Everybody Squeeze In Tight - (Merged topics)

[funguy2]

absolutely... the plot thickens.

Also, interesting, is that since these are CRJ-700's, they must be coming from the factory, as I don't think there are very many used CRJ-700's out there. As such, IF UAL is dumping Air Wisc, they will either be temporarily decreasing capacity (not necessarily bad) or extending BK some some more to deal with the Air Wisc cancelation... And as you pointed out, August is a best case scenario for GoJets... So, this adds more complications to the time-line... Does UAL cut AirWisc now or later? How does that affect the US BK proceedings... Interetsting times.

Just a note here:

70 CRJ's = 3500 seats
30 CR7's= 2100 seats (assuming 70 seats, but that is high, because that is a standard, all coach layout... UAL's press release says First Class and Econ Plus will be on these aircraft...)

So, by a back of the envelope calculation, not all of Air Wisconsins' capacity is being replaced. Which supports the reduced Express ASM conversation.

 

[funguy2]

Or, as the magic 8 ball would say "Signs point to yes". See this thread - it appears that UA is talking about reducing the express domestic flying somewhat.

Jim

[post="260606"][/post]​

That is an excellent way to put it!

 

[BoeingBoy]

Where does Shuttle America fit into this? A new rumour (not sure how true) is that Shuttle America will get Chautauqua's E170s, as Republic's way of getting around the AA scope clause. Republic and Shuttle America are both owned by Wexford Capital.

If so, how would that fit in with the whole RP/MAA fiasco?

[post="260643"][/post]​

LY,

I've heard the same rumors. Since Republic Holdings hasn't been able (so far) to get a new certificate for the Republic division (how long have they been trying now?), it sounds like plan B if true. A separate division to fly the Emb-170's (for UA or US) is the only way around the AA scope provisions - ala TranStates/GoJet.

Jim

 

[ringmaruf]

At any rate, it looks like there won't be a significant replacement for AirWis' UA flying till fall or later. If all this transpires, will US reject the Mesa/TransStates contracts and take a pretty big chunk out of Uex flying till all the AirWis planes can transition or will U affirm the Mesa/TransStates contracts and swell the Express ranks as the AirWis planes transition over.

[post="260638"][/post]​

I don't think that's necessarily a problem. If US wants to exit bankruptcy in, say, July, and the Air Wisconsin planes won't be available until, say, December, I think US can still exit bankruptcy earlier and reject the Mesa/Trans States contracts, effective in December (i.e., after US is already out of bankruptcy). Isn't that exactly what they did with the PIT leases in bankruptcy 1? Of course, this assumes that US will know when the Air Wisconsin planes will be available at the time they exit bankruptcy.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Good point. As I recall, US rejected the PIT leases on the last day of BK1. However, since discussions continued with the airport, US wasn't charged the premium for not having long-term leases. I'm certainly no BK expert, but I'm not sure if a contract could be rejected with a post-exit rejection date without some sort of agreement with the other party.

So I suppose US could work out some sort of "transition agreement" with Mesa, TranStates, or both that would reduce their flying to fit the arrival of AirWis planes.

Something akin to the GE deal - not reject the a/c leases in that case but modify them to release planes over a period of time.

Jim

 

[ringmaruf]

From http://www.usairways.com/about/press_2003/nw_03_0331.htm, the press released issued upon emergence on March 31, 2003:

Continuing to feel the impact of the Iraqi war, the company has informed Allegheny County authorities that it has set an effective rejection date of Jan. 5, 2004, to complete the renegotiation of leases at Pittsburgh International Airport and related facilities. Consequently, the existing leases were not assumed.

Again, I'm certainly no expert on the bankruptcy rules, but it would seem reasonable that the company could do the same here.

Of course, it's far more likely that this crack management team will screw it all up and wind up either short dozens of RJs or with dozens of RJs we don't need. 🙄

 

[tadjr]

Of course, it's far more likely that this crack management team will screw it all up and wind up either short dozens of RJs or with dozens of RJs we don't need. 🙄

[post="260672"][/post]​

There are lots of markets where RJs could be used to rebuild the traffic that we've lost. Look at the DL Commuter map and you'll see a lot of room for more RJs. It would also help to alleviate some of the mess at PHL if you had a couple of markets where direct/nonstop RJ service could provide traffic that would not have to connect in PHL (or CLT for that matter). Someone just has to know enough to find them, market them and price them to sell.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thanks, ringmaruf. As usual, my memory was fuzzy....

Jim

 

[ringmaruf]

There are lots of markets where RJs could be used to rebuild the traffic that we've lost. Look at the DL Commuter map and you'll see a lot of room for more RJs. It would also help to alleviate some of the mess at PHL if you had a couple of markets where direct/nonstop RJ service could provide traffic that would not have to connect in PHL (or CLT for that matter).

