To All Employees- Special Bulletin- USA Today Article

[ITRADE]

[P]Wow. [/P]
[P]Slap back.[/P]

 

[flyonthewall]

USA Today published an erroneous article today that[BR]inaccurately stated the company's intentions regarding[BR]the size of the fleet. In response, Senior Vice[BR]President of Corporate Affairs Chris Chiames said:[BR][BR]Today's story is categorically wrong. The fact is[BR]that US Airways has a contractual commitment with its[BR]unions to maintain a fleet of no less than 245 jet[BR]aircraft.[BR][BR]We announced last month that we would retire 32[BR]aircraft, which would take our fleet from 311 to 279,[BR]well within the terms of our agreement with unions to[BR]maintain a minimum fleet size of 245.[BR][BR]Recently, the U.S. bankruptcy court for the Eastern[BR]District of Virginia released US Airways from lease[BR]and debt obligations on 57 aircraft already grounded[BR]after Sept. 11, as well as granted authority to US[BR]Airways to abandon or reject an additional 10 active[BR]and older Boeing aircraft. We have said repeatedly[BR]that that our goal is to reduce the fleet as little as[BR]possible to preserve as many jobs as possible, so[BR]while we have the ability to reduce the fleet to 245,[BR]we are working hard to make 279 work.[BR][BR]On Sept. 6, we asked the bankruptcy court for[BR]authority to abandon or reject a certain number of[BR]additional aircraft from a total pool of 150 aircraft,[BR]which represents a combination of mainline jets flown[BR]by US Airways and turbo-prop aircraft flown by the[BR]three wholly owned US Airways Express subsidiaries.[BR][BR]This is not a request to eliminate another 150[BR]aircraft from the fleet, and US Airways has no[BR]intention to do so. Rather, this is an effort to[BR]provide US Airways and the subsidiaries with the[BR]necessary flexibility in negotiating with lessors and[BR]lenders.[BR][BR]We made it very clear to the USA Today reporter that[BR]we intend to live up to our contractual obligations to[BR]our employees and not reduce our fleet size beyond[BR]245, and to suggest otherwise was irresponsible.[BR]

 

[Oliver Twist]

You know, it's about time a reporter got called to task for inacurate reporting. I applaud all efforts to get the facts right to begin with, and when they are wrong- skewer the reporter who leads with a falsehood or distortion.

 

[MCORORES]

Guess one reporter would rather be working for the many tabloids that grace the front stand in front of the check out lines at the super market.

 

[mga707]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 11:32:33 PM MCORORES wrote:

Guess one reporter would rather be working for the many tabloids that grace the front stand in front of the check out lines at the super market.
----------------
[/blockquote]


...I thought that's what McPaper by Gannett WAS...

 

[Trish]

Oliver, you are so right. They really should have checked their sources as this was a big blunder at a very bad time too.

I wonder if they will correct their statement??

 

[MCORORES]

Trish...I am sure they will...be at the bottom of page 568 in small print that you need a microscope to see it. Amazing how the press can make a royal blunder and then cover it up.

 

[UAL777flyer]

Most people should know that the USA Today has a history of erroneous reporting when it comes to airline industry issues. Rarely do they get all their facts straight. However, at a time like this, I would imagine that some senior execs at the Crystal Palace probably wanted to strangle someone, as reading that article may have changed people's minds on the vote. It just goes to show you, don't ever rely on the news media for accurate information.

 

[Meriel]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/17/2002 12:36:21 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

Most people should know that the USA Today has a history of erroneous reporting when it comes to airline industry issues. Rarely do they get all their facts straight. ... It just goes to show you, don't ever rely on the news media for accurate information.
----------------
[/blockquote]

UAL777 and I don't agree on much, and often don't agree loudly... but he's square on the money here. USA Today is only a step above tabloid to start with; not only are they frequently incorrect about the airline industry, they are just plain frequently incorrect. And, the first thing anybody should look for in the news media is what their interests are and how they're spinning their topic.

I am glad the company gave a strong statement on the article -- and hope they continue to pay attention.

 

[Res]

Can't help but wonder if this info might have been miscommunicated..in the event the IAM needed to vote a 3rd time to get a yes vote?

This incorrect info could have resulted in a reason to throw out IAM votes...? just a thought

Those above us...management...have played the game very well so far...just something to think about....

 

[W:EXCH:INVOL]

I don't think they're about fair and un-biased reporting as much as all the pretty colors.

INVOL

 

[cltvff]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/17/2002 2:28:56 AM Trish wrote:

Oliver, you are so right. They really should have checked their sources as this was a big blunder at a very bad time too.

I wonder if they will correct their statement??
----------------
[/blockquote]

Typical McPaper crap... the correction was in yesterday's paper... right beneath the article about UAL and possible BK... go figure.

 

[repeet]

Then agian, the report could prove to be true.

We shall see, won't we.