US Airways will assume American in name
- Thread starter FM2436
- Start date
EastCheats
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2012
- 1,944
- 6,141
If this thing goes through, I'm glad. I never liked their flag. I prefer the red white and blue.
To add to the pedantic comments in this thread: AA's headquarters are no more in Dallas as USAirways headquarters are in Scottsdale or Phoenix. US HQ is in Tempe, right? AA's HQ sits on what was once the Greater Southwest International Airport (GSW), quite a ways from Dallas.
Southwest Airlines has a headquarters in Dallas.
N965VJ
Veteran
Something's up with the AvWeek site - it won't load.
Anyway, how 'bout American West as the new name?
Anyway, how 'bout American West as the new name?
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
As far as the livery goes, the current US colors are not my favorite; especially the silly swoosh. ( I did love the blue top, though). I would hope that the AA scheme would be kept. Sure, it is the oldest one of any US carrier, but is also timeless and classy. And bare metal, as long as it is kept up, looks great.
One of the things I like about the blue top is that it can be distinguished from a great distance from also those other white airplanes; the same is true of the bare metal.
The American name has far more market presence and brand identity than US Airways. Just as US Airways had more than America West and, going back many years, Continental had more than Texas International. In both cases, the stronger brand name was kept.
As I have said before, once the labor issues are worked out, ( I say "once", not "if" on purpose) the combination will be a good thing indeed. The industry will have a new, strong, mega carrier.
In spite of its flaws, I do like US Airways --- as well as having an interest in its success; it is a much better carrier than it gets credit for. But I really do not think it is big enough in the age of the mega carriers.
Over twenty five years ago, a major industry analyst (the name escapes me) said that the end effect of deregulation would be three US carriers: AA, DL, and UA. It looks like --- other than the likes of WN and B6 --- he was right.
A generation ago (an eternity in this business) there were the trunk carriers: AA, BN, CO, DL, NA, NW, TW, UA, and WA and the local service carriers: AL, OZ, RW, NC, SO, PI, TX. (Also intra state carriers: OC PS WN). Did I leave any out? That is a lot of companies to wind up with so few.
The same thing has happened in railroad industry. From a bunch Class One companies ( almost certainly leaving some out) Burlington Northern, Santa Fe, Norfolk and Western, C&O, B&O, Illinois Central Gulf, Seaboard Lines, Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Western Pacific, Chicago Northwestern, Milwaukee Road, Conrail, Southern Railway. Now there are four: BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX.
I don't know enough about the trucking industry, but would not be surprised if the same thing happened there.
Has it all been a good thing for customers, employees and shareholders? I don't know. But would imagine the last the of three fared the best.
One of the things I like about the blue top is that it can be distinguished from a great distance from also those other white airplanes; the same is true of the bare metal.
The American name has far more market presence and brand identity than US Airways. Just as US Airways had more than America West and, going back many years, Continental had more than Texas International. In both cases, the stronger brand name was kept.
As I have said before, once the labor issues are worked out, ( I say "once", not "if" on purpose) the combination will be a good thing indeed. The industry will have a new, strong, mega carrier.
In spite of its flaws, I do like US Airways --- as well as having an interest in its success; it is a much better carrier than it gets credit for. But I really do not think it is big enough in the age of the mega carriers.
Over twenty five years ago, a major industry analyst (the name escapes me) said that the end effect of deregulation would be three US carriers: AA, DL, and UA. It looks like --- other than the likes of WN and B6 --- he was right.
A generation ago (an eternity in this business) there were the trunk carriers: AA, BN, CO, DL, NA, NW, TW, UA, and WA and the local service carriers: AL, OZ, RW, NC, SO, PI, TX. (Also intra state carriers: OC PS WN). Did I leave any out? That is a lot of companies to wind up with so few.
The same thing has happened in railroad industry. From a bunch Class One companies ( almost certainly leaving some out) Burlington Northern, Santa Fe, Norfolk and Western, C&O, B&O, Illinois Central Gulf, Seaboard Lines, Southern Pacific, Union Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Western Pacific, Chicago Northwestern, Milwaukee Road, Conrail, Southern Railway. Now there are four: BNSF, Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern and CSX.
I don't know enough about the trucking industry, but would not be surprised if the same thing happened there.
Has it all been a good thing for customers, employees and shareholders? I don't know. But would imagine the last the of three fared the best.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Mesa doesn't want to dump their reputation any further into the gutter.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
As far back as the late 70's, I remember an old time UA bus driver telling me that there would only be 3 major airlines left in the future. Looks like he was right. The guys name was Harry, and he ran the employee bus back and forth from the terminal. I was a young kid, and had no idea what the hell he was talking about at the time.
I almost can say for certain that he said AA, UA, & DL..
I almost can say for certain that he said AA, UA, & DL..
jimntx
Veteran
Well, now. To go super-pedantic, it is important to point out that AMR Corporation has a Ft.Worth mailing address. (Not something Dallas people like discussed in polite company.)
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
I'll just be glad the name "US Airways" is gone. I've ALWAYS been a Piedmont pilot that flies for US Airways.
Driver...
A fine example of backwards thinking that sadly exists 23 years after the merger. This is why retirement is a good thing.
Later,
Eye
Art at ISP
Veteran
Keeping the American name and AAL code makes perfect sense. It is much better known on a global basis, and has a much longer history, for those who may be nostalgic. As far as color schemes go, I like the current American scheme, which is the oldest around--goes back to 1969-70 if I am not mistaken, but I do believe there is an issue with Airbus and bare metal skins...A300's were all painted grey in the beginning, until they were modified to permit bare metal--and I am not sure the 320 series can be bare...
That said, why don't we ALL grow up and put our big boy/girl panties on and have an INTELLIGENT conversation in at least one thread without attacking each other....
Nuff said--to summarize, I think American is the name, and OneWorld is the Alliance. US is basically superfluous to Star right now anyway to some people's thinking.
That said, why don't we ALL grow up and put our big boy/girl panties on and have an INTELLIGENT conversation in at least one thread without attacking each other....
Nuff said--to summarize, I think American is the name, and OneWorld is the Alliance. US is basically superfluous to Star right now anyway to some people's thinking.
I could be wrong, but I thought the Airbus aircraft could not be left bare since the skin is made of composites.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #29
Nope, not yet although the A350 will be mostly a composite skin. All the newer aircraft from Airbus and Boeing use composite panels/fairings and control surfaces but except for the 787 the fuselage is still mostly aluminum. I've heard that AA does order their planes with a special aluminum alloy that doesn't corrode as badly.
Jim
Jim
ChockJockey
Veteran
- Dec 18, 2008
- 1,393
- 1,350
I found this picture online of an AA liveried A321. No idea why/where/how but here it is:
