Us Air Weighs Extra Measures To Help Finances

[batman]

According to recent published figures the Labor Cost per available seat mile figures (CASM) for Q3 were :

DAL 4.5
UAIR 4.2
NWA 3.8
AMR 3.7
UAL 3.4
CAL 3.4
SWA 3.0
AWA 2.2

Also the word on the street is that Usairways will either make it on their own as a Regional carrier on the east coast or find itself on the chopping block with the highest bidder taking the desired parts. No airline is willing to merge or acquire Usairways due to its senior workforce, integration hassles, already furloughed employees and mixed fleets.

 

[batman]

Double reply deleted

 

[USA320Pilot]

Just one more point...do not be surprised if the "transformation plan" has major Star alliance news and expanded long-haul flying for US Airways from Philadelphia to European hubs. US Airways could begin flying to European cities such as Copenhagen, Vienna, Oslo, and Birmingham, with additonal widebody equipment, in the spring of 2005. In addition, there could be major Star alliance news regarding US Airways and Kennedy Airport.

Separately, the USA Today reported that US Airways is "expanding like crazy in the Caribbean (and has) eyes on South America," which could reduce its reliance on high-cost domestic flying (See Story).

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[TheLarkAscending]

Methinks he doth protest too much.

 

[Bear96]

Oy... I feel like I am stuck in a time warp... :blink:

Here we go again about the merger that hasn't happened (after HOW many years of blathering on about it by a certain individual who has somehow lost the cajones to post his real name, after an equal number of years spent by that individual chastising others for being too chicken to post THEIR real names)...

Oh well. After all, it IS Groundhog Day. I feel like Bill Murray.

Oh.. and if we keep "shooting the messenger," how come he isn't dead yet?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Bear96:

A few months ago I reported the business partners appeared to have changed their strategy from the UCT/ICT to a KLM-AF type of merger or a true merger. Moreover, I said that before it would occur US Airways would need to stabilize itself first and United prove it could emerge from Chapter 11.

Why? Nobody will give the airlines financing until they prove they can repay or obtain/repay the loan guarantees. Will a merger occur, probably, but not until some other challenges are met first.

Anyway, let's not get back into this topic.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Let's get back to the topic -- MDA, EMB-170s, PSA, CRJ-200s/700s, etc. and potential deals.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Sounds like a plan....just keep in mind as to whom started the United connection in this thread...and many others as well.

You reap what you sew at times !!


On the subject of MAA and it's aircraft. I would like to see UAir avoid having another WO type of operation. The fact that ALG is being merged into PDT shows that something has been learned about enconomies of scale..yet adding MAA into the fray somewhat contradicts this supposed "lesson learned" theory.

I believe that the best thng that can come from this ordeal , whle still in it's infancy , is for MAA to be sold to Mesa and keep an across the board agreement going for the J4J program...not only for flight crews , but for anyone willing to accept work that has been hurt by U's downward size spiral.

I agree...to shed ourselves of the debt and debt management of a seperate fleet and division would allow for the moves on what we really need to compete...More "narrow bodies"....and not just the A320 family. We could be doing like the others are doing with used B757's that are identical to what we have already. I do not wish to see a greater dependence on Airbus as our sole provider.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Ok, let's talk about 60 Buses.

We're theoritically talking about 60 planes over two years - 2.5 per month or 5 every 2 months on average.

Negotiations with ALPA (at least) have to be completed and a membership vote conducted. Additionally, pilots will begin bidding on April schedules in 1 1/2 weeks, May schedules in 5 1/2 weeks. This means that a realistic timeframe for the 1st planes to go into service is June at the earliest, possibly July.

Given the above, we've got something like 15 new airplanes flying by the end of the year (assuming the average delivery schedule).

Assume that they all fly point-to-point, resulting in somewhat higher utilization and somewhat lower CASM. However, the hub operation remains the same as before - inefficient. 15 airplanes operated pretty efficiently vs 230 or so operating inefficiently (the European & Caribbean are pretty efficient now) - how much effect on overall CASM by the end of the year?

Is there a way to get more bang for the buck? And quicker? I believe there is - the rolling hub. But to explore it fully is probably something for a new thread.

Jim

 

[passed_over]

AOG

It looks like you would be satisfied if all the feed was done by contract carriers rather than keeping the wholly owned's around

 

[Bear96]

Anyway, let's not get back into this topic.

For the record, I believe a rereading of this thread will show that you were the one who, in a thread entitled "Replying to Us Air Weighs Extra Measures To Help Finances," started bringing up the old "a merger with UA is inevitable" theme.

It seems you like to remain on topic, as long as the topic is one you want to discuss, which can change from post to post.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

AOG

It looks like you would be satisfied if all the feed was done by contract carriers rather than keeping the wholly owned's around

Not at all !!! I see the need for PDT to stick around...and I also see the cost savings in the ALG/PDT merger. I believe I have been on record on that very need since this board began. BTW...I wish PSA had been intergrated in to this mix as well....or PSA should have become what MAA is supposed to be. 1 or 2 WO's makes more financial sense than 3 or 4 as it was before the ALG/PDT merger gained life.

