Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airways And The Western Usa  
User currently offlineJeffrey1970 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 1336 posts, RR: 12
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

I apologize if this question has already been asked. If Us airways had maintained all, or most of PSA routes when they bought PSA, would they have been able to compete with Southwest? After all, in the early 80's, when Us airways bought PSA, Southwest was successful, but not nearly the giant they are now.


God bless through Jesus, Jeff
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6253 times:

Remember, at that time United has a major West Coast presence, plus AirCal was still flying IIRC. They did maintain PSA routes for a while. Southwest started to move in and I guess it just got a little to hot for US Airways.

AAndrew


User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6227 times:

Could US have beaten WN at its own game, early on?

Well, nobody did... WN was clever about growth and nearly unstoppable in that region of the country.

Now in 2005, HP knows how to battle Southwest at its own game. US did not, never has, but will be taught those skills by HP executives very soon.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11559 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

Quoting Jeffrey1970 (Thread starter):
I apologize if this question has already been asked. If Us airways had maintained all, or most of PSA routes when they bought PSA, would they have been able to compete with Southwest?

No, in a word. IMO, US could never have taken on Southwest effectively as it had (and still has) higher costs, less efficient planes and a more complex operation.


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6195 times:

Actually, PSA was merged into USAir shortly after Air Cal was merged into American. The Air Cal/American merger occurred in 1987 and PSA was integrated into USAir in April of 1988.

Shortly after both mergers, American began to replace former Air Cal routes with American Eagle Convair 580's on routings such as OAK-BUR and SJC-BUR.
Needless to say, the service didn't last long.

Shortly after AA pulled out of several intra-California routes, Southwest embarked on a major expansion. They came into OAK for the first time, having served SFO in the Bay Area since 1982. USAir, with its higher cost structure, couldn't compete with Southwest in intra-California flying. Southwest's OAK operations were (much like PHL) almost an immediate success and frequencies were quickly increased. Within a very short time, Southwest had entered the OAK-BUR, OAK-SAN, OAK-ONT, and OAK-LAX market with multiple frequencies.

USAir meanwhile, was still trying to digest Piedmont which was merged into USAir in August 1989. Losses began to quickly mount and the the gulf war broke out in early 1991. USAir had a very hodge podge fleet of 727's, 737-200/300/400's, Fokker F-28's, MD-80's, BAe-146's. In the Spring of 1991, as losses continued to mount, USAir grounded the BAe-146 fleet (inherited from PSA) and closed most of the satellite airports in California including OAK, SJC, SMF, CCR, SCK, MRY, ONT, FAT as well as the smaller stations in the Pacific Northwest. It was quite a blow to the good folks of PSA.

USAir pretty much packed its bags and ran back east seeking refuge in safer territory (with its high cost, high fare model) hoping to never have to compete with the likes of Southwest. And you know the rest of the story...



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6136 times:

Also keep in mind that the cost in having California crew bases were killing US financially. California is a very pro-employee state. Sicktime, leaves of absence rules and OJI injury claims were sucking out any profits US made in the West.

Therfore, when former CEO David Siegle was asked if US would ever have another base on the West Coast, he quickly stated "never again".


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6093 times:

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 5):
Also keep in mind that the cost in having California crew bases were killing US financially. California is a very pro-employee state. Sicktime, leaves of absence rules and OJI injury claims were sucking out any profits US made in the West."

Sorry, flyboy, you are totally mistaken. USAir leaving California had NOTHING to do with California labor laws. USAir simply could not compete against Southwest's lower cost structure. Plus, USAir instituted silly gimicks like serving hot breakfast on SFO-BUR and SFO-SAN flights. USAir thought they could turn the former PSA system into the Northeast system with market dominance and a high-cost premium fare model. And it backfired because Southwest entered the picture.

USAir never made profit out west after the PSA merger. Period. Your thesis is just dead WRONG.

[Edited 2005-06-09 19:01:53]


United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6062 times:

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 6):
USAir leaving California had NOTHING to do with California labor laws.

Um, I never said that was the reason they left. Was only saying it was part of thereson they left and will never go back.


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

And I completely disagree with you. USAir closed crew bases because there was no flying left out west...hence, it wasn't cost effective to keep crew bases open with only a handful of flights into SFO and LAX. Your thesis is STILL flawed. That is NOT part of the reason why they left.

