SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:32 am

I read over and over again how the industry needs a shakedown and that US and some other airlines (mostly US though) needs to go out of business for other airlines to start making money.

I agree with the fact that some airlines do need to go out of business, however I do not agree with that fact that US needs to be the one...I shall tell you why.

PS- I understand about the "free market" which this country has. This post is NOT questioning that, but instead it is questioning all those who say US should be the airline to go down.

1.) Effects
Let me ask you...how much will be gained by losing US. US does not in no means dominate the United States skies. If I'm correct, they only have about a 5% market share. Although that will help other airlines, it's not going to all of a sudden make UA or DL run through the meadows throwing money into the air, and what US does leave behind, it will be cobbled up by other airlines before somebody at Airliners.net could even post US is history. Just think about it. Who in his right mind wouldn't pick up some of US flights. They control routes that would even make a prime TWA or Pan Am jealous. The Northeast and Caribbean flights they have would make any airline CEO cry if they were given a chance to own them.

Summary
A US demise would have limited effects on the industry due to the fact that airlines would just take over their routes by growing, which cancels out the reason why US was to go out of business in the first place.

2.) Revolutionary changes at US
What many people do not realize, (or do not acknowledge) is that during the last few years, US has been going through revolutionary changes. Never before has an airline of this magnitude attempted feats this great, in this short of time. US, which has for many years prided itself on being an airline for the businessmen, is currently transitioning itself into being a LCC.

US, like all legacy carriers, had thought itself to be immune from LCC. That was until 9-11. From that day on travelers would stop flying. So in response they lowered their fares to draw them back, and it worked. But then comes the second problem, fuel. Fuel prices galloped to record highs, and they only to combat this is to raise ticket prices, and so come the third problem. LCC were flourishing due to the fact that their costs were low enough that they were able to make money at low fares, so they were able to grow, and grow they did. In response to this growth, legacy carriers had to keep fares low to keep passengers in their plane. Well, if fuel prices were so high, and fares were so low, legacy carriers naturally started to bleed money. They knew that they had to lower costs, so they did, but that still wasn't enough.

At about this time, US was in a crises. They had to act fast, or they would join many other greats in the graveyard. So they took a risk. They decided to do what many thought would be impossible. They would become a LCC.

So after a couple years, US is now starting to see the light in the tunnel, and although they see the light, they are still in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Victory is in their grasp, but they cannot celebrate too soon. They have gone through many hurdles, and at times when people said this would be the final straw, (yes Airliners.net "experts", you too) they have weathered through. They have lowered their cost dramatically, they have gone through a massive expansion (after a MASSIVE downsizing), and is in the current process of implementing low fares systemwide (and no, DL was not the first to do this).

Summary
Plain and simple, whether you love them or not, US has accomplished some amazing feats. (Although they had to because of the danger of nonexistence) Every other airline realizes what US has done and are eyeing their every move. Is US does indeed make it, every legacy in trouble will follow US examples. DL has realized this and is attacking US before they will win their victory, for they realize that after this ordeal is done, US will be in VERY good shape, and be a "lean, mean, money making machine", and one day be a threat towards DL.

3.) Sacrifice
I am convinced that no other airline employee's in history have give up so much for the good of the airline as US employee's have. (well most of them) Three rounds of cutbacks plus losing many benefits would make a lot of airline's employees strike, but not US. US employee's need to be given a hand for all the help they have given US, because without what they have done, US would be history.

Well that's the end of it, I could put more in but, dang, I'm tired.

-SOAC

[Edited 2005-02-13 00:55:45]
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
nucsh
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:29 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:43 am

Lately, with US turning around and foreign investors rumored to be looking at buying them out, I'd be more willing to believe that United will be the one to go out. They've been under ch.11 since 2002. At least USAirways has freed itself at some point from ch.11 since then, and is looking at another re-emergiance.
If landing is about "kissing" the ground, you just about raped it.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:44 am

To answer the question:

The United States is a free market society. When a company can't make money, they go out of business. The rules are the same for any company, in any industry. It's just the way it is. I'd hate to see any airline go simply for the sake of the employees, but we just have to accept that US Airways, United, any airline, isn't invincible...
 
CMHSRQ
Posts: 822
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:49 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:50 am

Hey friendly, if it was that easy.. We have Chapter 11 protection and huge bailout loans. Several carriers would have gone under if it wasn't for those two things.
The voice of moderation
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:51 am

The United States is a free market society.

Oops, when I asked the question, I didn't mean for it to be in that sense. I meant it to be why do people think US needs to be the one to go down. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I will try to clarify it more easily.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:07 am

Hey friendly, if it was that easy.. We have Chapter 11 protection and huge bailout loans. Several carriers would have gone under if it wasn't for those two things.

Chapter 11 can be filed by any corporation. Like I said, the rules are the same for everyone. Bailout loans didn't save the airlines. US Airways has already defaulted, UA never got one, and Aloha, Hawaiian, and ATA have all entered Chapter 11 after receiving them.

SonOfACaptain:

Understood, sorry for the confusion. I think the reason everyone is looking down on US is that the management just doesn't care anymore. They are screwing their employees so much it's not even worth going to work anymore, but I respect all of the employees of US and UA, because they continue to give it their all, even when the situation looks bleaker than hell. There is also a very heavy amount of traffic on the east coast that would be reduced if US went, so that could be another reason. That, and people on this board just seem to like to hate things (look at all the anti-UA people).
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:10 am

I think US did the right thing throwing more flights onto higher fare Caribbean runs (SJU being a big exception fare-wise), and if they don't receive too much competition there with the resulting loss of revenue, that and the Shuttle should help bring in the funds to sustain them for a while.

I just don't buy the "too many airlines" argument. We've seen a lot of start-ups come and go along with watching the demise or take-over of a number of legacy carriers (including US Airways buying a couple themselves), yet many still complain the U.S. skies have too much capacity.

As Alfred E. Kahn, the father of deregulation, put it: "The eggs have been scrambled and cannot be put back together." A by-product of enabling a free-for-all in the domestic market meant that airlines would have to rethink how they did business and how they deployed assets. If an airline is successful in doing that, there's no reason for anyone to call for its demise. If it's not, then the free market system will deal with them otherwise.

