Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Piedmont's Financial Position  
User currently offlineArcrftlvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

I heard a rumor from an employee of Piedmont that their financial stability is questionable at this point and could be close to Ch.7 Liquidation. Any truth to that rumor?

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGizmoNC From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

Basically Piedmont is a ground handler for US AIRWAYS and is owned by US AIRWAYS. They still have a few Dash 8's that are flying but with the LGA Slot swap alot of those cities out of LGA are going to stop service. If US Airways is pulling the purse strings as they have since the merger could this be a factor. Piedmont has slowly taken over cities out west with the cut back of MESA.

User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4326 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Are talking about Piedmont Aviation (Kernersville NC)
or Peidmont Airlines (Salisbury MD) ?

They are different companies.


User currently offlineGizmoNC From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Good point, just when you mention Piedmont I think of the US AIRWAYS company not the former HOOTERS AIRWAYS DIVISION

User currently offlineb727fa From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 812 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

Quoting GizmoNC (Reply 3):
Good point, just when you mention Piedmont I think of the US AIRWAYS company not the former HOOTERS AIRWAYS DIVISION

That's not even quite right. The former Piedmont that survived the USAir sell off was Pace Airlines and THEY flew a dba as HOOTERSair. They (Pace) had a modified Speedbird on the tail and named their a/c "Pacemaker ---"



My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineArcrftlvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3159 times:

I'm referring to the Peidmont based at SBY....

User currently offlineoflanigan From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

There financial position is dictated by US Airways being wholly owned correct. So the financial position could only be affected if US Airways just doesn't pay the bills. But I don't believe they could be insolvent without direct manipulation from the parent company. Am I way off here?

User currently offlineArcrftlvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 826 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 6):
But I don't believe they could be insolvent without direct manipulation from the parent company.

Well, that being said, is there any chance of divestiture, then?


User currently offlineoflanigan From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2949 times:

Well we all know they haven't updated equipment. And from people I have talked to in the past, Piedmont pilots were some of the best paid in the industry. But as they get older and retire that resets. The question is does US see a need for props in the future? They aren't out west anymore since the Mesa flying is done. Is purchasing new Q's or ATR's viable? Does US need two wholly owned regional airlines when they use so many Express partners, and every other Major has divested their wholly owned?

Its a good debate to have for US I think. I look forward to the comments.


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2910 times:

Quoting Arcrftlvr (Thread starter):

I heard a rumor from an employee of Piedmont that their financial stability is questionable at this point and could be close to Ch.7 Liquidation. Any truth to that rumor?

That rumor's been fashionable since I worked there over half a decade ago. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but I have not heard anything that hasn't been floating around before...

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 8):
Is purchasing new Q's or ATR's viable? Does US need two wholly owned regional airlines when they use so many Express partners, and every other Major has divested their wholly owned?

American still owns MQ. This may change, but it has not been done yet, and it is still not a certainty. US Airways is not the only major to own a regional.

I don't know about buying Q's. I'm personally a fan of them. In fact, I believe that the Dash family best represents what a commuter/regional aircraft should be. But, the 400 has had some MX/engineering issues too. Though I believe these have been largely solved, I think it has left BBD in a position to where they really don't actively market the aircraft that well. It's rapidly turning into the 747-8i of the BBD lineup (okay maybe the CR-1000 can share that title too...).

As for the ATR, I don't really know enough to say if it's (the new72-600 that is) is markedly better than then the Q-400 where it counts. I do know that Piedmont can make it work though, if they had to or really wanted to.

Edit for spelling

[Edited 2011-12-28 16:13:08]

User currently offlineMetrojet732 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Just being an outsider and a Piedmont fan! From what I understand, The reason why the Piedmont stayed is cause Alleghany Pilots made more, and US was able to were forced them to take a payout to keep their jobs. I could be way off. Please let me know!! But that is what I was led to believe. And sad to say, it looks like US is just using Piedmont till their old Dash8’s pretty much fall apart and are retired or the leases are over. If US was smart, they would replace the old dashes with 400’s.. But it seems like US really doesn’t want Piedmont around other for ground handling. I feel when PSA n Mid-Atlantic got the new orders, it was the begging of the end.. I know US tried, but with the scope they couldn’t have 70+ seats. But (as were seeing with CAL/UAL) they could of easily put first class in the Q’s which would of fallen within the scope. Esp, now that US is putting first class in the 70+ seats… I have said this before, the Q with first class out of LGA (or any other of their hubs/focus cities.) would have been golden for them. It would have been the perfect aircraft for their north eastern flying!! But not the case. The only way I see Piedmont lasting another 5 years is if US sells them and they sigh a deal with US/UAL or who ever…

User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 8):
Piedmont pilots were some of the best paid in the industry.