Southwest opened a huge crew base in OAK after USAir's departure and United, Amercan, Northwest and ATA all have long had westcoast crew bases...to support the flying. USAir had NO flying left to warrant the continued operation of a crew domicile. Period.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6010 times:

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 5):
Also keep in mind that the cost in having California crew bases were killing US financially

WRONG! Competing against Southwest's $39 and $59 fares in the California corridor was killing US financially.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2900 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6002 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmm, plenty of other carriers with California bases, and they're still around... I don't think the labor laws came into play as much as it's been characterized here.

User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

You said it Flashmeister. I will NOT let him get away with his flawed viewpoint on this subject....


United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5979 times:

OJI claims and sick claims from FAs based on the West Coast for US were triple what they were on The East Coast. US was forking out millions of $s in workers compensation.

I can assure you, this didn't help matters any when it came to operating in the West Coast market. And I can tell you, other airlines including JetBlue have similiar issues.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5965 times:

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 5):
Also keep in mind that the cost in having California crew bases were killing US financially. California is a very pro-employee state. Sicktime, leaves of absence rules and OJI injury claims were sucking out any profits US made in the West.

How dare some people try to survive off their paychecks. Who do they think they are? They should be paid minimum wage to service my needs /sarcasm


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5962 times:

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 7):
Was only saying it was part of thereson they left and will never go back.

They will never go back because they could not and cannot COMPETE.

Enough said...



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5951 times:

So you're telling me companies don't take into consderation labor laws like they take into consideration tax laws when choosing a location to operate their business?

And you're kidding yourself if you think these claims were all legit.


User currently offlineAzul320 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 281 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 14):
They will never go back because they could not and cannot COMPETE.

Enough said...

Well, they are in a sense going back. Note the HP/US merger. The retained US name will be back on the west coast in 2-3 years.

[Edited 2005-06-09 19:47:55]


Excuse me, while I kiss the sky
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting Azul320 (Reply 16):
Well, they are in a sense going back. Note the HP/US merger. The retained US name will be back on the west coast in 2-3 years.

Exactly right...And with NO Calif. bases, ever.


User currently offlineJamake1 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1005 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Flyboy:

I am not going to debate you on eastcoast and westcoast work ethics. But the statements you made were not based on facts. You have insinuated that employees on the westcoast somehow "milked" USAir.

USAir abandoned the westcoast, hence, maintaining a crew base was no longer economically viable. It had very little to do with OJI claims, as you assert.

Your statements lack credibility and to suggest or imply that westcoast employees were the cause for USAir's withdraw, is flat out incorrect. The bottom line, is that USAir had a bloated cost structure and operating inefficiencies and they were not able to compete in the marketplace. And it has plagued them for years.

It's nothing personal. It's just a fact.



United's B747-400. "She's a a cruel lover."
User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 18):
It's nothing personal. It's just a fact.

Whether it had anything to do with US pulling out of the West Coast or not -- what I stated is factual as well.

Take it however you want.


User currently offlineDCAflyboy From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5835 times:

And once again, I never stated this was the reason US pulled out.

Just a factual sidebar to the topic if you want.

Also, just because US pulled intra-West Coast flying, doesn't mean they could not have kept a crew base there. But I realized that was not the topic.


User currently offlineMGA From Nicaragua, joined Mar 2005, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5775 times:

US is back in the west coast! in a form called ¨America West¨....  Wink

MGA



Que viva el guaro, el dinero y los aviones!!!
User currently offlineA330323X From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 3039 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5763 times:

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 20):
Also, just because US pulled intra-West Coast flying, doesn't mean they could not have kept a crew base there.

Which they did, for quite a while. LAX-SFO was the last of the mainline flying to go, in 1994, but the LAX crew base stayed open until 1998.

(The SFO crew base closed in 1994, with the elimination of the intra-California mainline flying; the SAN crew base closed with the big pull-down in 1991.)



I'm the expert on here on two things, neither of which I care about much anymore.
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3118 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5692 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

All this talk is reminding me of why I continue to dislike US Airways to this day.
PSA had lost the plot by 1988, Southwest was beating it at its own game.

Perhaps it's too bad PSA didn't merge with Alaska or some other airline that knows how to compete and might have left something of PSA intact...


User currently offlinePiedmontbrat From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5672 times:

IMHO, there were several factors pulling at US Airways execs in the late 1980's not the least of which was their incapability to digest two carriers almost at the same time...those being PSA and Piedmont. US Airways culture and attitude for doing business was almost 180 degrees different from that of PSA and Piedmont.