I'm just surprised the widely expected shake-out period has existed 27 years.
International Homo of Mystery
 
kbuf737
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:22 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:20 am

I really enjoy US. As an east coast traveller, they are a perfect airline for this side of the country. There are about 15 different ways anygiven day to get me from say BUF to MCO. When I booked my flights on them for my spring break, their fares seemed reasonable and they gave me many options. I have flown US in the past and I have enjoyed their system. PHL and LGA are a little messy, but flying through PIT and CLT were a breeze. I am trying a DCA layover one way this year, and looking forward to see how that goes. Overall I think they still give that image of a classy airline. Perhaps it is their color scheme, or maybe it just has that reputation of being an airline flown by alot of affluent east coast buisnessmen, but whatever It is, the experiences I have had with them are truly enjoyable. It would be a shame to lose them, but alas the world keeps turning, and you either stay in the race and become innovative, or you stick to your gameplan without room for change. Whatever they decide will determine their success through these rough times.
The tower? Rapunzel!!!!!!
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:21 am

Of the 2 very sickest carriers (US and UA), US is the sickest and is more likely to fail than UA. Since US is on its 2nd recent Chap 11, it may be harder to line up new investors.

It's possible that both UA and US will liquidate. Or neither. Whether either fails, both are shrinking and the reduced capacity is helpful to the industry.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
JoFMO
Posts: 1840
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:55 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:24 am

filler-----------
---------------



[Edited 2005-02-13 01:31:58]
 
expressjetphx
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 2:33 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:22 am

maybe you're misunderstanding the reason that people say US will go out of business. it's not because we don't like US Airways. most people started predicting their demise the second time they entered bankruptcy in a few years. even if they are making huge and great changes, any company that simply can't turn around and make money fast enough is naturally going to get forced out of the market, and eventually forced out of business. no one just chose US to go out of business, and most of us on here have no control over whether they will survive or not, but they are clearly the worst-off airline in the United States right now, and have come very close to going out of business, so naturally people will make speculation and predictions about their failure.

with that said i hope that they will at least live till this summer because ive got a r/t on US to Providenciales via Charlotte in July!
 
CORULEZ05
Posts: 1250
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:28 am

I dont think ANY airline needs to go out of business to make other profitable. There are millions and millions of people to get to their destinations so PLENTY OF ROOM for many airlines........and if any should go, DEFINETLY not USAirways.
Fly jetBlue today!!!!!!!
 
ba319-131
Posts: 8133
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 1:27 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:36 pm

Well I certainly hope the latest backing US has received will help it continue the latest and hopefully sucsessful turn around plan.

US employees have given so much and really deserve for their carrier to survive, they have had a rough ride for far too long. Hopefully this time the mgmt tram lnow what they are doing this time!!

I've had numerous US flights and they have all been superb. I've another 8 flights in just over a weeks time and feel sure i'll receive the consistent good service US always provide.
111,732,3,4,5,7,8,BBJ,741,742,743,744,752,762,763,764,772,77L,773,77W,L15,D10,30,40,AB3,AB6,A312.313,319,320,321,332,333
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:33 pm

I don't believe in the theory in the first place.


What could possibly make anyone believe that if one airline goes down mans/corporate greed will suddenly evaporate. Man will change his spots. Airlines will chase those seats with more. Carriers will be created to fill the vacuum. In a very few years nothing at all will have changed. It never has.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11831
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:50 am

Sonofacaptain,
Why US airways?:
1. Partially US airways has generated animosity by charging airfares that are disproportionate in today's market. This has created less customer loyalty. Said high airfares make it easy, once gates are secured, for LCC's to fill their flights when entering US dominated markets.

2. For a decade, US airways has destroyed the wealth of its investors. Because of this, it is proving difficult for them to get bankruptcy exit financing. During their first bankruptcy, the pension fund of AK made a surprise investment; no one has stepped up for round 2. Without $250 million of fresh cash by June (or is it later?) they are gone.

3. They still have the highest costs in the industry!

4. The luggage debacle lost them the support of the press... advertising has value; US doesn't get it for free anymore.

I do not hate US airways, but in an established industry there will be consolidation down to a handful of competitors. Having high wages and low productivity in a free market is a doomed scenario. I would like to see them survive with free market compitition at all of their major airports. But... They just haven't been cutting costs as fast as revenue is dropping in this tough market.

I also agree that US disapearing won't change the market much. 5% of the market is an average year's growth.

Lightsaber.
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:26 am

1. Partially US airways has generated animosity by charging airfares that are disproportionate in today's market. This has created less customer loyalty.

US is in the middle of transforming itself into a LCC. Along with this, they have radically reduced airfares. Ever heard of GoFares. In a short while, they will be systemwide.

I understand that in the recent past, US has charged higher fares. But they weren't necessary charging any higher than other legacy carriers. You also have to realize that US was a businessman airline, and businessmen typically pay higher fares.

During their first bankruptcy, the pension fund of AK made a surprise investment; no one has stepped up for round 2. Without $250 million of fresh cash by June (or is it later?) they are gone.

Don't count them out yet, they still have plenty of time. Also, don't forget Texas Pacific also made a bid, so the fund of AL wasn't necessary out of the blue.

Besides, I personally think that once a company see how much US has lowered costs and how much they can compete in the future, they will provide some money.

3. They still have the highest costs in the industry!

Please don't tell my dad or any US employee this. You mean to tell me that after all they have sacrificed, that US still has the highest cost. I am pretty sure that US does NOT have the highest cost. In fact they have dramatically reduced it, and is somewhat comparable to some LCC

4. The luggage debacle lost them the support of the press... advertising has value; US doesn't get it for free anymore.

I do agree with this. Damn PHL baggage handlers. However, PLEASE do not judge US on this incident. It only happened because of a small group of babies who didn't realize the fragile situation at US.

I also think that a lot of US employees should be applauded for fixing the situation. They came from all over the country to fix the wrong doings of a few.

I do not hate US airways

I have no doubt that you don't hate them, I just don't think you are up-to-date with the current situation. A lot of changes of happened recently and it is impossible to compare the new US with the old.

Having high wages and low productivity in a free market is a doomed scenario.

Once again, this has very much changed. In fact US employees are one of the worst paid, even worse that WN. They also have increased productivity drastically.