Huh? My bank account said otherwise when I worked there.

Quoting Metrojet732 (Reply 10):
The reason why the Piedmont stayed is cause Alleghany Pilots made more, and US was able to were forced them to take a payout to keep their jobs.

True. The Allegheny contract as a whole was more expensive than the Piedmont contract. There were other factors as well, but this was certainly one.


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

Quoting DashTrash (Reply 11):
The Allegheny contract as a whole was more expensive than the Piedmont contract. There were other factors as well, but this was certainly one.

The fact that Piedmont had 200s and 300s on the certificate was also a major factor.


User currently offlinego3team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Quoting b727fa (Reply 4):
They (Pace) had a modified Speedbird on the tail and named their a/c "Pacemaker ---"

Incorrect. Piedmont had these, not Pace.

Piedmont:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon Collection-Pima Air and Space Museum



Pace:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Enrico Pierobon i-enry-aviation




Yay Pudding!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 9):
American still owns MQ. This may change, but it has not been done yet, and it is still not a certainty. US Airways is not the only major to own a regional.



They've made it pretty clear that they want to offload Eagle. Even with he BK filing and reorganization, I don't see MQ staying under the AMR umbrella in the long run. I'd expect them to pull a DL. They were in fact pretty smart in how they handled the whole Compass/Mesaba/Pinnacle/Comair cluster...Offload all the wholly owned (save OH of course)...but of course not before owning all the a/c that's worth owning (all Mesaba CR9s, all CZ 175s, etc.) and gutting the ground handling staff under one roof, Regional Elite, which is not a wholly owned subsidiary of DAL... If im not mistaken, on Pinnacle, ASA, and SkyWest has their own ground crew in certain stations. I can see AMR doing something like this; with Eagle taking on a larger role in ground handling and basically being a shell/pawn for AA with some other carrier owning the MQ name (Compass-Trans States).

Quoting oflanigan (Reply 8):
Quoting Metrojet732 (Reply 10):



Qs are very expensive a/c to purchase vs say getting a second hand mainline jet. They would also be A LOT of equipment for the routes operated by Piedmont. We're talking jumping from 50 seats where LF is usually in the neighborhood of 60% in some markets to over 70. And on top of all that, more fying will be cut with LGA essentially going to an outstation.

Like i've said before, there is a reason why CAL is the only major that has them at the moment; SCOPE. They are not a new type and there's been several years of opportunities for others to jump on them. ASA was looking at them for DL's flying out of Georgia but the number people came to the realization that they will never be cheap enough to operate at the rates DL usually offers so it was much easier to just have all the flying absorbed into the current jet fleet. A win win actually because a/c utilization went up. Planes are not making money if they're not in the air. CAL was/is in a bind because all jets over 50 seats have to be flown by mainline pilots and there is a cap of 50 seaters on top of that. The bargain was turboprops are allowed over 50 seats and there's simply too many markets out there that need the 70 seater capacity and the ERJ fleet is stretched as it is, flying dreadful legs such as ORF-IAH (i did it once and will NEVER do it again).

IF their scope was relaxed, believe me that there wll be no Q400s but rather shiney CR7s/9s/170s/175s just like DL, UA, and US. The situation at AA was/is even worse.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4615 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting go3team (Reply 13):

Incorrect. Piedmont had these, not Pace.

Close...but he isn't wrong.  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jay Selman - AirlinersGallery



User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 16, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2494 times:

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 14):
Quoting wn700driver (Reply 9):
American still owns MQ. This may change, but it has not been done yet, and it is still not a certainty. US Airways is not the only major to own a regional.


They've made it pretty clear that they want to offload Eagle. Even with he BK filing and reorganization, I don't see MQ staying under the AMR umbrella in the long run. I'd expect them to pull a DL.

Back 10+ years ago, it seems as if majors owning regionals was the inevitable outcome for the industry. And that was for good reason -- OH was practically printing money as a pro-rate carrier with operating margins above 20% when Delta purchased them. Eagle and ExpressJet were growing by leaps and bounds. The network carriers wanted to hold on to the profit streams going to the regionals -- that's a big piece of why they moved to capacity purchase.

