Power Port Removal-airbus Narrow Body

[Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways]

Hi, Art in ISP --

The aircraft are going to mingle routes -- some HP aircraft may shift east and cover certain routes and some US aircraft may shift west and cover certain routes, etc -- whatever aircraft is BEST for a given market will (hopefully) be used in that market. Commonality is an issue. However, the aircraft will have their respective cockpit and cabin crews aboard and will be maintained per their approved mx programs -- but everything else is going to intermingle -- and the sooner the better so as to integrate the people and present one face to the customers.

I agree that the new US Airways needs to be mindful of the needs of their business customers. Have you contacted America West?
http://americawest.com/awa/content/contact..._relations.aspx
AWA customers are not used to having power ports so they won't miss them, so they have nothing to complain about. You have a legitimate concern. I'm sure they NEED to hear from customers such as yourself -- and I hope, for all our sakes, that they LISTEN.

Thanks.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

That said, I could see an appropriate compromise of leaving the ports in First Class, at least for the short term.
....
I hope someone in Tempe sees the light....

My best to you all.......

[post="300522"][/post]​

uhm... what first class?

 

[JAXPax]

I just love how you have to dial long distance to call America West consumer affairs.....

 

[Art at ISP]

Hi, Art in ISP --

The aircraft are going to mingle routes -- some HP aircraft may shift east and cover certain routes and some US aircraft may shift west and cover certain routes, etc -- whatever aircraft is BEST for a given market will (hopefully) be used in that market. Commonality is an issue. However, the aircraft will have their respective cockpit and cabin crews aboard and will be maintained per their approved mx programs -- but everything else is going to intermingle -- and the sooner the better so as to integrate the people and present one face to the customers.

I agree that the new US Airways needs to be mindful of the needs of their business customers. Have you contacted America West?
http://americawest.com/awa/content/contact..._relations.aspx
AWA customers are not used to having power ports so they won't miss them, so they have nothing to complain about. You have a legitimate concern. I'm sure they NEED to hear from customers such as yourself -- and I hope, for all our sakes, that they LISTEN.

Thanks.

[post="300526"][/post]​

Thank you for the update, but I thought that as long as the certificates are separate, US aircraft must remain on US routes, and vice versa. Can this intermingling be done and if so to what advantage? It would most likely cause much confusion as some seat configurations are different. I remember when they were in the midst of removing F class seats from 757's you never knew until flight time whether you'd have 8 or 24 seats in F--and ticked off many customers in the process.

In either case, common sense would dictate at least keeping the ports going in F cabins, at least for a while. But then again, when was US known for making decisions based on common sense??

I just hope this isn't the foreshadowing of things to come.

My best to you all.....

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thank you for the update, but I thought that as long as the certificates are separate, US aircraft must remain on US routes, and vice versa. Can this intermingling be done and if so to what advantage?

[post="300539"][/post]​

Art,

Without knowing what differences exist between the AWA and US planes of the same type or the specifics of the transition agreement, the simple way would be for AWA employees to work AWA planes and US employees to work US planes no matter where they fly (and contract employees to work either where the work is contracted).

So an AWA crew could fly (just making up routings here) PHX-LAS-PHL, overnite, then fly a Caribbean/LA turn (a US route), overnite, then fly PHL-PHX-etc.

Or a US crew could fly PHL-PHX-SEA (the last segment an AWA route), overnite, SEA-PHX-LAS-PHX (all AWA routes), overnite, PHX-CLT-PHL.

Jim

 

[Art at ISP]

Jim.

Thank you as always for the clarification. I think that there are configuration differences in both the Airbus and Boeing fleets, which could cause havoc with seat assignments, but other than the fact that the two companies' Airbii have different engines, I am not sure what else is different.

Are HP's 733's steam gauge or EFIS?

In any case, I think there will be some complaining, and the best we can hope for is to keep the ports in the F cabins, at least for now.

Thanks again,

 

[BoeingBoy]

Art,

You're right - when I said it would be simple I was only referring to the routing aircraft part of the equation. Heck, US doesn't even do much, if any, rerouting planes to take advantage of the commonality within fleet types - like putting a 400 on a route instead of a 300 if loads warrant. Maybe Parker & company will do better.

Obviously things like different seating configurations could cause some problems. With different engines, cockpit setups, W&B systems, etc, you start getting into training issues, which are averted by keeping AWA emplouees working AWA planes and vice versa.

The biggest advantages that come to mind off the top of my head are crew utilization efficiencies (by having more routes to schedule on) and matching capacity with demand better (ex., AWA has routes that could use A321's but have none while US has more routes better suited to A319's than we have A319's).

Unless, of course, it turns out that the nagging worry I've had comes true....

Jim