DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
What do you mean by 'OK?' Do you mean financially OK? US Airways' financial problems are systemic and date back to decisions made over a 30-year period. Decisions which have nothing to do with the A330. Probably the biggest factor is the cowardice and/or complacency of CEO's Edwin Colodny and Seth Schofield. They failed to engage unions over excessively high-cost labor agreements, and failed to rationalize the fleet after the 1987 airline buying binge (PS and PI).
Indeed, sadly, the very existence of the airline could be called a financial problem. Its constituent parts (Allegheny, Mohawk, Empire-Piedmont) went un-bought by the network carriers over the years, because they didn't want medium-size Northeastern routes. Easier money was to be made elsewhere.
From what I have read, an aircraft of the A330's size was well-justified for certain transatlantic routes, when US made the decision to purchase them. Excatly how well the routes are doing with A330's now, I don't know, but I haven't read anything to suggest that the routes are failing badly. US has maintained the bulk of its European routes, and use of A330's, since 9/11.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1922 times:
No. UsAir's problems are related to a lack of fleet comonality, an awkward and unprofitable route structure, labor issues, airport problems, bad management, etc.
Not having the A330 would have helped with commonality, but not by much. Fleet planning is important, but routing and labor issues are the big airline killers IMHO.
Aio86 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 928 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1854 times:
I think what he meant by this was... Did US Air really need the A330? Maybe they could have handled those trans-atlantic flights fine with 767s? Maybe it was an unnecesary aircraft to buy. They could have made use with the 767s they already had, or maybe opted to buy 764s (althought they'd still be buying an aircraft). I don't think the fleet comonality was an issue with the A330 since the A320 family planes have such similar cockpits.
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1794 times:
calm down folks,
what rj777 is pointing at is an obvious fact. so many airlines that ordered lotsa airbuses went down or nearly did. examples: sabena, swissair, LTU, air inter, AOM, USAir, united. and wait what is going to happen with SAS. what about LH? they soon will have an almost all airbus fleet. this is going to kill them. but wait... perhaps the airbus countries will not only continue to build aircraft with taxpayers money. why not subsidise airlines too?
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 34 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1777 times:
... I do believe your posting was meant as irony...but be careful how you put it, a lot of people won't understand this but instead might be willing to believe you actually mean what you said.
Maybe a little banner saying "Attention!! Irony!!!!!" would be a good choice...
Mx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1733 times:
Guys,
What a load of cobblers.
The question should be, what if US Air had actually changed their entire fleet to Airbus family aircraft. Perhaps then fleet commonality would have not been an issue.
You have to remember that having a 737 / 767 fleet doesn't mean jack shite if you have a 737 / A330 fleet. Now if you have a A320 / A330 fleet then at least there are some synergies there.
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 34 Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1716 times:
...I thought so *ggg*, but let's not get into a discussion about the financial status of all-boeing carriers, that would be extremely hazardous to the mental health of so many members of this Forum...btw, that was meant ironically, too.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
I think if US Airways had been the second US airline to take A330s, they would have made big profits with them. Only second and fourth carriers to take aircraft can make profits.
Look at the B777. UA had it first, BA had it third. Both are facing deep red losses...
National_757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
C'mon guys, what a bunch of B.S, Us Airways has some of the highest costs in the industry, they are basically a huge regional carrier. A330s aren't the issue. Us Airways' A330s are one of the best ways to get across the pond, with great inflight entertainment.
The A330 is not a major reason for Us Airways' financial troubles. The new low fare carriers like Southwest and Airtran are a much bigger problem for US Airways.
Udo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1535 times:
Yeah, if an airline is in trouble, it's always caused by the Airbusses.
Look at SriLankan: their two A332s, the A340 and the A320 were blown up because they were Airbus aircraft. If SriLankan had had Boeings, the Tamil Tigers would have never attacked them. Anybody knows that...
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1505 times:
lol!
cheers, r.
"The message you were about to post is too short and probably not of any higher value to the topic at hand. You should think long and hard before posting a message in this forum and make it detailed and a valuable addition to the topic discussed."
this is true. it does not add anything but the appreciation of someone's humorous exaggerations. there must be room for that too as life outside this forum is serious enough, isn't it?
USAirways737 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1026 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Cuz everyone knows all those airbuses have ruined Jetblue...
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
RJ777,
If I understand correctly, your question is whether the investment in the new aircraft type and number of aircraft screwed up USAirways. Is this correct?
My opinion: no. It would not have mattered if they bought A330, B777, or no large widebody aircraft at all. US is bleeding because of high labor costs and low revenue and not onerous payments on their aircraft. Their capital costs probably are in line with those of other carriers.
Blink182 From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5431 posts, RR: 19 Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
I don't think the fleet has much to do with it. USA Today or the Boston Globe(i forgot which one as both had similar articles) said that USAirways employees are some of the highest paid. I think if the employees were to take a mid-sized pay cut(including the top brass too), money could be invested back into the company and that could help stop the bleeding.
blink
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1491 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24627 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 995 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, 
From Azerbaijan, joined Oct 1999, 5431 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