-SOAC

(edited for spelling)

[Edited 2005-02-13 20:27:38]
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
NorskMan
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:46 am

US Airways doesn't have to be the airline to go. With UA just as sick, and DL going in the same direction, it could be any of the 3. I, myself hope all 3 of the airlines survive, noone likes to see a company go under.
yeah i know
 
tu154
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:37 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:02 am

With all these threads on the demise of US and UA....has it really ever been discussed or even thought that maybe, just maybe.....we're too busy looking at two carriers and not all? US and UA are in court protection, and using these courts to get the cost savings they need. When these carriers emerge from court protection.....they will have costs below the others, leading us to believe they will have to scramble to get their cost down as well. When you look at the losses in the last quarter for UAL......we must factor in the costs of court protection as well, something let's say AA does not have. So the losses are not really worse than the other carriers of the same size. I'm starting to think maybe these two carriers are going to be the ones to pull thru and go on to profitability, while DL
hmmmm
FIRST ON THE ATLANTIC.....FIRST ON THE PACIFIC.....FIRST IN LATIN AMERICA...FIRST 'ROUND THE WORLD.....PAN AM!!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13440
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:28 am

Ever heard of GoFares. In a short while, they will be systemwide.

Yes....thanks to DL's recent fare action. This is a structural change in the pricing model of the whole industry. HP started it, US and AS continued it, but DL is the one who will make it stick everywhere.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2614
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:46 am

In terms of what you said about US's market share, they may have 5% systemwide, but that's mostly in the Eastern US, where DL is one of the dominant carriers. DL, CO, and US dominate the East and losing US would dramatically change the makeup at very lucrative airports, LGA, BOS, DCA, PHL, FLL, CLT, and IAD. This would only help; less capacity equals higher fares.

"So the losses are not really worse than the other carriers of the same size. I'm starting to think maybe these two carriers are going to be the ones to pull thru and go on to profitability, while DL
hmmmm"

What are you talking about? What indicates to you that UA and US are any closer to profitability than before? I don't see any of the US major carriers making money, not one of them is even close to it. DL's 5+ billion dollar loss was mostly paper money, but most people don't look at that aspect of it. Those paper losses are losses that won't be there next quarter. DL's losses will be much smaller next quarter than last quarter, their recent 1+ billion pay cut to pilots will cut losses dramatically. UA and US have a long way to go, as does everyone else. But DL's not doing as bad as you think. Their management is willing to implement fundamental and even detrimental changes in order to rationalize their costs, they'll survive.

Jeremy
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:25 am

Yes....thanks to DL's recent fare action.

GoFares going systemwide has nothing to do with DL. US already planned for it to go systemwide long before DL announced theirs.

I'm convinced DL lowered its ticket prices to put US out of business. Their costs are way to high to make money out of it. I think they did it because they are hoping US will go out before this prices will really kick them in the ass.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
ANNOYEDFA
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:39 am

Finally a "real" topic to discuss.... I think as of right now they are headed in the correct direction. The only thing I wish they did was not go airbus. NOT because I dislike airbus but by now they would have one of the most common fleets in the industry... 737, 75/76. Maybe instead of the 330 they could of gotten 76-300's. This would of also have lowered costs within the airline. Common fleet's are the best. I hope someone steps up to the plate with the extra $250 million because I want airways to stay around. They are a excellent airline with some more kinks to work out and I have to say out of ANY airline they always have the nicest crews and with what they have always prvide the best service.

Another thing is once they start getting more crj-700's and 170's I think they should use more mainline jets to move out west if they only had more wide bodies they could expand more into South America. Especially out of FLL. I really hope they stay with us. FLY THE FLAG!
"TWA... One Mission, Yours."
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12394
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:27 am

One of the great problems and advantages of US is that they have a number of airports (LGA, DCA) where major players and serve many smaller east coast cities (Buffalo, Rochester, and even smaller cities, etc.) that other companies don't or won't serve. Those are also very high costs locations, with enough competition from other airliners, modes of transit, that they are limited in their ability to maintain prices to make money. This is what kills US and their ability to survive. While I don't want them to fail, if their current plans to expand and give more direct or non-stop services to/from the Carribbean and other markets from those not served by CO, UA, AA, etc without multiple connections doesn't pan out, then they are in trouble.
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:14 am

It doesn't matter what anyone will gain or lose by US Airways' demise. It's irrelevant - no-one's "picking" an airline to vanish. It's a simple matter of economics. If you can't make money, you collapse. You don't gain credit for past performance or the effort of your staff (and most airlines can claim to have staff just as willing to make sacrifices) - you're only as good as your last balance sheet.

As I see it your reasoning is based purely on some idealistic notion of "fairness" and has nothing to do with economics which - like it or not - is the only currency in the air transport industry.

If you want to be sentimental and wring your hands, get out of the airline business because you're not tough enough for its realities.
 
iowaman
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:34 am

What many people do not realize, (or do not acknowledge) is that during the last few years, US has been going through revolutionary changes. Never before has an airline of this magnitude attempted feats this great, in this short of time.


Sure they've made some changes, not "revolutionary."


US, which has for many years prided itself on being an airline for the businessmen, is currently transitioning itself into being a LCC.

Tell that to the people that pay $1200 to fly out of CLT.

I am convinced that no other airline employee's in history have give up so much for the good of the airline as US employee's have.

Not sure on that one.


US, like all legacy carriers, had thought itself to be immune from LCC. That was until 9-11.

Not true, a lot of the airlines were bleeding before 9-11.


Victory is in their grasp, but they cannot celebrate too soon.

Bwhahahaha! They have along ways to go.


I am pretty sure that US does NOT have the highest cost. In fact they have dramatically reduced it, and is somewhat comparable to some LCC


Pretty damn close to the highest cost.


however I do not agree with that fact that US needs to be the one

Who should go out of business then? Of course not daddy's airline.
 
