NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Nosedive, your handle is perfect in describing US' position. They can say what they want. They are in big trouble. They can't possibly compete with WN or B6. So who are they kidding. Their latest trick is to try to get their help to work for nothing. Good luck to them. It does not look good.
Elwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
Actually, this is the right move to make on US's part. They have enough money to continue operating for some time, at least a year, and they are not choosing to reduce their "throughput," or the amount they are capable of producing. Now they just have to learn how to operate their system in a profitable manner.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1529 times:
A "good move" yes, but is it enough to stop the bleeding? And the article doesn't mention any cost cutting measures, I imagine those are still being refined. But still, US Airways is going to have a difficult time as others are smelling blood, "profit" margins in the red, and poising for "attacks" against an injured US Airways. Leaner will help US Airways, and, sadly enough, so will the closure of the PIT hub. Yet the question still remains, will US Airways have what it takes to survive?