Atsb Comments On Us Airways'

"With the employee cost cuts there will likely be a larger fleet and more jobs."

Interesting take on things. On the other side, here's something from the new agreement with the ATSB....

This letter agreement (the “Agreementâ€) confirms the terms under which Phoenix American Financial Services, Inc., as Loan Administrator (the “Loan Administratorâ€) acting on behalf of and for the benefit of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board (the “ATSBâ€) and Bank of America, N.A., as Tranche B Lender (together with the ATSB, the “Creditorsâ€) has, under the terms of the Loan Agreement referred to below and pursuant to the written request to enter into this Agreement by the Creditors to the Loan Administrator dated as of the date hereof, engaged Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (the “Investment Bankerâ€) as its financial adviser with respect to a possible Restructuring (as defined below), a possible Business Combination (as defined below), and such other financial and investment banking matters related to the Company (as defined below) which the Loan Administrator, the Creditors and the Investment Banker may agree in writing during the term of this engagement.

For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Restructuring†shall mean any recapitalization, reorganization, refinancing or restructuring of all or a portion of the Company's existing debt or other obligations that is achieved, without limitation, through a solicitation of waivers and consents, rescheduling of maturities, change in interest rates, repurchase, settlement or forgiveness, modification or amendment of terms, conversion of debt into equity, an exchange offer or issuance of new securities, sale or disposition of assets, securities or other interests, or other similar transaction or series of transactions, or the sale by the Company of any of its assets.

For purposes of this Agreement, the term “Business Combination†shall mean any transaction or series of related transactions involving, directly or indirectly, (i) an acquisition, merger, consolidation, or other business combination pursuant to which the business or assets of the Company are sold or combined with another company or any of such company’s subsidiaries, (ii) the acquisition by a buyer (which term shall include a “group†of persons as defined in Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended), of equity interests or options, or any combination thereof constituting a controlling interest in the then outstanding stock of the Company or possessing a controlling interest in the then outstanding voting power of the Company, (iii) any other purchase or acquisition by a third party of all or a significant portion of the assets of the Company; or (iv) the formation of a joint venture or partnership by the Company with a third party or an investment by a third party in the Company that has the effect of transferring a controlling or significant minority interest in the Company to such third party.

Jim
 
MrAeroMan said:
Get a grip Cav....it's just a website/bulletin board. What's wrong?? EAS number busy?
[post="190526"][/post]​
Like the other guy who does the same thing...just pissing people off for fun...call me nuts call me anything I no longer care because I am no longer there...how’s that for rhyming...air man.... I agree with 'most" of your posts, you think like a gop man, but some are off the wall..... I like off the wall, it matches U in every aspect.
 
cavalier said:
Like the other guy who does the same thing...just pissing people off for fun...call me nuts call me anything I no longer care because I am no longer there...how’s that for rhyming...air man.... I agree with 'most" of your posts, you think like a gop man, but some are off the wall..... I like off the wall, it matches U in every aspect.
[post="190534"][/post]​


What other guy? Hmm one and the same?
 
USA320Pilot said:
<<< the most likely aircraft to leave the fleet are the A330's>>>


You can include the 737's, 757's & 767's on that list.

The only thing this management wants flying are the small AB & 170's.

Loss of Fragmentation is so they can sell or return aircraft and become a small regional carrier that will feed the Star Alliance.

MTNMAN
 
I've been thinking about the possible fleet - especially in light of USA320's talk about reducing to 150 planes....

Looking at the 737's vs small AB -

The 737's would cost about $120 million a year less than the small AB's for about the same number of planes. The 737's are not quite as efficient as the small AB's, but that wouldn't affect the cost saving much since the primary driver behind the lower unit operating cost of the small AB's is average stage length and daily utilization. Plus, the company has already stated in court documents that when it comes to rejecting leases they will keep the lowest cost equipment.

USA320 has said the 757's would remain. The 757 and 767 is a common type for pilots - no training expense. Keeping both allows for higher capacity on select routes as well as some international presence. After all, feeding the Star Alliance is fine but where do we serve that has a large international Alliance presence and would make for good connections?

The larger RJ's (CRJ-900 and Emb-190 when available) will replace one of the narrowbody fleets - IF we don't liquidate and IF we can get financing. The question is which one. $10 million a month in lowered costs sure could make a difference....

Jim

ps - don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!
 
mwereplanes said:
Oh, that must be why the fragmentation rights are gone.

Because there will be more jobs and a larger fleet.

