Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of Piedmont Airlines?  
User currently offlineSWALUV From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 104 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5772 times:

Hi Everyone,

As I was looking at other post in the forums, I had a questions. With the small fleet size, I was wondering...

What is the future of Piedmont?
Will Piedmont be merged with PSA? ( Because they're both owned by US)
Will Piedmont take Colgans old Q400?
Will US sell Piedmont?
Will Piedmont be dismantled?

Thanks in Advance!

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDash8Driver16 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

I Think that the future of PDT is to be a ground handling company for USAirways. The actual airline portion of it is so small that i am not sure if there really is a future for it. The fleet is only getting older and there seems to be nothing happening to replace it. I doubt that anyone would be interested in buying PDT due to the incredibly senior pilot group and elderly fleet. The merger with PSA is a very real possibility we will have to see what happens with that.

The dismantling of the airline i think could happen but as i stated above i think the PDT entity will live on as the ground handling provider for Airways.


User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3047 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

I want Piedmont mainline back no if ands or buts. I miss their well honed operation and reliable style.

User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1963 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 1):
I doubt that anyone would be interested in buying PDT due to the incredibly senior pilot group and elderly fleet. The merger with PSA is a very real possibility we will have to see what happens with that.

If PSA has trouble recruiting pilots over the next year or two, a merger is a distinct possibility.


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

Wasn't part of the reason US kept the Piedmont name flying was to keep the name from being taken and used by a competitor? Lord knows that reason is pretty much past -- would most of the flying public put ANY connection to "Piedmont"?

User currently offlineMainliner From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Absolutely no chance PDT will get Colgan's -400's, or ANY -400's any time soon. US's scope clause prevents any turboprops CERTIFICATED with more than 69 seats. So even if US were to get -400's and outfit them with 68 seats, Piedmont still couldn't fly them because the -400 is certificated for 76 seats.

But RAH RJ's flying PHL-IAH is perfectly fine.

  



Every flight counts.
User currently offlineRogerThat From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 4):
Wasn't part of the reason US kept the Piedmont name flying was to keep the name from being taken and used by a competitor? Lord knows that reason is pretty much past -- would most of the flying public put ANY connection to "Piedmont"?

Surely every resident of the Carolinas knows Piedmont as their home state air line.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 2):
I want Piedmont mainline back no if ands or buts. I miss their well honed operation and reliable style.

Absolutely!


User currently offlinesafetydemo From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 310 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

I commute weekly on Piedmont. Last week, the FA (who has been with them over 10 years) was telling me that they are down to about 30 aircraft and shrinking. As the leases are expiring she said that they aren't renewing them. How quickly are aircraft leaving the fleet and how much longer do their leases run? I'd take a Dash 8 any day over a CRJ!


Please direct your attention to the flight attendants in the cabin...
User currently offlineMainliner From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5183 times:

It's not like the planes are going to disappear at once. The oldest three -100's will reach the end of their usable lives next year, but several months apart. After that, I believe it's a while longer before the rest begin to time out.

Eleven -100's were returned to the lessor a few years ago when their leases came up for renewal. It was simply a case of bad timing; in 2008 US was looking to cut costs, but was unable to reduce the number of 50-seat RJ's due to contractual obligations with Air Wisconsin, and existing lease obligations with PSA. Eleven DHC-8-100's seemed to be a quick expense to dispose of. Very short-sighted, in my opinion.



Every flight counts.
User currently offlineboberito6589 From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5107 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting safetydemo (Reply 7):
I commute weekly on Piedmont. Last week, the FA (who has been with them over 10 years) was telling me that they are down to about 30 aircraft and shrinking

Piedmont has a fleet of 33 -100s and 11 -300s for a total of 44

Quoting Mainliner (Reply 8):
It's not like the planes are going to disappear at once. The oldest three -100's will reach the end of their usable lives next year, but several months apart. After that, I believe it's a while longer before the rest begin to time out

This is exactly right, 3 time out next year and it isn't really an option to extend the lease. Piedmont says its doing everything it can to find more 100s/300s to lease but there really aren't very many aircraft up for sale let alone to be leased.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3971 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5020 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 4):
Lord knows that reason is pretty much past -- would most of the flying public put ANY connection to "Piedmont"?
Quoting RogerThat (Reply 6):
Surely every resident of the Carolinas knows Piedmont as their home state air line.

Not since the late 1980s, meaning basically only people at least in their mid-40s really have any real memory of Piedmont being anything but a regional partner of USAir and later, US Airways.


User currently offlineDash8Driver16 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

The whole reason PDT is called PDT and PSA is called PSA is because airways wanted to keep those names off of the market for a startup to come in and scoop up. The fleet count is right with 33-100 and 11-300. 906, 907, 908 are all timing out within the next 12 months and the -300 leases are done in 2015 although there has been a rumor floating around of them returning a 300 early. the question is what are they going to do to replace these aircraft. PDT had over 12K block hours this month and the ops spare that we do have is usually flying since all the of planes break pretty consistently.

