Mutual Support: The Paradigm

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
In my opinion, US Airways is changing the paradigm on how regional airlines will feed and support network carriers in the future. What we are witnessing in the new agreements between US Airways, Air Wisconsin, and Republic, is a new sort of â€￾franchise feeâ€￾ where the parties involved are investing in the right to feed a selected mainline franchise.

Much of this has to due with deteriorating industry fundamentals and self preservation, but as the trunk airlines move towards requiring the feeders to pay to be affiliated, the feeders will be less able and less willing to fly for several carriers. Each party will be financially tied to one other, which will lead to closer relationships between the mainline and its affiliates.

It would not surprise me in the end if the major US Airways Express carrier’s are Air Wisconsin, Chautauqua, and Republic. In the case of its business partner, United Airlines may end up with Independence Air (if they have the money to invest in United) and possibly Mesa and TSA taking on expanded or new roles in United Express.

Today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported local airline analyst Bill Lauer considers the turn to commuter carriers two or three times smaller than US Airways to be a "brilliant" tactical move by the bigger airline. It appeals to the "enlightened self interest" of the smaller carriers, who need US Airways as much as US Airways needs them. "If US Airways goes down, the loss of revenue may be so great for [regional carriers] that they are imperiled, as well," he said. These new agreements mark a new beginning for US Airways and its affiliates who are more tied together and more dependent upon one another.

I believe from a business stand point this mutual support is for the better since the affliliates will have a large stake in the future success of the mainline.

Meanwhile, as the industry evolves, there is continued reason to believe that US Airways could be involved in a corporate combination in the not-so-distant future.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
How many different modes of regional operations/feed are there right now?

1. fee for service
2. affiliate carrier that splits ticket sale revenue with the mainline carrier such as US and Colgan.
3. codeshare, such as UA and Great Lakes
4. carrier owned regional

Of course no one has tried number 5, which would be one airline through and through, no mainline, no express, just an airline with different size planes.

And now US has gotten creative and found number 6, which is their fee for service carriers owning a sizable chunk of the company. To get through these rough times, I can understand this arrangement. However long term, models 2, 4 and 5 would seem to be the ideal arrangements for the mainline carriers, in my opinion.
 
bluetoad said:
JetBlue will be trying #5 starting in the fall
[post="256126"][/post]​
I was going to mention that but I'm still not sure I consider the 190 a regional jet.
 
USA320Pilot said:
In my opinion, US Airways is changing the paradigm on how regional airlines will feed and support network carriers in the future. What we are witnessing in the new agreements between US Airways, Air Wisconsin, and Republic, is a new sort of â€￾franchise feeâ€￾ where the parties involved are investing in the right to feed a selected mainline franchise.

Sounds like you've been reading my posts.
 
USA320Pilot said:
Much of this has to due with deteriorating industry fundamentals and self preservation, but as the trunk airlines move towards requiring the feeders to pay to be affiliated, the feeders will be less able and less willing to fly for several carriers. Each party will be financially tied to one other, which will lead to closer relationships between the mainline and its affiliates.

Today the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported local airline analyst Bill Lauer considers the turn to commuter carriers two or three times smaller than US Airways to be a "brilliant" tactical move by the bigger airline. It appeals to the "enlightened self interest" of the smaller carriers, who need US Airways as much as US Airways needs them. "If US Airways goes down, the loss of revenue may be so great for [regional carriers] that they are imperiled, as well," he said.
These new agreements mark a new beginning for US Airways and its affiliates who are more tied together and more dependent upon one another.

I believe from a business stand point this mutual support is for the better since the affliliates will have a large stake in the future success of the mainline.


Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="256117"][/post]​

U had this, they are/were called WOed airlines. The WO's have complete and total loyalty to mother U, All profits go to the parent U, and they are under complete operational control by U. So if ML had not given so much money to these affiliate carriers over the years (cost Plus) the money they are now buying the assets with would already be in U's pocket. The WO tried to get this message through but we would not be heard from the sanctity of the Airbus cockpits. After all the WO's just fly props, no need to pay attention. And not to forget the classic, WO? what is that.
 
whlinder said:
I was going to mention that but I'm still not sure I consider the 190 a regional jet.
[post="256130"][/post]​

US and before that PI both operated the F-28 which was smaller than the 190...
 
Captain said "It would not surprise me in the end if the major US Airways Express carrier’s are Air Wisconsin, Chautauqua, and Republic."


Just to make a small point, Chautauqua is a Republic Airlines Company.
So for the most part we would have TWO Express Carriers who have INVESTED a few dollars into Airways.
 
What you failed to quote from the article is thus. The bolding is mine.

But there is a danger in the strategy as well. By giving the small airlines so much control over their host, US Airways "is not going to ever be operated in its own best interest."

Lauer is also worried that in its zeal to raise new money, US Airways is awarding new jet service agreements to Air Wisconsin and Republic that will not represent enough of a discount from previous agreements to lower US Airways' costs substantially. Using the power of bankruptcy court to redo the contracts might have saved more than is being achieved under the new agreements, he said.

It's basically loan sharking one's future away. If US gets financing from a third regional, it's entirely possible that the majority of the board of directors will be held by regional partners. You don't think these folks are going to be in a hurry to add mainline growth, do you?

Oh, and let's not forget that US is going to pay these folks cost + anywhere from %3-%5 to operate these flights, which, if US had any management acumen at all is probably %3-%5 than could have beena accomplished in house. And they'll be stuck with both contracts for years
 
Hope777 said:
Captain said "It would not surprise me in the end if the major US Airways Express carrier’s are Air Wisconsin, Chautauqua, and Republic."
Just to make a small point, Chautauqua is a Republic Airlines Company.
So for the most part we would have TWO Express Carriers who have INVESTED a few dollars into Airways.
[post="256156"][/post]​

That is correct... Republic Airlines Holdings controls Chautauqua Airlines and Republic Airways. Apparently Wexford controls the holding company.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #12
Clue:

I find it interesting that every deal US Airways makes you criticize. How can that be? It must be tough carrying that "ax to grind" every day.

In a statement US Airways said "This transaction provides us with new equity, reduced debt, enhanced liquidity, and a strengthened relationship with a key regional airline partner, as well as efficiencies in running the business that will allow us to focus more of our resources on the mainline operations," said Lakefield. "Overall, we will have both flexibility and a stronger regional jet network that will improve both our bottom line and service to our customers."

I find it interesting that your comments are in conflict with Lakefield's, then again...

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
ClueByFour said:
What you failed to quote from the article is thus.

The entire article is here:

US Airways finds its saviors in smaller airlines

Should we be suprised that an individual who chastises others for picking and choosing what they include as relevant information would omit a reference to an article whose first line is "At US Airways, the parasites are devouring the host -- at the host's invitation."
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #15
Funguy2:

Funguy2 said: “Republic Airlines Holdings controls Chautauqua Airlines and Republic Airways. Apparently Wexford controls the holding company.â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: The governance statement you provided is accurate. Separately, Republic obtains 40% of its revenue from US Airways and Mesa a little over 30%. Republic had a greater percentage of revenue to lose than Mesa if its “fee for serviceâ€￾ contract is rejected bu US Airways and the flying replaced by Air Wisconsin. Lakefield indicated to the MEC last week that Air Wisconsin would replace a current affiliate carrier, and dependent upon on-going and fluid negotiations, Mesa could be the airline left out.

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 

Latest posts

Back
Top