Sounds about right. lol

Because it's the largest traffic market in the U.S. Even though it may be losing money right now, that isn't necessarily a good predictor of future performance during a recession. Look at Delta. They're clamoring to get more presence in NYC, both at JFK and LGA, even to add the same destinations that US is dropping. The major carrier I used to work at (nonflying position, of course) had it as a stated strategic goal to grow in NYC, no matter what the cost.

This isn't some podunk town that's lost its mills and now the traffic is drying up. Either win in NY, or forever keep shrinking back into oblivion ala BWI/PIT/LAS. I can't think of a better place to take a stand.

^

Seems only logical. Airlines arent fighting eachother for a piece of NYC for nothing.

And I wouldnt have to commute.

So you do not work for the airlines and thus dont have access to the hub or any other site that shows all the stats and reasons behind the closure of LGA? Because I'm sure if you did you would understand the amount of money being lost in LGA for USairways. Its different for USairways then DAL/CAL/American etc. DAL for example has JFK and the ability to connect through NY a lot better. They can also go International out of JFK. Thus their Market share is a lot larger. USairways only has some 3% of the flying out of NY. As compared to some 30% I believe is the number for DAL. CAL has a large amount as well due to Newark..... Where USairways does not have such a network to support growth or an airport, LGA, that allows the most profitable routes.

Now if the port authority were to drop their strick rules on the distance a plane can go out of LGA. Then maybe it would be worth USairways to stick around. But that has not happen and probably never will. I think as of right now the furtherst a flight goes out of LGA is to DEN. Nothing further then that. Thus LAS/PHX are not able to be serviced out of LGA fo USairways and thus hubs they serve include PHL/CLT out of LGA for connections.... You think many want to do that when they can go to JFK/Newark and go direct?

Meyers, chill out, man. I do work for the airlines. I thought my post and my profile here make that fairly apparent...sorry if there was any confusion on my part there.

First off, no, I have not seen how much money that US is losing in LGA. I have seen the same postings that you and everyone else outside of management have seen posted on thehub/etc. But 'no', I have NOT seen definite numbers as to how much US is actually losing. The relevant stuff is too internal for a mere DH8 F/O, or any other pilot for that matter. I have just seen what management states publicly, that the slot transaction "will improve profitably by $75 million annually." Analysts are human too; there have been cases of carriers dropping profitable flying just because 'the numbers don't look right', and were misinterpreted. I don't know if that's the case. But having seen stuff like this from the mgmt. side somewhere else I wouldn't discount it.

Secondly, you bring up the competition; a very valid argument. Each carrier's goals in the NYC market are very diverse, which is another reason we can have so many large players. You mention the level of connectivity that DL/AA bring at JFK, and CO at EWR. Matching that should not/is not the goal at LGA for US, partially due to the perimeter rule that you mention. What US's strength at LGA is, is a prime, slot constrained inner city airport with frequent service to O&D perimeter markets. AA and DL don't have frequency like that even at JFK. Maybe CO at EWR, but that's a different story. If the perimeter rule would be dropped, I would only expect a small benefit if that. Transcons are either feast or famine on profitability.....even more seasonal than usual in this economy.

US Airways shrank their own market share. The percentage of express flying that US Airways has out of LGA is far higher (at least it seems that way to my eye when I fly in and out of there), than Delta and especially American.

Management decided to increase express flying out of LGA because they wanted to protect slots. That meant larger mainline aircraft were taken out of LGA and replaced with regional (mostly turboprop) aircraft that few short flight time but high frequency routes, as we all know. This meant a net loss of market share because US Airways had fewer seats in the market with smaller aircraft.

I'm pretty positive the perimeter range for LGA is 1500 miles. If US Airways can't find profitable routes within 1500 miles of LGA they might as well just throw in the towel now. There would be a lot of benefits to them keeping LGA open, including improved employee morale and customer satisfaction.

I understand management's argument for reducing LGA and increasing DCA, and I think a more even slot swap would have been incredibly lucrative. The disparity in the number of slots lost in LGA and those gained in DCA was too high to make this look like a real lucrative deal to me. I don't buy that this management team understands the dynamics at play here. You need to look at more than the numbers that they've passed around to all of us trying to make this deal look good.

I agree with RedBaron, except for one thing. The only reason that makes sense for their to be such a disparaging difference in the amount of slots being swapped is in preparation for a merger with AA. If not for that then D.P. has just lost his freaking mind, $75 million dollars in profitability in a year can be a daily lost the next.

He does make a few good points. But then again you have to remember the Japan and Brazil rights as well. Obviously with Japan being down the road but Brazil will be as soon as this is complete. I dont know if there's a true way of knowing how much those are worth. But having a greater hold on DCA is always a great thing, or so it would seem. You think those senators and reps are going to let USairways go away? I think a lot of them have a strong intrest in USairways doing well due to the number that fly on Airways to and from work..... However DCA in general does seem like a good market.

I guess I've been furloughed and back after 7 months on the street. If it means I hit the street again for USairways to become more solid and get things right to move forward I'm ok with that. At the same time I dont want to be the one kicking myself in a year if they go under because they did not try their best to become a more profitable airline. But for the time being and near future, I dont see moving on to anywhere else as a real possibility so I am hopeful Airways mgt is making the right decisions here. And it appears they are from the outside looking in.

Right, this has nothing to do with what makes good business sense long term. It's about survival. Airways needs to put this deal through so they can stop bleeding cash in LGA and refocus on other markets. This is all about making their balance sheet look acceptable in the short term.

when will the furloughs be done and after they are all done what will be the most junior FOs hire date?