Us Cuts Flights At Phl, Fll, And Clt

[Headhunter]

Even though SAL & PTY were probably a bad idea in the first place, and current management should be criticized for that, can we at least give credit to them for at least cutting losses early instead of sustaining service for years and years and years (e.g., PIT)?

 

[Rico]

Good point.

Another good point, no furloughs because of the aircraft being returned...

All in all, as bad news goes, this is pretty good.

IMO managment is being proactive, not reactive. And that is the best thing of all.

 

[USFlyer]

Let's not overlook the fact that they can cut 11 planes without seriously impact the existing schedule ... that's 11 fewer lease payments without losing all that much revenue.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Good point.

Another good point, no furloughs because of the aircraft being returned...

All in all, as bad news goes, this is pretty good.

IMO managment is being proactive, not reactive. And that is the best thing of all.

[post="251153"][/post]​

You really don't think it will lead to forloughs?

 

[Rico]

You really don't think it will lead to forloughs?

No, they were already short staffed from what I understand for pilots and Flight attendants. And I doubt that 14 flights less of a schedule is going to free up that many people...

Look, I know that many of you are dying for any chance to throw fuel on the fire of to doom and gloom everything and anything that comes out about US Airways. But the honest truth is that IF we are supposed to become a LCC, then we need to be far more productive, and flying pretty much the same schedule (how many total flights a day do we fly, what precentage is 14 flights...?) with 11 fewer aircraft is an indication that we are starting to do something in the right direction in terms of productivity.

And if we have to lose further aircraft, better it be our oldest narrowbodies, rather than additional Airbuses.

If we have to lose destinations, better weak international ones than any mainline domestic...

 

[sfb]

Look, I know that many of you are dying for any chance to throw fuel on the fire of to doom and gloom everything and anything that comes out about US Airways. But the honest truth is that IF we are supposed to become a LCC, then we need to be far more productive, and flying pretty much the same schedule (how many total flights a day do we fly, what precentage is 14 flights...?) with 11 fewer aircraft is an indication that we are starting to do something in the right direction in terms of productivity.

Well, that's 14 flights systemwide, not 14 mainline flights. The company's press release, if you count up the flights, announces 17 discontinued round-trips for mainline (which won't be replaced by Express), which works out to 34 fewer mainline flights per day. Moreover, the news release isn't specific as to other routes which may see mainline service replaced by RJ's. Certain service additions (like the resumption of PIT-IAH on Midatlantic) also help offset the reduction of mainline flights.

My best guesstimate is that mainline departures will drop by about 3% based on roughly 1250 daily mainline flights. 11 jets are roughly 4% of the fleet. Systemwide departures decrease by <1%.

And if we have to lose further aircraft, better it be our oldest narrowbodies, rather than additional Airbuses.

Well, that actually depends on lease rates, maintenance burden, etc. Most of the Airbus narrowbody fleet is coming due for S checks, so the maintenance cost advantage is declining. Proper upkeep of the interiors can mean that the passenger experience on a 20-year-old 757 can be as good as on a 3-year-old Airbus.

If we have to lose destinations, better weak international ones than any mainline domestic...

Absolutely true...and it is expensive to maintain small stations that see only one flight a day.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

No, they were already short staffed from what I understand for pilots and Flight attendants. And I doubt that 14 flights less of a schedule is going to free up that many people...

[post="251163"][/post]​

Let me rephrase my question ..You really don't think it will lead to any forloughs in any workgroups?

 

[ClueByFour]

If we have to lose destinations, better weak international ones than any mainline domestic...

[post="251163"][/post]​

You have postulated in other threads that it's good leadership on CCY to head to these international locations, citing lack of competition. Surely, you would want to continue servicing a destination where US (temporarily) has some sort of monopoly, rather than throwing another few frequencies at PHL-RDU or somesuch?

 

[Headhunter]

You have postulated in other threads that it's good leadership on CCY to head to these international locations, citing lack of competition. Surely, you would want to continue servicing a destination where US (temporarily) has some sort of monopoly, rather than throwing another few frequencies at PHL-RDU or somesuch?

[post="251282"][/post]​

US would have a monopoly if it could fly to Rwanda, too; but I doubt it would be profitable!

 

[funguy2]

That may well be true. I don't know enough about the routes that ZW is providing to UA, or the ones they would be providing to US.

Air Wisconsin Route Map

 

[funguy2]

Even though SAL & PTY were probably a bad idea in the first place, and current management should be criticized for that, can we at least give credit to them for at least cutting losses early instead of sustaining service for years and years and years (e.g., PIT)?

[post="251128"][/post]​

No, I don't give them credit for this... This means they didn't do their homework if the market is SOOO BAD that it cannot be sustained after only weeks of being there...

US Airways needs to do one of the following, in this regard:
1. Ensure every addition is a home-run from day 1 (unlikely)
2. Give time to new markets to actually develop (unlikely given lack of cash)
3. Fix the real structural issues, rather than running from LCC's (unlikely)

 

[USA320Pilot]

There is more to the story regarding Panama City and San Salvador. Do not be surprised if US Airways re-enters the market(s) in the not-so-distant future.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[CaptianBoomer]

USA320:

What idiot starts service, stops service, and then starts again?

The idiots running U couldn't manage a hot dog cart on a NY street corner.

Boomer

 

[N924PS]

There is more to the story regarding Panama City and San Salvador. Do not be surprised if US Airways re-enters the market(s) in the not-so-distant future.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="251308"][/post]​

USA320-

Can you explain to us why U management is clinging to the RJ/LargeRJ strategy with their high CASM's?

Successful LCC's seem to be seeking longer stage length city pairs (JFK-BUR, JFK-PDX, PHL-SAN, BWI-LAX, ATL-LAX). Why does U disregard this strategy in favor of the short haul/high CASM model?

 

[diogenes]

Let's not overlook the fact that they can cut 11 planes without seriously impact the existing schedule ... that's 11 fewer lease payments without losing all that much revenue.

[post="251155"][/post]​

True. Lets also not lose sight of the fact they could have scheduled this efficiently prior to BK1 or BK2.