Lockheed1011
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:04 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:52 am

USAirways is not going down!
USAirways will find investors first to fix it before any other US carrier. US has the advantage of having the eastcoast hubs, great employees willing to make changes to make it work, a decent fleet and it is a smaller carrier to handle.
I have faith in USAirways.
On the other hand, United is just the opposite. Too big, too many employees challenging the airline to make more and more money without thinking where the revenue is coming from. The fleet has no planning. They use Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, what ever is available in the market without planning on spare parts, utilization of pilots, etc......
Delta did terrible financially last quarter but it is coming back strong. They have a strategy, just like USAirways, United is sad to say but it is just a big mess. Unless they make drastic changes in Upper management and offer a product directed to flying customers, not them, they will not make it.
I predict AA, CO, DL, NW & US will do much better later this year!  Wink/being sarcastic
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13440
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:19 am

GoFares going systemwide has nothing to do with DL. US already planned for it to go systemwide long before DL announced theirs.

Actually, it does. While GoFares were eventually going to go systemwide, they had to rush them out far ahead of schedule in response to DL's fare action.

And let's face it - the entire industry wouldn't match a systemwide fare action by US because they're simply too small to really do much damage. The entire industry DOES (and DID) respond to DL's structural changes, and THAT is why they're here to stay.

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:31 am

Sonofacaptain,

I am sorry, but I have to agree with Backfire, no one is picking on an airline to vanquish, but its pure economics. If US can't make the money, they will go under, simple as that.

The transformation to an LCC is a last ditch effort to stave off liquidation, in my opinion. They think that LCC's are the wave of the future, as America West does, and will transform themselves into that. It will backfire, as you cannot have a strong LCC that is only regional and has too many small town Express routes, which is what makes US such a strong East Coast presence.

In my opinion, US is like TWA, a sinking ship that is not a question of if, but when. First of all, US Airways is a combination of so many smaller airlines whose route structures overlapped so much that one acquiring the other did not make a difference. Secondly, their hub locations are horrible 3 hubs, all East Coast, and 2 in the same state. Compare that to say, United, who has a wonderful hub situation, IAD(east coast), ORD(eastern midwest), DEN( westerm midwest) and SFO(west coast). US's hub presence on the East Coast makes it impossible for it to have any significant presence out west, other than SEA, SFO, LAX, SAN, and LAS).

And their costs. Being basically a regional airline but trying to have the costs of being a big time businessman's airline and providing the perks along with it. And they really take in more than they need when it comes to terminal space. For instance, I worked in JAX for almost 6 years. US was one of the biggest airlines behind DL and WN and basically owned B Concourse. On B, they had a Special Services desk that they were paying rent on. In 6 years, I never saw that desk staffed, yet they paid rent on it. I have seen the same thing in similar small stations. They have tried to pay their employees wages that are at least close to the bigger majors, but being their size, they can't keep up, so the labor costs are a big factor. I know folks that used to work for US that were topping out at $25 hr, now working for $12, when you factor in all benefit cuts, etc. That kind of cut seriously hurts morale and makes your workers less productive. The fact that they decided to change their fleet structure from Boeing to Airbus was certain to cost money, and they were doing when 9/11 happened, which was a big stroke of bad luck. Now they are faced with basically double the fleet costs that they should have, they pay to so many regional partners that they are paying out to that carry out their Express routes, and not having the capability to expand, even if they were to become an LCC, they cannot overcome those problems without it costing more money.

Apparently, your father is a furloughed US pilot who is flying for Mid-Atlantic now. I do wish you and him the best and hope that US does something that will help them pull through. I have been furloughed from an airline and its something that no one wants, but everyone is glad that they were able to overcome it. I know how your Dad has felt and its never good to see another airline employee out of a job. However, I unfortunately think that US is a dying airline. Its sad, because I always thought they were a nice airline.

You mentioned in your post US becoming a threat to DL, which I would have to say is complete nonsense. DL is too much larger for US to attempt to compete with and has a better capable route structure to make money with the new fare structure. As far as airlines being down on their luck and overcoming hurdles, take a look at Delta. Delta was once a small, little airline that had to fight to keep other airlines and a Postmaster General from shutting them down on mail routes. They even had to resort to stopping service at one early point in their life and take up cropdusting again(which was how they started originally) in Peru and even did whatever they could to make money, even if it meant giving flying lessons. But Delta was able to find a way to overcome all of this and is now the second largest airline in the world in terms of passengers carried. The odds were stacked against Delta at one point, but they pulled through. I would hope that US is able to accomplish the same, but I don't see it happening.

I really just see this entire post as you complaining why US is the one most likely to go down and it all falls down to economics and who seems to have the better plan to pull through in the long run. US is in its second BK in 2 years, the odds are stacked against her right now, but who knows.


Otto
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
ScottB
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:50 am

Sigh. Where do I start?

"how much will be gained by losing US. US does not in no means dominate the United States skies. If I'm correct, they only have about a 5% market share."

Probably closer to 7 or 8% in terms of RPM's or ASM's, and a bit higher for passengers since US's stage length is lower than the industry average. But that is largely immaterial. The exit of US Airways from the market is probably not sufficient to cure the ills of the other legacy carriers. But it would certainly help the other legacy carriers with significant market overlap -- Delta, Continental, and American. It helps Northwest a bit less, and United's gains in the WAS market would be tempered by the loss of revenue from the US codeshare.

The question isn't really "which one" has to go out of business -- but rather how much consolidation there will have to be among the legacy carriers. Whether that happens due to mergers or liquidations is, of course, unknown. But given the limited financial resources of the legacies and the poor record of mergers in the industry, it looks like one or more liquidations will be the likely course. As the weakest and smallest of the "Big Six" legacies, it looks most probable that US will be the first to go.

"Who in his right mind wouldn't pick up some of US flights. They control routes that would even make a prime TWA or Pan Am jealous. The Northeast and Caribbean flights they have would make any airline CEO cry if they were given a chance to own them."

Of course some of the routes will be picked up. But neither PHL, CLT, nor PIT would be a hub. CLT's air service would probably be a lot more like RDU's after a US liquidation. No one is going to build a hub at PHL with Southwest having 100+ daily flights (likely in the wake of US shutting down) But US's capacity would, for the most part, go unreplaced. ATL, EWR, DTW, CLE, and CVG would all be able to handle the passengers who used to fly US. You'd see some point-to-point at LGA and DCA added to replace US's flights, but that's about it. I doubt another legacy would take over the Shuttle these days given that it no longer is profitable.

And I strongly doubt that the Northeast and Caribbean flights will continue to be terribly attractive as the LCC's continue to expand into those markets as well.

"US, like all legacy carriers, had thought itself to be immune from LCC. That was until 9-11."