[post="260674"][/post]​

Hey, I personally agree with you. I think US could use an additional 10-20 RJs to add new markets, increase some frequencies on existing markets, and upgrade some turboprop markets. (Also note that as US adds more 70 and 90 seat planes, that will free up some more 50 seat planes.)

But I do think it would be a Bad Thing to have 70 CRJs dropped in our lap one day without advance planning. (Advance planning, you'll have noticed, isn't a strength of the current management.)

Someone just has to know enough to find them, market them and price them to sell.

I guess that job would fall to one of the Bruce's, or perhaps Nocella. Good luck with that.

 

[700UW]

The only problem is that US is using RJs to replace Mainline Jets and flying, not opening new markets.

 

[Light Years]

US could definately expand it's route network with RJs. There are plently of cities in the midwest and south that are within RJ range that U could look into for service through Charlotte as an alternative to Delta. Alot of markets U was in before but might have a better chance with upgraded service and the UA partnership.

Maybe far-fetched for US, but just looking at OA route maps... Quebec, JFK (for Star feed), Saginaw, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Toledo, Fort Wayne, Macon, Springfield MO, Springfield IL, Shreveport, Baton Rouge, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Witchita, Madison, Moline, Appleton (AW?), Peoria, Evansville, Lincon, Omaha, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids.

With EMBs you could throw in Albuquerque, Colorado Springs, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso.

I don't think US needs all that many RJs. Use the RJs for the longer thin routes, and pick up more Dash 8-300s for the short hops. They are much more economical and offer an identical product to the CRJ these days with the upgraded cabin and soundproofing. If marketed right (jetways, clean cabins), customers wouldn't even notice it's a prop. People flying Alaska/Horizon don't even notice a difference between the CRJ700 and DH8-400. If a customer is on a USX branded flight, it should be an identical experience whether they are on a 37 seater on the way and a 70 seater on the way back.

It would also be nice to see a standard Express product, from the Dash to the 700 or 900- same seats, same service, same policies and procedures. These days the Express product is such a mixed bag-- from the B1900 to the E170, with multitudes of different aircraft, comfort levels, and varying standards of service. The EMBs should not be part of the Express brand, and they aren't marketed that way by the company with the exception of the titles which we all know are there for political reasons only.

 

[ringmaruf]

When Ashby gets promoted to CEO, can we make Light Years the head of Express?

 

[Light Years]

As long as I can roll out my sharp, Lufthansa- inspired uniforms as well. 😉

 

[cirrus]

With EMBs you could throw in Albuquerque, Colorado Springs, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso.

[post="260691"][/post]​

I like the way you think. They are all obvious prime vacation destinations. Austin is the Capitol and a center for Technology companies IBM, Dell, AMD etc...

 

[PBRmeASAP]

It's not said explicitly in the press release that UAL is rejecting aircraft operated by AWAC, but the following statements are in there:
The two messages taken together -- that these 30 jets will be replacing Air Wisconsin on certain routes and that United may reduce the United Express fleet -- mean that it is highly likely that United will reject a substantial portion of the Air Wisconsin flying, if not all of it.
Well, given that United has stated an intent to reduce its domestic Express flying, and that they don't have a hub like IAH to do the mExpressJet thing, chances are that ZW is going to be where they choose to cut domestic capacity (modulo how Shuttle America and Mesa are doing with respect to performance guarantees). 30 66-seaters works out to the equivalent of 40 50-seaters, and cutting capacity equivalent to another 30 CRJ's would probably equate to a roughly 10% reduction in United Express flying. Actually, it would not surprise me if the agreement with Trans States/GoJets included a commitment to absorb the flying they perform for US Airways if they are kicked out of the US Express family; they're one of the smaller US Express operators.

Now, looking at the further implications of this, it appears that US Airways will likely be required to find a place for most, if not all, of Air Wisconsin's 70 CRJ's in the Express system. Now, Chautauqua/Republic has ensured its place with its commitment to invest, and US owns PSA and Piedmont. This, of course, leaves Mesa as the obvious candidate for reduction. However, Mesa is also the only remaining regional partner with the financial wherewithal to drop $100 million into US Airways to help fund emergence. So, if this development means Mesa is out of the US Airways Express family, US Airways management loses its leverage to try to extract concessions and financing.

I can only think of one possible scenario where Mesa would stay in the system -- and that would be if they were to replace much, if not all, of PSA and Piedmont's flying, in which case you'd probably see parts of those carriers sold, leases rejected, etc.

[post="260642"][/post]​

[/quo


I have some ties to Mesa and word I have gotten (from a pretty reliable source in PHX) is that no money will be invested In USAirways.

As for Air Wisconsin losing united flying most of what they are losing has been pre planned as they are and had been planning to park their Bae 146 fleet.