It was indeed an internal cultural and turf war that began to eat at the guts of the airline, external competition notwithstanding. Regrettably, there were no US Airways execs at the time that had the capability nor the skills to merge the cultures of the three carriers -US Air/PSA/Piedmont into one cohesive and efficient operating company and at the same time keep their eye on the competition....Southwest.

Many have said over the years that when the US Air/Piedmont merger took place, Piedmont should have been the surviving name...not US Air. In retrospect...how many name changes has US gone through since they started flying...versus how many name changes Piedmont went through. Almost seems to me that US has been trying to hide from a flawed image almost from the start....but then again, just my humble opinion.


25 DCAflyboy : I agree with you to a point. I believe, however, the stigma lies mainly internally with the different airline employee groups that were merged. I hav
26 SunValley : California labor laws had little if anything to do with US shutting California down. WN was the major reason for their demise (in the intra California
27 AeroWesty : Wow, I can't believe how much disinformation this thread contains. The historical truth to this situation is that US pulled out of California, leaving
28 DCAflyboy : You are exactly right. Again we have WN arrogance thinking they ran US out.
29 Jamake1 : This is incorrect. I know. I worked for PSA and USAir at CCR. I know exactly what happened. Southwest opened up the OAK station in 1989, not 1991. US
30 Jamake1 : Southwest had already WELL-ESTABLISHED its footing by 1991!
31 DCAflyboy : Yes, they had soild foooting, but not yet in California. Afraid not.
32 Jamake1 : DCAflyboy: You do not know what what you are talking about. I have every Southwest Airlines timetable from that era to prove it. You weren't even EMPL
33 Jamake1 : Exactly 100% correct. Flyboy doesn't have a CLUE what he's talking about.
34 Post contains links Ouboy79 : Perhaps some can read the history page on the PSA old timer's page... http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/articles/hist.html From what I recall, PSA was pe
35 LACA773 : I for one flew PSA all the time between LAX/BUR-SJC/LAX/BUR & LAX/BUR-SFO-LAX/BUR. PSA was fine just the way they were. The problem I saw was that US
36 Jamake1 : LACA773: Thank you. Very well-stated and historically correct posting. I could not have said it better myself...
37 LACA773 : Jamake1: You're welcome. I apreciate your compliment. I really do wish PSA was still around. Have a good evening everyone. LACA773
38 LACA773 : I forgot to mention in my lengthy post above that as a fore thought the merger with Air Cal & American was just as disasterous and they tried to do th
39 Post contains links AeroWesty : These two threads might interest you: Question About PSA And USAir Merger (by Ei2ksea Nov 18 2004 in Civil Aviation) What If US Kept Their Western Ro
40 Eastbay : Before US pulled out of most of their west-coast ops: WN: Oakland to Burbank, Ontario, San Diego, then Los Angeles. 26 departures a day from Oakland,
41 B737700doctor : If Piedmont would have been the surviving airline I would still be there. USAir has destroyed everything that was good about all the airlines the buy
42 LACA773 : I completely agree with you. It's so sad. Same thing goes for AA's mergers with AirCal & QQ [Reno Air] not to mention TWA. They destroyed them all wi
43 Jamake1 : Aero Westy: Southwest was already giving USAir a run for their money. I am looking at a Southwest Airlines flight schedule from October 29, 1989. In t
44 PanAm747 : God forbid I say this, but I think everyone has a valid point!! In the Go-go 1980's of airline mergers, little attention was paid to exactly how airli
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways And The A350XWB posted Tue Jul 18 2006 05:33:57 by Mah584jr
The New US Airways And The 737-400s posted Thu Mar 9 2006 19:43:41 by United777ORD
US Airways And The Star Alliance At Gatwick posted Fri Jun 25 2004 21:57:28 by Gilesdavies
Whats With US Airways And The UK? posted Tue Jun 8 2004 21:44:38 by Nygfan84
US Airways And The Airbus posted Mon Sep 16 2002 18:15:57 by JBLUA320
US Airways And The 717 posted Mon Jan 31 2000 19:14:32 by CX747
US Airways: Sell The Airbii And Use The Old Jets! posted Mon Sep 13 2004 02:33:13 by ACAfan
US Airways And ROC... Feel The Love. posted Thu Jan 18 2001 15:34:23 by LHMark
Explanation Of US Airways And America West Merger? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 22:28:22 by Chi-town
US Airways And Their Int'l Fleet posted Wed Nov 29 2006 06:57:51 by Crownvic