User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Let's not forget that US also retained a regional named Allegheny to keep that name in use as well, but I believe they integrated it into either PSA or PDT several years ago.

I could see the two airline operations being consolidated to reduce overhead, especially if the AA merger comes to fruition. There is no real practical reason for the two airlines to exist separately, it's not as though they are scoped out of each other like RAH's separate airlines.



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineSWALUV From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 104 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

What if AA is purchased and American Eagle still isn't spun off? This means that US/AA will have 3 fully owned regional carriers. Will we see AE being merged into another operation or will we see Piedmont, (possibly) PSA, and AE merge together for the sake of management?

I meant AE to be American Eagle :P


User currently offlineJBo From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4621 times:

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 13):
What if AA is purchased and American Eagle still isn't spun off? This means that US/AA will have 3 fully owned regional carriers. Will we see AE being merged into another operation or will we see Piedmont, (possibly) PSA, and AE merge together for the sake of management?

I meant AE to be American Eagle :P

Let's not forget that American Eagle is actually both Eagle and Executive, though my understanding is the Executive ops are being wound down (or something to that effect, I could be wrong).



I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
User currently offlineDash8Driver16 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Yes Allegheny was merged into PDT.

User currently offlinesflaflight From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

But couldnt those props be used in a merged MIA base to handle Bahamian traffic that are loosing ATR ala Executive or are those planes not capable due to cargo problems or age?

User currently offlineN6168E From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

Quoting Dash8Driver16 (Reply 11):
The whole reason PDT is called PDT and PSA is called PSA is because airways wanted to keep those names off of the market for a startup to come in and scoop up.

The name changes happened after Robert E Peach, Jr., son of Mohawk's long time president, founded a commuter with the same name. This was a rag-tag outfit and caused much confusion to the flying public in Central New York where both Mohawk's were based, so US changed the names of their wholly owned carriers in order to protect their trademarks.

I didn't find much on the second Mohawk, but here is a link to a New York Times article about their bankruptcy.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/28/bu...mohawk-airlines-is-irs-target.html


User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1443 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4008 times:

There is no future for Piedmont flight ops. Breaks my heart as I still have several good friends there.

The company has been dragging out negotiations with the pilots and FAs since the contracts became amendable in '09. With the pilots, the company has offered the current post 9/11 concessionary contract with no improvements and hasn't been talking outside of that. Federal mediation was granted in short order, and has been ongoing. The union hasn't been on top of things from my standpoint as they should have called a strike vote last year. A strike is exactly where this is headed. The pilot group cannot agree to the substandard post 9/11 concessionary work rules. The reserve rules are archaic, scheduling rules deplorable, crew meals crap, et al. The only thing in the contract worth the ink it's written with is the vacation language.

I'm getting all the current condition second hand, but I firmly believe it. Things were starting to go downhill when I was there.

BTW.... Since the merger, profit sharing checks have been distributed. This year management decided to keep the money since "it's not in the contract". The company is run by soulless bastards who are going to use the ensuing pilot strike as the excuse for ceasing flight ops. I'm sure there marching orders are coming straight out of the desert. Sad they'd rather destroy it than try to sell it off.


User currently offlineDash8Driver16 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3736 times:

Yes the Profit sharing disaster might push PDT over the edge from what I have heard. I have friends who work there as well and they are saying the union is doing a strike preparedness meeting at all bases. Right now they are just waiting for one more meeting with the NMB to find out if they are going to be released or not. Unfortunately this is what it has come to. I wish them all well.

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...
Future of Scandinavian Airlines posted Tue Aug 12 2008 23:28:14 by Oby
Future of European Airlines posted Tue Aug 12 2008 20:51:56 by Oby
Future Of Universal Airlines ERJ195? posted Sat Jul 26 2008 08:37:25 by Debonair
AA: The Future Of American Airlines posted Sun Oct 1 2006 19:52:50 by CHIFLYGUY
The Future Of Spirit Airlines posted Mon Jun 5 2006 05:21:22 by InTheSky74
Future Of Alaska Airlines posted Fri Feb 24 2006 22:45:31 by Airlinelover
The Future Of Delta Airlines posted Mon Feb 20 2006 20:05:34 by GSPITNL
Future Of Peruvian Airlines posted Fri Apr 23 2004 15:17:48 by Hugojimenez
The Future Of Olympic Airlines posted Mon Oct 27 2003 22:06:20 by Greek_fspilot
Future Of Midwest Airlines posted Wed Sep 24 2003 01:21:10 by Blhp68