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Read this:

As discussed in greater detail in "Management's Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," the
dramatic expansion of low fare competitive service in many of
USAir's markets in the eastern U.S. during the first quarter of
1994 and USAir's competitive response in February 1994 by reducing
its fares up to 70 percent in those markets and other affected
markets in order to preserve its market share led the Company to
announce that it expected to experience greater losses in 1994 than
it experienced in 1993.

and this:

USAir believes that Southwest, Continental or other low cost
carriers with a significant cost advantage over USAir likely will
expand their operations to additional markets. For example, in
December 1993, Southwest completed its acquisition of Morris Air,
a regional air carrier with operations concentrated in the western
U.S. This acquisition could enable Southwest to divert resources
to expand its operations in the eastern U.S. Furthermore, media
reports indicate that Southwest has entered into a long-term
agreement for the use of four additional gates at BWI, where it
currently operates from two gates. On March 4, 1994, Continental
further escalated prospective competition by announcing that it
will further reduce operations at its Denver, Colorado hub and
establish a flight crew base at Greensboro, North Carolina. These
measures are likely to increase losses at USAir because they could
enable Continental, which has significantly lower costs than USAir,
to expand further its high frequency, low fare service described
above in additional short-haul markets served by USAir with
substantial detriment to USAir. In addition, other low cost
carriers may enter other USAir markets. For example, America West
Airlines ("America West") announced on February 15, 1994 that it
will commence service on April 18, 1994 between Columbus, Ohio
where it operates a hub and Philadelphia, where USAir has a hub
operation. Other carriers, including some of the larger carriers,
have also indicated their intent to develop similar low-fare short-
haul service.

These statements were all written eleven years ago -- in USAir Group's 1993 annual report. And even then, low-cost carrier expansion (Southwest, Continental Lite) was causing losses at US. Management knew that LCC expansion would cause problems -- but they never had an effective strategy to repond. It was obvious by the time Southwest entered Florida and added BWI-PVD (1995-1996) that they'd have an ever-increasing impact on the East Coast. Metrojet was a joke.

"But then comes the second problem, fuel. Fuel prices galloped to record highs..."

Nope. Record-high fuel prices are a relatively recent event; i.e. in the past year. And the low energy prices of the late 1990's were an anomaly resulting from lowered demand in Asia after the financial crises there. Everyone has to buy fuel, though the LCC's have been the only ones with effective hedging strategies. Most of the LCC's were under no pressure to raise prices since they had planned better for potentially high oil prices.

"Well, if fuel prices were so high, and fares were so low, legacy carriers naturally started to bleed money..."

Nope. US Airways was already losing money in 1999. The company posted operating losses of over $100 million in each of the last two quarters of 1999 and lost money in all quarters of 2000 save the second. The company was already starting to bleed money even before 9/11; this is why they were the first legacy carrier forced to seek bankruptcy protection.

"At about this time, US was in a crises. They had to act fast, or they would join many other greats in the graveyard. So they took a risk. They decided to do what many thought would be impossible. They would become a LCC."

False. US Airways did not plan to "become a LCC" in its first reorganization. The business plan upon emergence from the first Chapter 11 was basically the same as the old one -- just with fewer mainline aircraft and more RJ's. Southwest's entry into PHL and the continued expansion of other LCC's in the East deep-sixed that half-assed plan. GoFares in PHL were a blatant response to Southwest's fares and choice of non-stop markets given how they matched Southwest exactly on price and destinations. Go ahead and try to find a PHL-PIT GoFare for tomorrow -- it's at least $350 each way.

"They have lowered their cost dramatically, they have gone through a massive expansion (after a MASSIVE downsizing), and is in the current process of implementing low fares systemwide (and no, DL was not the first to do this)."

The only costs they have lowered "dramatically" have been their non-management labor costs. The company's non-labor, non-fuel operating costs were down a measly 1% in the fourth quarter of 2004 versus 2003. There is no "massive expansion" coming aside from, yep, you guessed it, more RJ's. Management's guidance is that mainline ASM's will increase by 3-4% this year over 2004.

Let me ask you a question. Delta tested SimpliFares at CVG starting in mid-August of 2004 and rolled them out across a far larger system in about 4.5 months. If Delta can offer rationalized fares systemwide within a few months, why has it taken US Airways this long to "implement low fares systemwide?" Delta's management (like America West's) gets credit here for taking action, not talking action. "Systemwide GoFares" are still just talk.

"Plain and simple, whether you love them or not, US has accomplished some amazing feats."

Pretty much the only amazing feats I can see are hammering the employees with three rounds of concessions without taking a strike and sticking the taxpayer with billions of dollars in underfunded pensions.

"I am convinced that no other airline employee's in history have give up so much for the good of the airline as US employee's have."

That doesn't matter a bit. If management can't run the airline effectively even with the lowest pay rates in the industry, US Airways does need to go out of business.
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 7:55 am

Well, I guess it's round three, and it looks like I have to go on defense lol.


Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Sure they've made some changes, not "revolutionary."


That's your opinion, but however, I do doubt the extent of your knowledge about US Airways.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Tell that to the people that pay $1200 to fly out of CLT.


Did you read anything I said, sure there is some prices that are still high, but as I said before, they are currently lowering them abd eventually will have them all low. This is another typical statement from somebody you does no fully understand the situation.

am convinced that no other airline employee's in history have give up so much for the good of the airline as US employee's have.


Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):

Not sure on that one.


Oh, I am very sure about that.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Not true, a lot of the airlines were bleeding before 9-11


Sure, some airlines were hurting, but not to the extent that it was like afterwards. I also feel that most legacy carriers thought that they could handle LCC, but when 9-11 happened, and they were the only ones making money, they realized that they needed to take immediate action.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Bwhahahaha! They have along ways to go.


Once again, I do not think you know much about US. Sure they have some more hurdles to jump, but not like how you put it.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Pretty damn close to the highest cost.


Yeah, times have changed buddy, stop listening to other people who keep saying this.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
Who should go out of business then? Of course not daddy's airline.


First of all, all this statement shows me is your immaturity. Grow up dude. Second of all, I don't think anybody should go out of business.

Quoting OttoPylit (reply 27):
The transformation to an LCC is a last ditch effort to stave off liquidation, in my opinion.