The OH strike was a big turning point because it showed that the network carriers wouldn't be able to control labor costs as effectively at wholly-owned regionals -- just as we have seen at MQ. CO was incredibly savvy in monetizing ExpressJet before turning the screws to push their costs down as a vendor. NWA also did well by IPO'ing 9E, although IMO that was more driven by a need to generate cash.

AMR would love to pawn MQ off on some suckers investors, but their motives are too transparent given MQ's high costs and the history of high-cost regionals. I do agree that MQ loses a LOT of 50-seat-and-lower flying as AMR reorganizes, just as Delta has gutted OH.

To turn back to Piedmont, there are quite a few parallels with MQ beyond being wholly-owned. They've got an old fleet with very little value and a relatively senior labor force. US Airways also would face challenges in renewing EN's fleet given their relatively high level of indebtedness. And as much as some deny it, prop avoidance is real; moreover, the Colgan crash didn't help with public perception.

Quoting Arcrftlvr (Thread starter):
I heard a rumor from an employee of Piedmont that their financial stability is questionable at this point and could be close to Ch.7 Liquidation.

There's probably little advantage to putting the Piedmont subsidiary through a bankruptcy liquidation. It's likely that any of the substantial obligations of the subsidiary carry cross-default obligations which would then be borne by the parent company. With no moves toward a fleet renewal (and frankly they can probably outsource future flying more cheaply), I think the most plausible outcome will be an orderly wind-down of operations.


User currently offlinego3team From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3267 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 15):

They had to write the PACE all big too, didn't they.



Yay Pudding!
User currently offlineDash8Driver16 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

I haven't heard any of these rumblings? Source?

The big point for PDT and PSA will be 2015 when the AirWis contract is up as well as a couple other contract carriers. There isn't a future for the airline side but that can change.

There are a lot of very senior PDT pilots most of them are from the Suburban/Penn Airlines days. I hope PDT stays around I think Prop's are a great way for US to make some descent cash. If they were smart they would get Q's with first class and then expand form both the east and west coast area. Serving the SoCal Valley with something other than a -900 would be a very good idea. Also on the east having Q's to operate for Business travel especially adding a few longer legged trips (EWN-PHL/PHL-HHH) would not hurt them.


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 18):
Also on the east having Q's to operate for Business travel especially adding a few longer legged trips (EWN-PHL/PHL-HHH) would not hurt them.

PHL to HHH might have to then get routed to CLT, if the Q400 would even be able to operate at a decent load level out of HHH. I know that the ATRs were restricted out of HHH as are the 100s that fly to DCA.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 14):
Qs are very expensive a/c to purchase vs say getting a second hand mainline jet. They would also be A LOT of equipment for the routes operated by Piedmont. We're talking jumping from 50 seats where LF is usually in the neighborhood of 60% in some markets to over 70. And on top of all that, more fying will be cut with LGA essentially going to an outstation.

This is an excellent synopsis. If PDT were to get Q400s, it would be to replace the CRJ200s and not to replace the existing Dash 8 fleet.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26133 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Piedmont Airlines furloughs 229.

Fall out from the LGA/DCA swap.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11358...liate-plans-laguardia-layoffs.html



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
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...
OS In Financial Trouble Again posted Thu Dec 1 2011 14:01:09 by LOWS
Air Berlin In Financial Trouble? posted Thu Nov 17 2011 11:50:04 by 328JET
Boeing Financial And Operational Overview posted Tue Nov 1 2011 07:58:49 by TomB
Financial Question In Relation To Airlines posted Thu Oct 20 2011 09:19:34 by delta2ual
Northeast Snow: Assume Brace Position posted Mon Jan 10 2011 13:52:43 by B6JFKH81
Piedmont Flight Causes Brief Evacuation Of Capitol posted Sat Jan 1 2011 12:33:29 by flyerboyek
Wataniya Airways In Financial Trouble? posted Fri Dec 3 2010 07:51:45 by Jasondn
Piedmont Southern Airways Currently Listed In OAG? posted Sun Nov 21 2010 18:43:00 by shadez
Piedmont DC-3 At Wings Over Atlanta Air Show posted Sun Oct 17 2010 17:21:23 by litz
Arik Air In Big Financial Trouble? posted Sat Sep 18 2010 15:33:08 by airbuske