Us Airways Chief Says Emergence Likely By June
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
or did it get to you because you are smoking something and don't understand? 
Dog Wonder
Veteran
"Lighten up dude! It's just a saying or did it get to you because you are smoking something and don't understand?"
Perhaps it got to him because he isn't smoking anything.
Perhaps it got to him because he isn't smoking anything.
Sorry if I can't support a company whose best-executed plan has been to deceive and mistreat it's employees. I supported the company when it asked for the first round of pay cuts but it quickly proved to be a one-note tune. There was never an honest attempt to gain their employees support in order to cut costs and increase revenue. It became all to apparent that they wanted to cut, cut and cut where ever they could with no regard to how that would look or feel to the employees. I will try not to judge you if you feel you can or need to excuse upper managements behavior. But, since I cut ties with Usair 3 months ago I don't have to forgive or forget, nor for that matter will I sugar coat my opinion of them to possible customers.SpinDoc said:
Hate to be the one that points out the obvious, but you seem too biased to notice it...
IF the company uses the aircraft, people, and assets we have, in the manner they plan, that alone will drop our costs dramatically. If we fly more, using fewer aircraft, people, and the same number of gates, that is called "better productivity".
AND BTW, the aircraft you keep whining about them "adding" are being used to replace the smaller Express jet aircraft (with high CASM) in specific markets with larger equipment that has a lower CASM than the 50 seaters... Or they replace short haul turboprops routes with long haul routes to good O+D markets, to also reduce overall system CASM.... Not to replace Mainline flights.
The only thing that is replacing lost mainline aircraft, is the remaining mainline aircraft being utilized better, duh.
And, by the time the plan is "fully" implemented, labor costs in all work groups will lowered further by retirement, replacement, or just plain being bought out...
I know, you have a hard time imagining it to be possible, but you had a real hard time imagining that every labor group would give the required concessions 6 months ago too Jim...
There is no airline out there with as much room for improvement as US Airways, and when it comes to lowering costs, that is a good thing.
- Banned
- #36
Rico said:AND BTW, the aircraft you keep whining about them "adding" are being used to replace the smaller Express jet aircraft (with high CASM) in specific markets with larger equipment that has a lower CASM than the 50 seaters... Or they replace short haul turboprops routes with long haul routes to good O+D markets, to also reduce overall system CASM.... Not to replace Mainline flights.
The only thing that is replacing lost mainline aircraft, is the remaining mainline aircraft being utilized better, duh.
[post="242744"][/post]
Funny, NO RJs are being returned, only 10 Airbus A319 and 13 737s, please explain how if no RJs are being returned, but yet 25 mainline airplanes how, that how are the 6 170s and the 3 CRJ-701s replacing RJs?
The addition of the E-170's had nothing to do with the return of the mainline aircraft you mentioned, that was a financing issue, not a operational one.
Let me put it another way, if we eventually get rid of the old 767-200's in the future, while at the same time adding additonal A319's, you would not be dense enough to claim that the Airbuses were "replacing" the 767's, would you...?
Granted, you can fly a 767 on an Airbus route, and you can fly a 319 on some of the 767 routes, but that does not mean that they were bought for the same mission.
By "replacing", I mean they are taking over the "slots" previously used by the RJ's and Turboprops in both DCA and PHL, sending those aircraft elsewhere. Since they are using commuter slots, and express gates, it is obvious that they are replacing express aircraft in these two airports, not mainline...
Let me put it another way, if we eventually get rid of the old 767-200's in the future, while at the same time adding additonal A319's, you would not be dense enough to claim that the Airbuses were "replacing" the 767's, would you...?
Granted, you can fly a 767 on an Airbus route, and you can fly a 319 on some of the 767 routes, but that does not mean that they were bought for the same mission.
By "replacing", I mean they are taking over the "slots" previously used by the RJ's and Turboprops in both DCA and PHL, sending those aircraft elsewhere. Since they are using commuter slots, and express gates, it is obvious that they are replacing express aircraft in these two airports, not mainline...
- Banned
- #38
DCA and LGA are the only two slot controlled airports. And when you take a mainline plane out of the fleet and replace it with an RJ you lose ASMs which increase the CASMs.
For example mainline planes use to fly to SRQ, not it is CRJ-701s, with no new cities started and several airplanes have been removed from the mainline fleet.
They are replacing mainline flying since mainline jets are going back and RJs are replacing the very flying the mainline jets use to do.
For example mainline planes use to fly to SRQ, not it is CRJ-701s, with no new cities started and several airplanes have been removed from the mainline fleet.
