US Airways looks to trim global seats

[ableoneable]

Good point! CO & WN were in good hands with Bethune and Kelleher prior and that should be duly noted.

What should also be duly noted is that when Bethune took over CO, US Airways by comparison looked like LH and we all know what Bethune accomplished.

It would be nice to see what the first 3 years at CO looked like under Bethune compared to Mr Parker.

People also need to remember the WN had 1 of its 4 planes repossed in the early days prior to their stunning success.

Parker is not Bethune. I can't argue with that at all.

 

[ClueByFour]

Though I was one of the very few employees to be against the ATSB loan I must take issue with you on a minor point.

Parker had lined up financing in early September of 2001 which fell apart as a result of the attacks on the eleventh.

So had the attacks not occurred HP was one of the airlines that would not have needed ATSB loans. I am not sure the same can be said for AAA.

I'm not quibbling that CCY was a wreck. They needed a bankruptcy to jettison labor costs.

With that said, it does not matter that Parker "lined up financing." The airline would not have survived absent the ATSB. Full stop. There was not enough to cut--given that the workgroups already made (relative to their peers at the time) peanuts and a good portion of the equipment was hocked to the gills.

If you think the mere act of mortgaging things at a good rate makes for a good airline CEO, there are a ton of unemployed mortgage brokers running around these days many of whom can actually decide to have too many drinks and then not subsequently operate their own automobile....

As far as chapter 11 goes, I believe that Parker was still at AMR when HP was in bankruptcy.

Yeah, but the residual effects of the first bankruptcy were still there--notably the labor costs.

Why did Parker not elect to chase Delta outside of Chapter 11, you think? There is a fundamental difference between a good CFO and a good CEO. Parker thinks he can fix the world with creative financing and managing by spreadsheet. Not so much...

 

[ableoneable]

I'm not quibbling that CCY was a wreck. They needed a bankruptcy to jettison labor costs.

With that said, it does not matter that Parker "lined up financing." The airline would not have survived absent the ATSB. Full stop. There was not enough to cut--given that the workgroups already made (relative to their peers at the time) peanuts and a good portion of the equipment was hocked to the gills.

Given the state of the markets after 9/11 I agree that the ATSB loan was make or break. It therefore becomes a philosophical argument about whether or not you believe the government should have, or should not have, stepped in to save airlines after 9/11.

Personally, I thought it was a good time to thin the heard. My only point was that Parker had set up financing that would have ensured HPs survival at the time. (Absent the terror attack.)

If you think the mere act of mortgaging things at a good rate makes for a good airline CEO, there are a ton of unemployed mortgage brokers running around these days many of whom can actually decide to have too many drinks and then not subsequently operate their own automobile....

Don't get the idea that I am a management cheerleader. I am not. I would say, however, that he is better than the guys who sailed AAA onto the reef (twice).

Yeah, but the residual effects of the first bankruptcy were still there--notably the labor costs.

Just to nit pick: The pay rates were not reduced by the BK court but it was under the flag of chapter 11 that the pilot agreement was negotiated and implemented.

So you are largely correct. His labor agreement was forged under chapter 11 conditions, giving him an advantage over the other CEOs.

Why did Parker not elect to chase Delta outside of Chapter 11, you think? There is a fundamental difference between a good CFO and a good CEO. Parker thinks he can fix the world with creative financing and managing by spreadsheet. Not so much...

Point taken.

My point is simply that many of the east posters here seem to be under the impression that AAA was a well managed powerhouse that Parker screwed up.

Though I am sure there are operational aspects that are not as good as they once were at AAA, the point is that the AAA model was not successful. You can't factor survival out of the equation and say that AAA was well managed. They were on the edge of the abyss, and you can't term that a success.

 

[ussnark]

Wrong .......

"Switching places", do you mean that domestic is up and international is down? Are those "trends", actual numbers or just a comment that begs for qualifiers? You seem to imply that "yield" on international (Caribbean?) is now what domestic used to be and that domestic is now what international used to be? or is this some secret code?

I think "trim global seats" means just what it says.

 

[ussnark]

I respectfully disagree. The CEO's of CO and WN run rings around the talent at US and they have the balance sheets and P & L's to prove it.

I think he meant amongst "medium size networked carriers", of which there is only one, per management.

 

[Travelpro72]

I'll take this baby back on topic before the mods jump out of the trees and shut her down quicker than Valujet. I wonder what cities are weakest load factor wise. Anyone think they'd shut or cut frequency to LGW in favor of LHR? As many people that like LHR I think twice as many hate it. Also is the agreement still in effect where if you fly DUB you have to fly SNN? I thought that was over. Could we see SNN go if it's able to be dropped?

 

[Ralph]

:cop: Warning! Topic Drift! :cop:

The topic is US Airways possible capacity cuts. Turn it into a US vs. HP argument, and the thread will be closed.

Evidently, some of you don't read moderator notices. This was posted a little over 12 hours ago. This thread is closed.