Us Broad Europe Access Application

[sfb]

The only way an airline obtains code share revenue is when a passenger flies on the company's own aircraft. US Airways intends to add new European cities to its network that are hubs for Star Alliance members.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Yes, the passengers fly on US from PHL or CLT to FRA or MUC, and then on LH to smaller cities in Europe. Or they fly US domestically and then on a Star Alliance partner on the transatlantic/European legs. That's how it works for Delta and its SkyTeam partners, and they haven't been in any hurry to add non-stop flights to PRG or ICN. UA doesn't fly into VIE either, and they have a much larger widebody fleet. BHX and HEL aren't Star hubs, and OSL isn't much of a hub for SAS (CPH is their primary hub).

USA320Pilot answers: Dave Siegel indicated at the Bombardier press conference last August the EMB-190/195 could be used s B737 replacement aircraft, but the new plan is to add CRJ-900 and/or EMB-190/195 aircraft to MDA. In addition, Lakefield told ALPA at a meeting I intended about 6 weeks ago hw was talking to Airbus about adding mainline aircraft to the fleet.

Dave Siegel said a LOT of things; for example, that the company wouldn't need to terminate the pilots' pensions, that one round of concessions in bankruptcy would be enough to save the company, and that the company's business plan upon emerging bankruptcy would mean profits this year. He also said he was willing to forego his golden parachute back in April. The company said it wasn't planning to outsource Airbus narrowbody heavy maintenance. The company said it was going to maintain the hub in Pittsburgh until they rejected the leases less than an hour before filing the final reorganization plan.

It's certainly your prerogative to believe the pile of steaming brown matter which management has been shoveling at you, but you know, the track record is poor at best. I'd believe that the company had new Airbuses coming (aside from the existing order) only after seeing the signed contracts or the press release filed with the SEC. Look, I think it's plain to see that right now, management will basically say anything they can to get the pilots to bend over. Lakefield can say he's talking to Airbus but that doesn't mean orders are coming. And it doesn't matter one bit whether MDA or mainline flies the 190 or 195 if the company gets the mainline pay rates for those planes down enough. You can bet that jetBlue or Mesa's contract will be what management offers on those, unless someone is paying less than either of them at the time.

 

[700UW]

Guess 320 is wrong again! So please tell me when the new widebodies for service that US won't fly will be arriving!

From Aviation Daily:

Aviation Daily08/09/2004

US Air applied for a blanket exemption to allow the airline to expand its services through code-share with Lufthansa to 12 European countries, with which the U.S. has open-skies agreements.

Although US Air does not have immediate plans to implement service in all the countries, the airline said it wants a broad "all points" authority to Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Sweden "in order to obviate the need to file another application in the future should additional services operated by US Air or code-sharing be warranted."

The airline also asked DOT for route integration authority to combine this request with its other authorities.

US Air currently serves with its own aircraft seven European countries -- France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the U.K. -AK

 

[geo1004]

So US has filed and say they have no immediate plans, yet want to keep the option open "in order to obviate the need to file another application in the future should additional services operated by US Air or code-sharing be warranted."


It would be a wise move for US to look at the possibilities of generating revenue with additional trans-Atlantic flights while AT THE SAME TIME engage in discussions with Airbus and others about the aquisition of additional widebody aircraft.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[700UW]

The company is looking to add used B767-200s or A330s to the fleet plan (although Bruce Lakefield recently told ALPA in a meeting I attended that he was meeting with Airbus about aircraft delivery positions in 2005), provided they can be obtained on the “cheapâ€￾. It’s my understanding that a used B767 has better economics than a B757EOW aircraft in long-thin upstart markets.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot

[post="166176"][/post]​

Near-term is relative and I heard the conference call too. I'll say it again, US Airways has held talks with different aircraft and engine supply companies about widebody delivery's, which could be new or used aircraft. Furthermore, with the news that United Airlines could have more aircraft repossessed, this could change the entire equation too.

Geo, this is what I was responding too and others, while during the 2Q conference call Lakefield said no new widebodies will be joining the fleet anytime soon.

 

[geo1004]

Geo, this is what I was responding too and others, while during the 2Q conference call Lakefield said no new widebodies will be joining the fleet anytime soon.