They are replacing mainline flying since mainline jets are going back and RJs are replacing the very flying the mainline jets use to do.
I understand many are all bent about any loss of aircraft from the fleet while another type is added. But tough cookies. It is what it is.
I would rather those aircraft have remained as much as any other pilot here, but it did not work out that way/
Blame the RC4 and other union leaders that dragged the negotiations out to the bitter end, enabling such to occur. Not the addition of a handful of E-170s that were on order long before those mainline aircraft were taken back.
You need a scapegoat for your situation, blame someone else other than MDA.
I would rather those aircraft have remained as much as any other pilot here, but it did not work out that way/
Blame the RC4 and other union leaders that dragged the negotiations out to the bitter end, enabling such to occur. Not the addition of a handful of E-170s that were on order long before those mainline aircraft were taken back.
You need a scapegoat for your situation, blame someone else other than MDA.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Who's looking for a scapegoat? Motivation Schmotivation.... I'm not interested in corporate psychology. emotions and intent don't change what actions or inactions, facts and circumstances actually do.
Why cant folks take facts, make assumptions, use some judgment, throw in some opinion, guesses and etc. and just have at it? Does it matter what U intends to do? It matters what the plan is and facts are still evolving. I hope Rico is right.
But I'd still rather be seeing and hearing this:
Our rolling PHL will solve operational problems at PHL and throughout our system, freeing up hours of mainline jet time and allowing more efficient use of gates, labor and the airfield at PHL, so that we can serve major markets out of PHL with large jets. And we'll duplicate (or nearly so) our DCA strategy at LGA with 170s instead of operating them out of PHL.
But what I'm actually seeing and hearing is:
PHL is hopeless, operationally, so we CANT operate large aircraft to major markets, instead we must operate small jets to major markets (ceding competitive advantage) simply to get PHL to kinda/sorta work (chewing gum is next). So, we're continuing to underutilize assets at BOS and LGA so that we can through them at PHL (hey, but it has the side effect of continuing to complicate WN's operation at PHL)
Or maybe I'm hearing:
The financial community is simply keeping U on life support to tranisition large jets OUT of our operation. So, this is the best we can do. If a miracle happens and U turns around, then maybe we can get bigger jets. In the meantime, operating our large jets to the Caribbean better positions U for sale and doesnt require W-2 hiring and generates cash in a cyclicly favorable manner. At least we're keeping one toe in the pool of competing with legacy carriers in our major markets.
Why cant folks take facts, make assumptions, use some judgment, throw in some opinion, guesses and etc. and just have at it? Does it matter what U intends to do? It matters what the plan is and facts are still evolving. I hope Rico is right.
But I'd still rather be seeing and hearing this:
Our rolling PHL will solve operational problems at PHL and throughout our system, freeing up hours of mainline jet time and allowing more efficient use of gates, labor and the airfield at PHL, so that we can serve major markets out of PHL with large jets. And we'll duplicate (or nearly so) our DCA strategy at LGA with 170s instead of operating them out of PHL.
But what I'm actually seeing and hearing is:
PHL is hopeless, operationally, so we CANT operate large aircraft to major markets, instead we must operate small jets to major markets (ceding competitive advantage) simply to get PHL to kinda/sorta work (chewing gum is next). So, we're continuing to underutilize assets at BOS and LGA so that we can through them at PHL (hey, but it has the side effect of continuing to complicate WN's operation at PHL)
Or maybe I'm hearing:
The financial community is simply keeping U on life support to tranisition large jets OUT of our operation. So, this is the best we can do. If a miracle happens and U turns around, then maybe we can get bigger jets. In the meantime, operating our large jets to the Caribbean better positions U for sale and doesnt require W-2 hiring and generates cash in a cyclicly favorable manner. At least we're keeping one toe in the pool of competing with legacy carriers in our major markets.
I think everyone is reading too much into too little.
What we have here is a small number of new planes, ordered and built pre-bk, that can be added to the system right now, to add positive revenue and market strength in DCA. They are not the last airplanes Airways will ever add to the fleet, just the most recent...
The mainline aircraft that everyone is complaining about losing, from what I understand, were being leased at below market value. So the theory that the company was looking to rid itself of these cheap aircraft is kinda stupid if that is the case... It is just the lessor looking to lease them to someone else at a higher rate.
We are in bankruptcy, you all should be glad that the more severe plan was not imposed upon US Airways, that would have returned all but 150 of our mainline aircraft. We got off easy considering that as a alternative.
So enough already with the paranoia about regional jets replacing all of mainline. It is getting old...