Oh yeah, I agree, but they had too. It would have been stupid if they kept their same strategy.

Quoting OttoPylit (reply 27):
It will backfire


I actually like the strategy. US will be a different kind of LCC, not one like WN.


Quoting OttoPylit (reply 27):
Compare that to say, United, who has a wonderful hub situation,


That just means that they are a smaller airline. An airline can be profitable just on the East Coast, as evident by US, which has been there for over 60 years.

Quoting OttoPylit (reply 27):
DL is too much larger for US to attempt to compete with


US doesn't have to compete with DL on everysingle route to be a threat. I never said US was going to put DL out of business, I just said that US will hurt them somehow.

Quoting OttoPylit (reply 27):
I really just see this entire post as you complaining why US is the one most likely to go down


No, I'm just complaining about all the people who say US NEEDS to go out of business and are rooting for them to do so.

Quoting ScottB (reply 28):
Nope. Record-high fuel prices are a relatively recent event


But none the less, they are still killing airlines.

Quoting ScottB (reply 28):
False. US Airways did not plan to "become a LCC" in its first reorganization.


Oooookay. No where did I restrict all this talk about US. I realize at first US didn't come up with this plan, but the fact is that they did later on.

Quoting ScottB (reply 28):
Nope. US Airways was already losing money in 1999.


Ok, once again, in my statement NEVER did I single out US. Trust me, I know US wasn't making money, but of course, they weren't losing as much either.

Quoting ScottB (reply 28):
The only costs they have lowered "dramatically" have been their non-management labor costs.


None the less, they have lowered costs lol. They have done some other stuff too.

Quoting ScottB (reply 28):
Pretty much the only amazing feats I can see are hammering the employees with three rounds of concessions without taking a strike and sticking the taxpayer with billions of dollars in underfunded pensions.


Then you must not be looking very hard.

Quoting Iowaman (reply 24):
why has it taken US Airways this long to "implement low fares systemwide?"


US was and is too fragile to take it systemwide "overnight". As much money DL is losing, they still could of afford to lose a little extra money.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
Midway2AirTran
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:34 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:12 am

I agree that US has made some changes for the better along with its management, however their history does not help them. I used to avoid them almost altogether, but now using them more often for CLT connections and fares that are better and easier to find than with DL. The changes are great but they are running a uphill battle and still have a lot further to go. Guess we'll find out more of the results at the end of the quarter.
"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13440
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:15 am

Well, I guess it's round three, and it looks like I have to go on defense

SOAC, I admire your tenacity, but in this case that's like a boxer saying it's "time to really fight back" after he's already taken a ten-count on his back and is waking up on a stretcher in the locker room.  Nuts

Fact of the matter is that while USAirways is a cat that somehow found a tenth life, it's still gasping and wheezing for breath while simultaneously taunting a group of VERY large, pissed-off Rottweilers in the form of fuel, other airlines, and their own employees.

It's not a question of "if," but "when" - and we don't say that to make you upset, but we say it because it's the truth.

Best of luck to your family.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:21 am

Quoting EA CO AS (reply 31):
It's not a question of "if," but "when" - and we don't say that to make you upset, but we say it because it's the truth.


Ah but remember the truth can sometimes be the biggest liar.

I'm not going to argue with your opinion, I just want you to know that I think otherwise.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
sprxUSA
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:17 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:24 am

I pick US to go just because they serve the smallest area, and are one of the smaller carriers teetering in the USA.

Most pax in the USA would not care if U S Airways left the skies, because they probably would not have needed their services anyway due to lack of geographical diversity.

Since UA serves Boise,ID and US doesn't, I pick USAirways.

Gem State Airlines..."we have a gem of an airline"
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13440
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:51 am

I'm not going to argue with your opinion, I just want you to know that I think otherwise.

And FWIW, I certainly hope I'm proven wrong! I'd hate to see people out of work.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11831
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:03 am

Sonofacaptain,

Hopefully I'm totally wrong on US's cost structure. I'm going off numbers I've seen off the web. If they now do have the LCC cost basis... I guess I'll be owing you a beer!  Big thumbs up

Being basically a regional airline but trying to have the costs of being a big time businessman's airline and providing the perks along with it. Alas, the root cause of the woes (in my humble opinion).

From reply 24 (iowaman):
Tell that to the people that pay $1200 to fly out of CLT. Those are the airfares that are costing US customer loyalty. In PHL, PIT, and CLT there is too much room for a LCC to squeeze in.

I do hope US air makes it. A LCC with international flights... Ohhh... I like.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:49 pm

SOAC,

Overcapacity, I've read among the posts here, and I'm convinced, too, is not a big deal. One problem I have is that the US government is regulating the industry through the BK courts. With UA and US in BK, they can basically set or match prices as low as they want, and still use BK protection as cover. Other airlines who avoid BK have to match UA and US fares and thus reduce their revenue which helps prevent them from avoiding BK. I know DL has installed their new low-fare structure, but they would not have gone that route if they didn't have to be aggressive in competing with the BK courts favoring of US and UA.

You mean to tell me that after all they have sacrificed, that US still has the highest cost. I am pretty sure that US does NOT have the highest cost. In fact they have dramatically reduced it, and is somewhat comparable to some LCC

Also:

Did you read anything I said, sure there is some prices that are still high, but as I said before, they are currently lowering them abd eventually will have them all low. This is another typical statement from somebody you does no fully understand the situation.

And then this:

I just don't think you are up-to-date with the current situation.

Read this.

The largest percentage operating loss margins were reported by network carriers Delta Air Lines and US Airways (Table 2) and low-cost carrier ATA Airlines (Table 3). The top operating profit margins were all reported by regional airlines---SkyWest Airlines, American Eagle Airlines and Express Jet (Table 4). - This was taken from this source - http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2004/bts035_04/html/bts035_04.html - concerning the latest (be it a couple of months old) information on airline financial data. On that same page, it shows they also ranked last among majors in quarterly domestic operating profit/loss margin (in percent) on table 2. Even more damaging is that in that same page, it shows that they had the 2nd highest domestic unit revenuve (cents per mile) on table 6. They make all that revenue and still stink in profit/loss margin. That was released in December. This is still pretty current information, nonetheless, and I wonder how in the course of a couple of months US has become somewhat comparable to some LCC. You mentioned US is currently lowering prices and will eventually get them all to be low. But when they recently ranked dead last in profit/loss margin and 2nd in revenue, the math just doesn't figure. That tells me that if they're making so much money, yet are last in profit/loss margin, then there's no way they have become comparable to some LCC's. You did concede in post 29 that US is too fragile to take fares low overnight(how will that help, anyway, if US is 2nd in revenue and last in profit/loss?), but when are these low fares going to take effect?