Man, you just don't get it.

mr
[post="190518"][/post]​
Its the ICT. :eye:
 
From a passenger's perspective, I would hope they would keep the Airbus if they ever reduce down to 150. Either that or put the money they are saving on the Boeing fleet and get them refurbished inside and out. Right now most of the Boeing fleet in my opinion is a hunk of junk to ride in.
 
firstamendment & CLT-Douglas,

You're both right - the 737's have been neglected. But you could spend $1,000,000 on each of them and break even the first year vs keeping the small AB's. After that the $120,000,000 annual savings would be money in the bank. And the oldest is only about 3/5 of the way through its useful life.

Jim

ps - I still believe shrinking the fleet is a recipe for failure. I'm mainly tweeking someone's nose, although the $ figures are accurate.
 
US Airways network really call for flexibility between 70-100 seats... the EJets are perfect for that. The E170 gets a great response from customers, it's perfect for short to medium haul. Paint over the Express sign and put audio entertainment on them (JetBlue will have LiveTV on them- for US's mostly short hauls there's not a need)- have some sort of treatment for Prefereds (comp drinks), and you have a short/medium haul product that's better than most legacy carriers and LCCs. Used properly, they could take over the meat and potatoes of the system with an attractive but economical product, with flexibility between the E170/175/190/195.

The CRJ's bigger siblings are just stretches of an uncomfortable regional jet. The 900 is ridiculous. The CRJ700 could have a place simply for higher capacity in the Express system. For example, you could have a market that gets the 50 seater all day and the 70 seater at peak times, offering the same consistent Express product. The CRJs would be for 50-70 seat markets, the EMBs for 70-100 seat markets.

The Airbus narrowbodies would used for the long hauls- transon, Carribbean, Latin America, Florida. The company has hinted at offering the P@ssport system at every seat... silly as it seems to us, it would put them on par with the LCCs and ahead from the traditional carriers. The Airbuses would also have the traditional two classes, maybe even an upgraded product since they would mostly be on the long stage lengths. Again the family concept- A319/320/321.

The 757 and 767 are needed until they could be replaced with Airbus equivalents. If the company ever gets to fulfill the reduced Airbus order, it was for 15 A330-200s and 37 narrowbodies- a perfect match for the 757/767 fleet with a few more thrown in.

The A330s would of course be used for transatlantic- ther'e really not the need for them on any domestic routes. The A330-200s are more suited sizewise to US's needs in transatlantic markets now served by the 76 or future routes. Again it would be a consistent product. Ask a Envoy Class customer getting off the A330 in MAN and one getting off the 767 in GLA and the reactions are night and day.

The 150 aircraft "mainline" fleet would be 20-30 widebodies and the rest narrowbodies. Add about 200 EJets and 200 or so RJs, and there's the fleet that makes the most sense for US Airways. Four fleet families with enormous flexibility between them, and industry leading products in each.

There was a report a couple of years ago saying that if US Airways had 30 widebodies, 150 narrowbodies, and an unrestricted number of SJs and RJs, assuming industry standard contracts for each (and competent management/happy and motivated workforce) they would one of the most profitable airlines in the world.

Of course, even airlines with money can't afford a shiney new fleet of 600 jets younger than 10 years. And all the drama of redundant work groups and numerous lists would make it a very tricky task to allocate the planes- a single seniority list or close to it would be needed.

And before anyone tears me to shreds with "going under tomorrow can't feed my child" responses, I'm only discussing what a successful, if not possible US Airways would look like. Hypothetical, folks.
 
The ALPA MEC and all of the union's have been briefed by the Company on two business plans: a 282 mainline fleet that would grow to 320 aircraft and a 150 mainline fleet.

The LCC/hybrid business model requires larger aircraft whereas the 150-aircraft plan is designed for no transatlantic operations and a point-to-point network like JetBlue's.

The LCC/hybrid business plan provides a 4% profit margin and the 150 mainline aircraft fleet plan provides an 8% profit margin. Some creditors are pushing for the 150 aircraft plan, but management desires to go with the larger fleet.

IF US Airways obtains required labor cuts of $950 million, either via consensual accords or imposition, I suspect cash flow would permit keeping all or most of the 282 mainline jets.

Then I expect new Airbus, Canadair, and Embraer aircraft orders to build the fleet.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
motnot said:
So where do the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy fit in? :p
[post="190606"][/post]​


They will rotate serving as the Captain (Pilot in Command) when USA320Pilot reverts back to being an FO in the not too distant future (LOL) :p :up: