US Airways regional flying???
 

Does anyone know, or think that Airways will reduce regional flying in regards to the higher oil prices???

Yep, your screwed... Joking I haven’t a clue.

With any luck they will follow Delta's lead and slash Mesa.

think its soon to be the motto of all the majors to cut the routes of the regionals that aren't as profitable, won't just be us airways....for all the mesa guys, really wish them the best, for someone sitting high on a seniority list, starting over isn't much fun, hopefully they can find further advancement, and not just get to a "good" regional....go for the gold.

I think PSA and Peidmont are fairly safe being that they are wholly owned and small. Republic is safe with the E-jets. As as far as anyone else goes, who knows. Just so everyone knows, Im a US Airways expert. Just ask me, I'll tell ya.

Air Wisconsin's owners have something like 2M+ shares of LCC as well as a seat on the LCC BoD. Or, they did not too long ago...

Nobody is SAFE but my guess is AWAC is safer than Chautauqua (NOT REPUBLIC) & TSA, and maybe even Mesa and PSA.

I think that turboprop operators will be safe, and I expect to se more TPs coming in line, maybe we will finally see the Q400s in Piedmont

Mesa's contract is up in 2012. DP has stated publicly that he would like to get rid of them asap. The only thing that might save mesa is those 38 900's they own.

Looking at Chautauqua, we have already seen a reduction in the number of 50 seat operations under Airways. This partly due to the arrangement with Airways for E-jets, we loose 145's in a one for one swap with each new one on line. It will be interesting to see if anything else causes some shifting...

We (CHQ) are down to 8 US Airways 145s as of this month. Losing 8 airplanes would be a dent, but it wouldn't be a catastrophe, especially since we are gaining 175s for Airways on the RW side.

AWAC would go before PSA ever does. We are wholly owned and operate cheaper than AWAC. The only reason AWAC has a piece of the pie is because they helped bail out Airways during BK.

The RW side seems to be fairly safe - if anything, mainline is using the 170s to fill up the holes in their patchwork schedules. Seeing as RAH owns as much stock in US Air as they do, I would assume RAH/CHQ are relatively safe. I'd be only slightly more worried about PSA, but Comair has shown us all that being wholly owned by mainline != get out of jail free card. Piedmont is filling their niche too well to run into any real problems. Anyone else is fair game.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that...and from my understanding, wholly-owned's are fairly easy to sweep under the rug. I think AWAC is in a very good position, with their only potential downfall being the blatant lack of 50+ seat equipment. I'd still say, however, that they're a safe bet.

Are PDT's loads anywhere near sufficient to even consider the Q4? I've jumpseated on them several times when everyone else was full, and always had half the plane to myself...

When it comes to RAH I don't feel threatened. Still growing and busting at the seems on the CHQ side of things. I was called today for overtime as a matter of fact. Flew this past trip with a reserve CA they had to DHD in from IND because we still need more.

And that's the reason they're "safer" than PSA...

Just ask Comair how being wholly owned and operating cheaper than their non-WO competition is working out for them...

They are purportedly not meeting performance requirements and their contract may be in jeapordy.

We'll see.

True but heres the difference. Airways has stated that are committed to owning and operating PSA and Piedmont. That in itself doesn't mean much but, they have also stated that their goal is for the wholly owns to do 50% of the regional feed in the coming years. Currently, PSA and Piedmont combined do approx. 18%. I forsee more and larger airplanes for PSA and Piedmont in the future. When is anyones guess. I believe it's a few years off. PSA has leases on the 200's until 2012 I think, and our contract is up in 2011 amendable in 2009. These factors will play into it. I think Mesa's contract with America West is up in 2011 as well. We all know what's going to happen the minute that's up. Wouldn't be surprised if that flying goes to PSA and/or Republic.

AWAC owns part of US Airways. Or at least the owners of AWAC do.

US Airways is a part of AWAC, not the other way 'round.... ;)

That said, anything is possible.

Me? I just do my job as well as I can. It's all I can do.

I think any company operating 50 seaters could see reduction.

I think Piedmont might be in a better position than people think and those at Republic might want to be careful.

A lot of the routes from DCA and PHL to ALB, BTV, MHT, PWM, SYR, ROC, BUF, PIT, etc., could easily be put on a Q400 and save Airways a ton in fuel savings per year.

Just a point to ponder.

From AWAC management on a company forum

"US Airways does not have the ability to reduce our flying. Any changes to our contract would have to be through mutual agreement."

My company is definitely better than your company because we fly bigger planes, for smaller plane rates! BEAT THAT!

Thanks for the heads up chief :cool:

::yawn::

Dude, this has to do with the livelihood of many of our buddies at several carriers. Lighten up.

Amen!! We are not perfect but we should be safe. PSA is US Airways' cash cow. We make money. I believe any of the 50 seaters are going to need to be changed for larger AC but who know. That is my opinion and you know what those are like.

PDT wouldn't be flying the Q4 or ATR on the same low-yield routes, it would likely be longer stage lengths and higher yield markets than are served by the current Dash fleet.

That said, I'm glad to hear that we're turning a profit when you're jumpseating on us :D

The problem with this website is too few people can detect sarcasm.

"The problem with this website is too few people can detect sarcasm."

I think it's more of a problem with your posts than a problem with this website.

Some people use a sarcasim tag when they mean to be sarcastic. Other times, people flame away and then think putting a sarcasm tag at the end makes it all good. You have to be careful if you're going to go down that road.

sarcasm note!
 

PSA? USAir kind of took the smile away did they not ?:cool:

USAir can do that but for me and the other new hires who didn't have to go through J4J's and CDL its all good for us. Good upgrade time and a chance for growth on the horizon. The smile is still for me. It is the reagional that fits me best. Some others my not say so but you will have that anywhere you go. :)

With your 14 -700's? LOL.

Don't forget about the 35 -200's, of which several are parked because there aren't enough pilots. That's expensive.

Don't **** in his Kool-aid man! ;)

I would check my info before I come on here. The only 200's we have parked is the spares which is only about two or three but they get used every day. So I would go back and check my info. And the only pilot shortage we have is a capt shortage and that is only because we can't find sim time to. That only means alot of upgrades to come. And as far as 14 700's goes that is fine we are not a large company. And there are bigger things on the horizon. With the general lack of knowledge you sound like you are a Mesa guy.

He's not...and he knows more than you think.

Is it really that hard to see coming...?

Quite simply, management will come to you telling you that the 50 seaters have to be parked... Unless you are willing to take a pay cut, changes to work rules, or both.



Bet me.

Of course Airways management would like to park 50 seaters.

That said, what contractor's agreement are they willing to break?