Don't count them out yet, they still have plenty of time.

But just how much time do they get? Sure don't count them out, as long as the US government and ATSB and whoever else is there to keep them on life support. When is the US government finally going to say enough? With all the cutbacks in the industry, with airlines teetering financially, how long do we have to continue with this? Should US and UA emerge successfully (and, who knows, perhaps even soon), what happens when the next carrier goes under? DL, DH, whoever it is. Will they get the same protection? Or will the government finally say "That's it!". I stated my concern for US folks on a thread here recently, and while nobody - especially me - cares to lose his/her job, the good graces of the government, via taxpayer money, will not always be there to bail us all out.

-R
Living the American Dream
 
fishe388
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 12:26 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:12 am


Quoting SonOfACaptain (reply 15):
4. The luggage debacle lost them the support of the press... advertising has value; US doesn't get it for free anymore.


I work for US Airways, and I would just like to point out that during the holiday US lost about 10,000 bags system wide. However, Many people overlook the fact that Comair in addition to canceling all of their flights the first three days after Christmas also lost 27,000 bags in Cincinnati alone. Now how did US get all the attention when Comair did so much worse. One word Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6504
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Fri Feb 18, 2005 1:38 am

US, like all legacy carriers, had thought itself to be immune from LCC. That was until 9-11.

Not true, a lot of the airlines were bleeding before 9-11.


Another thing to add, a few months before 9/11; US seemed only interested in merging with UA. Even if 9/11 did not happen, that merger would've meant certain death for hub operations at PHL and PIT; both airports are too close to UA's IAD hub.

Quoting Lockheed1011 (reply 25):
On the other hand, United is just the opposite. ... They use Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, what ever is available in the market without planning on spare parts, utilization of pilots, etc......


UA hasn't flown a MDD plane (DC-10) in years. As far as a mish-mosh of fleet types are concerned; US is the main culprit here. The only long-lasting remnants of the US/PSA/PI, etc. mergers of the '80s were indeed the planes. Prior to 2000, in addition to the Boeing (including the 727s Shuttles) and Airbus planes; US still flew the DC-9, MD-80 and F100. In contrast, UA's mainline fleet has been strictly Boeing and Airbus.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
SonOfACaptain
Topic Author
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Fri Feb 18, 2005 7:15 am

Fishe388,

I was just making sure you know I wasn't the one who said that. And yeah, I agree US got the short end of the stick.

-SOAC
Non Illegitimi Carborundum
 
QuestAir
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:16 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Fri Feb 18, 2005 8:02 am

These 'Downfall of US' threads are getting to be as numerous as the 'NW DC-9' threads!
'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I�m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13440
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Fri Feb 18, 2005 9:02 am

US lost about 10,000 bags system wide. However, Many people overlook the fact that Comair in addition to canceling all of their flights the first three days after Christmas also lost 27,000 bags in Cincinnati alone. Now how did US get all the attention when Comair did so much worse.

You're forgetting one very big point - the US baggage situation was intentional in nature - not so with ComAir's mishap.

THAT is why US got all the attention.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
TomFoolery
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:10 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:19 am

Hi all,
This sounds like a nice heated conversation going on. Several points really got my attention.
A businessman airline?
- Is or was US originally conceived as a 'businessmen airline'?
I don't believe so. Rather, it was a merger of a few floundering, soon-to-fail regional airlines stemming from the ashes of Piedmont, PSA, et al. Renamed to USAir in the early 80's connecting the business centers of the east coast, and capitalizing on the opportunities created by the fall of New York Air, EA, Pan Am Shuttle, and dare I say it, TRUMP Shuttle. USAIR played those cards VERY well through the 80's and into the early 90's. It Became 'A businessmen airline' through convenience.

The Fleet
US has always had a diverse fleet, of mostly used 70's and early 80's vintage aircraft. The first line to go was the fleet of F100's followed by the 727's and the DC9's. The remaining mainline fleet currently are the early to mid 80's vintage Boeings, 733/734's, 752 and 762. These are aging aircraft, and seeing this, in the early to mid 90's US wanted to start expanding and upgrading their fleet. Airbus Industrie was able to present a nice efficient cost effective package to US that met their needs and goals (better than Boeing) and the deal was made to upgrade the fleet with A319/320/321's. So pleased was the new USAIRWAYS, that they decided to upgrade their international product with A330's. It should be noted that fleet commonality doesn't exist for Boeing between the 737's and 757/767. There is some commonality between the 757 and the 767's, but that's it. Airbus was able to provide much more commonality through all its products, making type certification much less costly and easier for the airlines.

Things start to fall apart.
With fuel prices at an all time low, and the booming economy of the 90's more people were traveling by air than ever. Competion was fierce and prices were falling. US airways started cutting frills right away to make up for loss of revenue. First meals were reduced, C class was made smaller, and finally layoffs. Passengers started to notice reduction in service,but no problem, the fares were cheap. When the bottom fell out in 2001/2002, there was little else to cut. Everyone had to give a little, from the ramp agents to the pilots. Even the Execs gave a little bit; a very little bit. Morale=low.

Customer Reaction
On short 1-2 hour hops service is nearly indistinguishable between the airlines. Coffee is coffee, pretzels are pretzels are pretzels. Some, myself included noticed the warm smiles, the friendly atmosphere and eagerness to go out of way to make passengers more comfortable have disappeared. Customer satisfaction has slipped as fuel prices have risen. My impressions of the USAIRWAYS jetliners and crews of today are about as inviting and bland as a city bus. The international service is far below par. Before some one flames me out about a F/A's job being for safety, I realize that, but that is not the only function of a F/A.