Just be glad we are in a position now to add anything to the fleet, that is a long ways from where we were last fall.
What we have here is a small number of new planes, ordered and built pre-bk, that can be added to the system right now, to add positive revenue and market strength in DCA. They are not the last airplanes Airways will ever add to the fleet, just the most recent...
The mainline aircraft that everyone is complaining about losing, from what I understand, were being leased at below market value. So the theory that the company was looking to rid itself of these cheap aircraft is kinda stupid if that is the case... It is just the lessor looking to lease them to someone else at a higher rate.
We are in bankruptcy, you all should be glad that the more severe plan was not imposed upon US Airways, that would have returned all but 150 of our mainline aircraft. We got off easy considering that as a alternative.
So enough already with the paranoia about regional jets replacing all of mainline. It is getting old...
Just be glad we are in a position now to add anything to the fleet, that is a long ways from where we were last fall.
North by Northwest
Veteran
YOU WROTE>>>>>>>>>"
US Airways is poised to take on the LCC's and the legacy carriers in their own back yards, and my money is on US Airways. ">>>>>>>>>>>>
This is NWA's answer to U.S air in DTW..........guess who will win ???
Also, Checkout what NWA did to ATA in THEIR hometown
U.S. Airways offers low D.C. deal; Northwest counters
Fierce competition among airlines pushes already unprofitable low fares further.
By Joel J. Smith / The Detroit News
ROMULUS -- U.S. Airways announced new nonstop service Wednesday between Detroit and Ronald Reagan Washington Airport at a special low introductory fare that prompted Northwest Airlines to respond with lower fares to the nation's capital.
U.S. Airways' new service from Detroit Metropolitan Airport to Washington's closest airport begins Feb. 6 with four daily round-trip flights at an introductory price of $148, including taxes and fees. The tickets must be bought by Feb. 1 and are good through March 24.
Northwest countered Wednesday with a promotional round-trip early morning flight at $124 and later daytime flights at $136 roundtrip. The Northwest tickets require a seven-day advanced purchase for travel through March 24.
"This was in response to the U.S. Airways announcement," said Thomas Becher, manager of media relations for Northwest, which has its largest hub at Detroit Metro with nearly 700 daily departures.
Analysts have cited fierce competition between airlines as helping to compound the industry's financial problems by pushing already unprofitably low fares down further. U.S. carriers have recorded losses of almost $30 billion since 2001.
Amy Kudwa, a U.S. Airways spokeswoman, said the new Detroit flights to Washington are aimed at attracting the business traveler. "Washington DC is one of our key focus cities. We're connecting it to business markets like Detroit. It is an important part of our transformation plan," said Kudwa.
U.S. Airways is in bankruptcy, struggling to restructure the airline to stay in business. The airline has extracted $800 million in cost savings from employees.
US Airways is poised to take on the LCC's and the legacy carriers in their own back yards, and my money is on US Airways. ">>>>>>>>>>>>
This is NWA's answer to U.S air in DTW..........guess who will win ???
Also, Checkout what NWA did to ATA in THEIR hometown
U.S. Airways offers low D.C. deal; Northwest counters
Fierce competition among airlines pushes already unprofitable low fares further.
By Joel J. Smith / The Detroit News
ROMULUS -- U.S. Airways announced new nonstop service Wednesday between Detroit and Ronald Reagan Washington Airport at a special low introductory fare that prompted Northwest Airlines to respond with lower fares to the nation's capital.
U.S. Airways' new service from Detroit Metropolitan Airport to Washington's closest airport begins Feb. 6 with four daily round-trip flights at an introductory price of $148, including taxes and fees. The tickets must be bought by Feb. 1 and are good through March 24.
Northwest countered Wednesday with a promotional round-trip early morning flight at $124 and later daytime flights at $136 roundtrip. The Northwest tickets require a seven-day advanced purchase for travel through March 24.
"This was in response to the U.S. Airways announcement," said Thomas Becher, manager of media relations for Northwest, which has its largest hub at Detroit Metro with nearly 700 daily departures.
Analysts have cited fierce competition between airlines as helping to compound the industry's financial problems by pushing already unprofitably low fares down further. U.S. carriers have recorded losses of almost $30 billion since 2001.
Amy Kudwa, a U.S. Airways spokeswoman, said the new Detroit flights to Washington are aimed at attracting the business traveler. "Washington DC is one of our key focus cities. We're connecting it to business markets like Detroit. It is an important part of our transformation plan," said Kudwa.
U.S. Airways is in bankruptcy, struggling to restructure the airline to stay in business. The airline has extracted $800 million in cost savings from employees.
