Us Airways' Week In Review
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
USA320Pilot said:
If US Airways is taking the "mainline" slot and reallocating it to another flight, then using a "commuter" slot to fly the Shuttle flight on E170, then this is ok... its more efficient use of a slot (72 seats vs 50 or 37 or whatever).
IF US Airways is simply flying a E170 on a "mainline" slot, then the efficiency of these slots just declined (72 seats instead of 120 or more).
And since these slots are finite, they are a huge asset. One would have to ask the question if US Airways should fly the shuttle with a smaller aircraft, or find somewhere else to fly a bigger aircraft, which would presumably produce more profit.
We were just discussing this very fact in another thread about the value of slots relative to E170's.
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
US convinced DCA to consider the 170 "Express", so by using it on the Shuttle it opens up US's valuable mainline slots that the are mostly eaten up by the Shuttle. The 170/190 would be great for the Shuttle, they are the most similar product wise to when there was a dedicated Shuttle fleet.
I would maintain that this is only a good move if those valuable mainline slots get reallocated to something more valuable than the shuttle... A very real possibility given the market changes since 9/11... Increased security hassle making short-haul flights less valuable, particularly the shuttle due to a competing mode of transportation (Acela).
I've said for a while that I believe that if another carrier thought that the Shuttle was valuable, it was not valuable to keep operating the shuttle, but rather to use those slots to serve other markets. If US Airways does the same thing, then US Airways can realize the gains. Meanwhile operating the Shuttle on Commuter Slots, presumably replacing turbo prop service to small markets, which could be flowed over a hub due to minimal nonstop competition, would represent a second financial gain (presumably).
Let's see if this is where the company goes moving forward. If it is, then I would dare say that CCY might be "getting it" in some cases.
I've said for a while that I believe that if another carrier thought that the Shuttle was valuable, it was not valuable to keep operating the shuttle, but rather to use those slots to serve other markets. If US Airways does the same thing, then US Airways can realize the gains. Meanwhile operating the Shuttle on Commuter Slots, presumably replacing turbo prop service to small markets, which could be flowed over a hub due to minimal nonstop competition, would represent a second financial gain (presumably).
Let's see if this is where the company goes moving forward. If it is, then I would dare say that CCY might be "getting it" in some cases.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #22
700UW:
700UW said: "The Airbus Widebody Heavy Mtc will be outsourced, and the A330 will not fit in any of the PIT Hangars. Your articles contradict each other, don't you read them before you post?
USA320Pilot comments: The thread starting post had information that was obtained from the newspaper. The staff writer obtained incorrect information and I simply reported what the column said.
Separately, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported US Airways spokesman David Castelveter would only say yesterday that the airline was finalizing its analysis of how to distribute its maintenance work on its fleet.
Thus, myabe you should contact the company or the IAM to get more up to date information. However, the newspaper reproted "We do understand that US Airways intends to make these moves, but we have not received any official notification from the company at this point," said machinists union spokesman Joe Tiberi.
See Story
Best regareds,
USA320Pilot
700UW said: "The Airbus Widebody Heavy Mtc will be outsourced, and the A330 will not fit in any of the PIT Hangars. Your articles contradict each other, don't you read them before you post?
USA320Pilot comments: The thread starting post had information that was obtained from the newspaper. The staff writer obtained incorrect information and I simply reported what the column said.
Separately, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported US Airways spokesman David Castelveter would only say yesterday that the airline was finalizing its analysis of how to distribute its maintenance work on its fleet.
Thus, myabe you should contact the company or the IAM to get more up to date information. However, the newspaper reproted "We do understand that US Airways intends to make these moves, but we have not received any official notification from the company at this point," said machinists union spokesman Joe Tiberi.
See Story
Best regareds,
USA320Pilot
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
320...USA320Pilot said:
So let me get this right if you report and or post false information on here technically you are not wrong because you only reported on what you read? No need to verify it right? Just the messenger trick.
So would that be the same when you report information that you got from someone else that is false information? Technically you are not wrong because someone else told you it? No need to verify it right? Just the messenger trick.
Which brings me to my point at what time would you ever consider that you are you wrong for posting false information?
Would that be only when someone else did the posting of false information?
Dog Wonder
Veteran
"USA320Pilot comments: The thread starting post had information that was obtained from the newspaper."
It must be gospel then.
It must be gospel then.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #25
Usairways_vote_NO:
Most people understand the newspaper should have used the "narrowbody" versus "widebody" term.
By the way, your user name is no longer valid because there will likely no more voting in the near-term. Moreover, it appears the majority of your colleagues do not agree with your sentiment.
How can that be?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Most people understand the newspaper should have used the "narrowbody" versus "widebody" term.
By the way, your user name is no longer valid because there will likely no more voting in the near-term. Moreover, it appears the majority of your colleagues do not agree with your sentiment.
How can that be?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
NeedForSpeed
Senior
- Jan 6, 2005
- 339
- 0
Your play on words makes for good reading......and I guess to some think your a riot....(not me)....but you keep playing your little funny tune....keep making a joke of a serious situation...get over it! the vote is done, move on! Either stay....or QUIT!!! By the way.......GOOD DAY!!!!!usairways_vote_NO said:
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
USA320Pilot said:
Who are most people? usairways employees? USaviation readers? population in general? So since MOST people understood the newspapers use of a wrong term there was no need for the messenger to report the error? Its ok to just post the information on here without correcting the error, the error that you said most people (including the messenger I assume) understood was an error, because I again assume it was so obvious.
How can what be? Oh so soon you forget.. if you look at when I made my screenname 2 other times my screenname seemed to become unvalid but lo and behold it became valid again. Is third time the charm? Or is it that USairways will fail and there will be no need for another vote? You tell me which is it? What is it with you and your fascination with my screen-name? I do love that it irks you so as you have shown many times on here.
By the way you didn't answer my question. Seems you dodged the issue again.
Art at ISP
Veteran
mweiss said:
It's a 737-700. Makes the point though....
usairways_vote_NO
Veteran
- Sep 9, 2002
- 1,882
- 57
NeedForSpeed said:
That was an interesting read... but I didn't bring up the vote (that you say is done) ,, that would be 320. Oh do you remember that movie groundhog day? Never say never, won't or can't happen again.