I recently flew between MUC and PHL and was terribly let down with the level of service on-board the 20 year old 762. It was evident that everything was recycled (down to the lavatory floor) and reused from the last D check, and panels (although safe, I'm sure) were quite filthy, as was the floor and seats. The IFE didn't function, and the F/A's could care less if I had sound or not. There was absolutely no enthusiasm on the crews part, and in some cases some of the F/A's didn't seem to belong on an international flight in the first place. One F/A got upset at the man in front of me because he didn't bring his seatback up for landing. She was VERY rude to him, and it never occurred to her that the man might not understand English well. Don't get me wrong, I don't demand a personal TV or constant attention and service, and I've NEVER used the call button, but when I get up for a drink of water or a soda, I don't need a cabin attendant rolling his/her eyes at me to get it. Unfortunately this is consistent with the domestic service as well. I have never had these problems with the Express lights, only on mainline flights. Once an airline looses its passenger base, it is just a matter of time. I hope investors stop throwing good money after bad on this airline. The airline needs a serious attitude adjustment, especially with the seasoned crew on the international service.

(let the flaming begin)

TF
Paper makes an airplane fly
 
alb222
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:16 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:05 am

The point is that U.S. Bankruptcy laws are a joke. File Chapter 11, screw your vendors and double screw your employees and hopefully, when I don't have to pay my debts, my employees are making 50% of what they did, have a lower staff due to layoffs, I can emerge a new company.
All of the legacies missed the boat. None of them recognized the impact of the LCC's combined with the effects of 9/11.
Now, it is too late to fix the problem. Some of the legacies will go, Don't be surprised if some of the LCC's go to.
We are faced with overcapacity and high fuel. How many seats do you need on a particular route? Now fly me I have TV, fly me I have new planes etc is the rule.
In the end carriers will go, not because they are bad or deserve to go, but market conditions will force this to happen.
Mergers and consolidations will happen............not by choice, but to survive in some form. Out of AA, CO, DL, NW, UA, US my guess is that no more than 3 will survive and it will not necessarilly US, UA and DL that get eatten up or disappear.
By the end of 2005, my guess is that this consolidation will start. The government will have no choice but to allow consolidation.........otherwise we are going to have a lot of people out of jobs.
So it is not US that has to go...it is our Bankruptcy laws that need to go. Chap. 11 is only a coverup for mistakes and mishandling. Let the market decide.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:48 am

Because they suck, thats why. Same reason UA will go under: Lousy service, delays all the time, dirty/old airplanes, too many CRJ problems, bags lost, no high end revenue stream, too much LCC competition, overcapacity, ineficient management team, and the list goes on.
One Nation Under God
 
ouboy79
Posts: 4111
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 1:48 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:01 am

Ahhhh...gotta love those high quality a.net posts. To think...I think this place was starting to turn around with some higher quality/content posts. Eh...oh well.  Smile

As far as US going under...everyone can just sit back and wait...its gonna be awhile. LOL
 
dl757md
Posts: 1482
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:32 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:29 am

Quoting SonOfACaptain (reply 15):
In fact US employees are one of the worst paid, even worse that WN


I can't speak for other workgroups, but if you're a mechanic at a legacy carrier your pay is much worse than at WN.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (reply 20):
US already planned for it to go systemwide long before DL announced theirs.


I'm not sure when US announced they were going system wide with Gofares but DL first said in April '04 that they would go system wide after the test was completed in CVG. If US indeed planned Gofares that long ago then either management was inept for taking so long to implement this "revolutionary" idea or they didn't recognize its value. Both of these verdicts lead me to believe that US management doesn't have the instincts to lead US to the future you envision.

SOAC
You keep saying that changes are afoot at US that will bring down their costs to the lowest in the industry. I haven't noticed that you have said what these will be. You flame anybody who disagrees with you that they don't know anything about US.
Quoting SonOfACaptain (reply 29):
Did you read anything I said, sure there is some prices that are still high, but as I said before, they are currently lowering them abd eventually will have them all low. This is another typical statement from somebody you does no fully understand the situation.
Please enlighten us with seat mile costs and as yet unannounced programs that will make US the lean winner you claim. Oh yeah, I forgot you can't know the second piece of that as neither you nor your father are privy to that info anymore than the general public, SEC rules and all that.
In the end, I, as someone else said, admire your tenacity. I too have been laid off for an extended period from my airline which faces many of the same problems that US does. I feel for your family in this situation. But please don't insult people who are trying to give an honest answer to your question.

Dl757Md
757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
 
sspontak
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:42 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:05 am

I flew U.S. last week roundtrip from LGA to TPA, connecting in DCA on the southbound and connecting in CLT on the northbound. All 4 flights had the most professional pilots and flight attendants, the planes were all spotless, the hubs seemed to be very well run and the flights were all on time. I am a Delta fan but I certainly do wish U.S. and the U.S. all the best. Keep up the good work U.S.
Go Delta!
 
iowaman
Posts: 3878
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:26 am

Quoting Lockheed1011 (reply 25):
US has the advantage of having the eastcoast hubs


That is a disadvantage because the east coast is way oversaturated, and the west is growing quite rapidly.

Quoting Lockheed1011 (reply 25):
United is just the opposite. Too big, too many employees challenging the airline to make more and more money without thinking where the revenue is coming from. The fleet has no planning. They use Airbus, Boeing, Douglas, what ever is available in the market without planning on spare parts, utilization of pilots, etc......


I believe US has more aircraft types than UA, UA's fleet has planning, and they are phasing out a few different types.

Quoting SonOfACaptain (reply 29):
Did you read anything I said, sure there is some prices that are still high, but as I said before, they are currently lowering them abd eventually will have them all low. This is another typical statement from somebody you does no fully understand the situation.


They won't be low where there is no competition. The only airline I refuse to fly is US, just because they rape your ass on airfare where there is no competition. Now I know you are going to come back and say other airlines do that too, well not nearly as bad as US.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13849
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Why Should US Airways Be The One To Go Down

Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:44 pm

I guess I'll be very surprised if I ever fly USAir again. I had flown them for all of my leisure flying due to good price and good service, but these days in the NE USA, SWA is setting the standard. Granted the service is very basic, but for my last trip, SWA was half the price of US. And given the financial peril that US is in, I feel really uncomfortable in paying them in advance for a flight. I'm not going to state an opinion on their survival, all I'll say is in my case, they've lost business that will not return till they offer a better price and equal service to SWA, and I'm not optimistic that they can do so any time soon.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!