MAA worries me on the other hand. I do not think the infrastructure to make it work has been thought out properly or implimented in a sound manner...and dependence on a new airframe that nobody but us will have for a good length of time is disturbing from a logistical standpoint.

Knowing how the parent U likes to operate in general...and having the thankless task of getting parts to the problem with the former Fokker fleet , the Hybrid equipped (Avionics package) we had on the previous MD-80's we had....and the monumental task of supporting the Airbus Fleet...especially the A330-300 , the addition of yet another "Odd-ball " type is un-nerving at best. This will make for some hair-greyng growing pains...Bank on that !!!

I would prefer to see us have all our WO's under one roof , even if MAA had to be the only company we have , inclussve of what PDT is becoming. I would also like to see U remain focused on what it should be doing , and that's "mainline flying"...the rest tends to be a distraction tha we really can't afford to be contending with. MAA has become..and will remain exactly that , I'm affraid.

Let it be known...since you obviously don't know me well , that I'm no fan of Mesa or Jonathan Ornstein...he in fact destroyed my previous regional employer CCAir (dba) USAirways Express..and I question his motives on any and all levels regarding USAirways itself....however I'm not shy about letting him bare the burden of MAA..so our finances and credit can be applied to our real purpose in life..and that hinges on the growth of mainline flying via either more Airbus Acft..or a fine mix of both Airbus and Boeings , so niether side has us over a barrel sort of speak. This will also promote more jobs remaining in the US as well...another far reaching attribute we should be concerned with.

 

[CaptianBoomer]

I for one am NOT in favor of anyone flying the EMB-170, other than mainline pilots who are furloughed. Having it flown on the mainline certificate was a last minute change and for the life of me I can't remember why. MAA was supposed to have its OWN ceritficate. The cost of bearing the extra fleet type, the startup costs, and the rest was a capitulation by management to ALPA for the second restructuring which saw the furloughed pilots go from 80,000 a year flying Captain on this jet and 50,000 as F/O to 60,000 as a Capt. and 40,000 as F/O. The Union was pretty firm that anything this size would be flown by the mainline guys.

I have no problem with them spinning PSA. That would be a turnkey op for JO at Mesa and not saddle him with the additional costs of the startup of MAA and an entirely new aircraft type. Lets not forget why MAA is not operating. It is the lack of a clean operating type certificate from the FAA because of software glitches. A minor glitch is the ALPA contention that management is trying for another land grab by flying the -170 for CRJ-700 pay.

If U keeps MAA, that will only make the fleet of EMB-190's that much more efficient when they start replacing the B-737. U ALPA needs to keep as much of that as it can because when that happens, there is going to be another round of bloodletting as pilots go from 150K per year to 120 for flying the -190.

Lets keep the 170's.

Boomer

 

[BoeingBoy]

CaptianBoomer,

As I said somewhere on another thread, be careful what you wish for.

If MDA is flying the 170 for $X, you can bet that Dave won't want to pay $2X for the 190. I can hear him now - "We can't afford to keep flying these inefficient 737, I'd love to replace them with 190's but we can't make money with them unless they go to MDA at 170 pay".

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

Bear96:

USA320Pilot said: "Anyway, let's not get back into this topic."

Bear96 said: "For the record, I believe a rereading of this thread will show that you were the one who, in a thread entitled "Replying to Us Air Weighs Extra Measures To Help Finances," started bringing up the old "a merger with UA is inevitable" theme."

USA320Pilot comments: "The merger topic was a small part of my post and as usual, the United posters invade the US Airways board and that's all they comment on. It's really funny in a way because it's as if you only visit to seek information on that topic and then respond by "shooting the messenger".

Bear96 said: "Here we go again about the merger that hasn't happened (after HOW many years of blathering on about it by a certain individual who has somehow lost the cajones to post his real name, after an equal number of years spent by that individual chastising others for being too chicken to post THEIR real names)."

USA320Pilot comments: Last month US Airways issued a new Corporate Ethics manual that forbids employees from providing identity on an internet message board. I'm surprised you did not see the topic on this message board, but on second thought, since you only comment on United Airlines I know why you missed the Ethics topic.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[michael707767]

Bored:

With asset sales pending and the potential to add A320s, I believe ALPA would jump at the opportunity to trade EMB-170s for A320s, especially with a potential merger with United on the horizon.

In fact, now that I think about it, dependent upon the number of mainline jets added (if they arrive on the property), this could end MDA with all of the RJs flown by affiliate carriers.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

I would doubt ALPA would support letting the E-170 be flown at the regionals. ALPAs agenda goes far beyond the USAir pilots. They are trying to hold the line for all the major airline pilots. Plus, if you let the E-170 be flown at the regionals, how are you going to stop the regionals flying the E-190? It will be the same rating from what I have read. Are you really willing to let that cat out of the bag on the promise of some A-320s, which may or may not be replacement vs growth aircraft?
Michael