If a United story has implication for US Airways, especially since the story references US Airways, then I believe your decision to remove a link is inappropriate,
There is no question these two companies continue to talk with one another and the articles I hyperlinked are germane to US Airways.
With all due respect, I disagree with your editing and I believe this action was unjust.
Respectfully,
Chip
If a United story has implication for US Airways, especially since the story references US Airways, then I believe your decision to remove a link is inappropriate,
There is no question these two companies continue to talk with one another and the articles I hyperlinked are germane to US Airways.
With all due respect, I disagree with your editing and I believe this action was unjust.
Respectfully,
Chip
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
I believe once the contract changes are announced, there will be negotiations between the parties and deals will be obtained.
In regard to the ATSB loan guarantees, according to ALPA E&FA America West is in violation of its financial covenants, therefore, it appears the board will provide some leeway to other airlines going forward.
Regards,
Chip
In regard to the ATSB loan guarantees, according to ALPA E&FA America West is in violation of its financial covenants, therefore, it appears the board will provide some leeway to other airlines going forward.
Regards,
Chip
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
700UW;
I believe my post was within the guidelines established by the USaviation.com principals. Can you specifically tell me where in the Policy and Procedures it is not?
Regards,
Chip
I believe my post was within the guidelines established by the USaviation.com principals. Can you specifically tell me where in the Policy and Procedures it is not?
Regards,
Chip
I have to agree with Chip on this one.Chip Munn said:
Past stories regarding MESA have been removed as well....anything regarding the dealings of our prefered regional partner has implications toward that of the US mailine operation.
The same can be said regarding the issues of Mesa's attempted takeover of ACA which definately has a link to both interests of U and it's codeshare partner UA.
I'm not trying to be ugly or un-appreciative of the efforts of our esteemed moderators...but some degree of this does come off as being a triffle heavy-handed in some instances.
Please accept this as a constructive observation...not criticism.
OP
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #58
Given that Bronner is already calling for more dough from the employees and has lost roughly half of his investment in U (based on the current market value), why would he throw good money after bad to buy UA assets?
Moreover, what happens when the good folks at B6 (solvent, doing well) get backed on the hypothetically empty UA terminal at ORD and the good folks at F9 keep it rolling in Denver?
Neither of these points have ever been addressed (nor do I expect them too--they are far too logical and fly in the face of Captain Stone's conspiracy theory for a corporate transaction).
I personally pay the state of PA taxes, and will do so for another week or so. Many like-minded folks do not see the point in bailing out a money losing airline with a directionless management team, much less doing so without any guarantee of mainline jets and mainline jobs. Fortunately, it appears that the ACAA, County Executive, and Governor share this view.
The only debt relief that will be made available to U will be PFC--debt consolidation perhaps on top of the $125 million over 5 years that the ACAA has previously offered. Bear in mind that absent the dreams of a few, U has nowhere to move the PIT hub without moving into a weaker O&D market. They lack the cash to do so at the current time, and the yields in the "crown jewel" will begin to fall like U stock promptly at the start of April. Heck, why do you think the PIT-LGW flight is coming back? Could it be because it's both a moneymaker and a peace offering to the ACAA? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw......
The ACAA has the upper hand, and what you will see here is the aforementioned debt relief, and perhaps some RJ jetways. Nothing more is going to be offered, nor should it.
Moreover, what happens when the good folks at B6 (solvent, doing well) get backed on the hypothetically empty UA terminal at ORD and the good folks at F9 keep it rolling in Denver?
Neither of these points have ever been addressed (nor do I expect them too--they are far too logical and fly in the face of Captain Stone's conspiracy theory for a corporate transaction).
I personally pay the state of PA taxes, and will do so for another week or so. Many like-minded folks do not see the point in bailing out a money losing airline with a directionless management team, much less doing so without any guarantee of mainline jets and mainline jobs. Fortunately, it appears that the ACAA, County Executive, and Governor share this view.
The only debt relief that will be made available to U will be PFC--debt consolidation perhaps on top of the $125 million over 5 years that the ACAA has previously offered. Bear in mind that absent the dreams of a few, U has nowhere to move the PIT hub without moving into a weaker O&D market. They lack the cash to do so at the current time, and the yields in the "crown jewel" will begin to fall like U stock promptly at the start of April. Heck, why do you think the PIT-LGW flight is coming back? Could it be because it's both a moneymaker and a peace offering to the ACAA? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw......
The ACAA has the upper hand, and what you will see here is the aforementioned debt relief, and perhaps some RJ jetways. Nothing more is going to be offered, nor should it.
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
Pit It amazes me that people comtinue to say that statement about respect when you dont finish the story.The likes of herb and others being respected comes from one thing. These guys had the nasty work done when they arrived or they started out with low wages and really have never had to make their employees take any concessions. All they need to do is say great job and continue to give annual raises. The day that these guys have problems and begin asking for give backs is the day youll see this type of WHINING!!!!! This type of crap that these boards are now spewing is no help to anyone. The majority of employees do not feel the way that is represented on this rumor filled, back stabbing nasty name calling chat board.PITbull said:
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
SW doesn't need to take cuts. They have a unique business model that works for them. Secondly, they have been in business for over 30 years. The last 8 quarters have been in the "black".usfliboi said:
So, I disagree with you on what the majority of U employees feel. I am in a position to know what the majority feels, are you?