[post="166446"][/post]​

That's fine. I don't doubt that Lakefield said "nothing will happen any time soon." But given that you can't ramp-up trans-Atlantic flights as quickly as you can domestic flights, there is nothing to say that US isn't exploring the possibility. They'd be fools not to. If they can aquire the planes (new and/or used) and pick profitable destinations they could easily show up on the spring 2005 timetable.

 

[Rob]

I'm all for US flying anyplace they want, but I think asking for "exemption authority," which was designed to get new service in the air quickly, for routes they have no intention of flying is a perversion of the intent of the DOT regs.

US isn't the only airline doing this. I hope the DOT says no to all of them.

 

[PITbull]

Wonder what "real world" would have to say if he were still on the property?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Blanket authority doesn't really gain US much because the countries involved all do have open skies. Dangling that carrot in front of the employees serves to keep them inspired when in reality most of those cities will never support nonstop service from the US. Keep in mind that Delta flew an extensive network of flights to Eastern Europe and smaller western European cities, most of which cannot support nonstop flights. They do work very well with codeshare flights.
The converse is that US has extensive access to the eastern half of the US where most European traffic is either destined or originates.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Some of the new routes could be flown with current widebody’s (the Pittsburgh to London and Frankfurt service will be eliminated)

[post="166176"][/post]​

The PIT-FRA flight is not going anywhere anytime soon. Maybe PIT-BOS-FRA will be forthcoming, but as long a Bayer keeps our PIT-FRA profitable (which they now do,) USairways will serve the market.

 

[ringmaruf]

Back on topic...

ITRADE, maybe you've got an answer on this one...

US already codeshares to WAW, PRG, GOT.

Do they perhaps have certificate or exemption authority to those cities, just not the countries?

 

[USA320Pilot]

Geo1004:

Geo1004 said: "So US has filed and say they have no immediate plans, yet want to keep the option open "in order to obviate the need to file another application in the future should additional services operated by US Air or code-sharing be warranted." It would be a wise move for US to look at the possibilities of generating revenue with additional trans-Atlantic flights while AT THE SAME TIME engage in discussions with Airbus and others about the aquisition of additional widebody aircraft. What's so hard to understand about that?

USA320Pilot comments: Your post is accurate. However, if the company files for bankruptcy, there is reason to believe the airline could reject the leases on one of its two widebody fleets. Why? These aircraft get their heavy maintenance in the winter, which is very expensive and the company would need to conserve cash during the judicial reorganization. The potential candidate would be the A330s because then US Airways could also close its heavy maintenance track and exert more pain on the IAM.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Just one more point...

US Airways told the DOT the blanket filing was used "in order to obviate the need to file another application in the future should additional services operated by US Air or code-sharing be warranted."

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[Light Years]

If US got rid of the A330s then they may as well leave the transatlantic market. They would be left withthe 767s that are pretty tired. That would give them the ability to serve about 5-6 European markets with an extremely sub-par product for only a few more years.

I do hope that US is looking into Europe for more opportunities, particularly with its new status as a Star carrier. They have a good reputation there, particularly in the UK and Ireland, a great product with the A330 and they seem to be making money on it. They have a gorgeous, modern facility at PHL (bag re-check aside) and an extensive network throughout the east. Something like 60% of transatlantic O&D is from east of the Mississippi.

They'd be better off looking into picking up secondhand A330-200s than buying scores of 50 seat jets.

 

[700UW]

USA320Pilot comments: Your post is accurate. However, if the company files for bankruptcy, there is reason to believe the airline could reject the leases on one of its two widebody fleets. Why? These aircraft get their heavy maintenance in the winter, which is very expensive and the company would need to conserve cash during the judicial reorganization. The potential candidate would be the A330s because then US Airways could also close its heavy maintenance track and exert more pain on the IAM.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot

[post="166855"][/post]​

And more that would exert pain on the Senior Pilots too and bump you to MDA flying a EMB170 for $58,000 a year.

Ok folks, lets pick this one apart, the 767 are the oldest in the fleet, they cost more to maintain then the A330 and US has 10 A330-200s on order to replace them. So looks like you are wrong again.
Give it a rest, everyone is tired of your hollow threats.

 

[FlyingHippie]

Do the math usa320 no money, no planes. How can something so simple go in one ear and out the other? i just don't get it.