Us Airways And United "fight Over Air Wisconsin"

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
Fight over Air Wisconsin

CHARLOTTE (Observer) - US Airways and competitor United Airlines are dueling in court over the loyalty of Air Wisconsin Airlines.

Air Wisconsin has agreed to provide US Airways with $125 million in financing and has signed an agreement with the airline that could allow it to fly regional jets under the name US Airways Express.

But United, which contracts with Air Wisconsin to fly regional jets, said in court papers this month that it wants to fully examine US Airways' agreement with Air Wisconsin to see "whether it may violate or conflict" with United agreements. Bankruptcy court papers include the US Airways-Air Wisconsin agreement, but key financial provisions have been blacked out.

In response, US Airways filed a motion Friday seeking to limit United's access to the agreement. US Airways said United's argument is "hypocritical and reveals the real purpose of its ... Motion -- to gain an unfair competitive advantage over US Airways."

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for later this month. Outside of court, the two airlines share a marketing alliance and sell tickets for each other's flights.

See Story

USA320Pilot comments: During last week’s ALAP MEC meeting chief executive officer Bruce Lakefield said the Air Wisconsin deal has the “industry spinning around†and has “UAL confusedâ€. It appears UAL is more than confused since it has not yet affirmed the Air Wisconsin “fee for service†contract, is publicly entering bids to replace the Appleton-based carrier a la Atlantic Coast, and UAL probably does not like the new US Airways-Republic deal either. Air Wisconsin has hedged its position and with the industry in total meltdown and US Airways continuing to make progress in it’s restructuring during very difficult times, the Arlington-based carrier made an interesting claim in its motion when it said, United's argument is "hypocritical and reveals the real purpose of its ... Motion -- to gain an unfair competitive advantage over US Airways."

It is my understanding US Airways continues to negotiate with its two other affiliate partners, Mesa and TSA to lower their “fee for service†contracts, which currently pay the affiliates cost plus 8% or to provide US Airways with equity. Lakefield believes the current contracts places US Airways with all of the risk and the affiliate with all of the benefit. If either affiliate carrier does not provide cost relief or equity, then Lakefield indicated to ALPA one of them will likely be replaced by Air Wisconsin. US Airways’ lowest cost and poorest performing affiliate RJ operator is Mesa, which has the greatest risk of being replaced by Air Wisconsin. This too could explain some of United’s motivation and why Lakefield indicated the Chicago-based carrier’s management seems “confusedâ€.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
Here come the "naysayers", again.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="255780"][/post]​

This belongs in the tread already started or UAL's

Still waiting answer about your credibility in other thread.
 
Sort of casts a slight shadow of doubt over the future of your ICT/UCT theory when the two Star Alliance partners involved have to take an issue like this to court....
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #7
The UCT/ICT negotations were conducted during the past two years and obviously the industry has changed. For the record, I was first told of the potential deal by an investment banker involved in the discussions between the parties, then David Bronner said in four separate interviews he was interested in buying UA assets for US, and finally Dave Siegel told our entire crew on a flight between DCA & LGA about a potential deal.

Have things changed today? Absolutely, but it was not my theory it was a plan talked about in the news media by US Airways' chairman of the board, who controls over $25 million in a retirement fund.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
UVN:

With all due respect, in my opinion, you’re a disgruntled malcontent and antagonistic person who deserves none of my time on this message board. It must be miserable being angry all the time.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
It appears UAL is more than confused since it has not yet affirmed the Air Wisconsin “fee for serviceâ€￾ contract, is publicly entering bids to replace the Appleton-based carrier a la Atlantic Coast, and UAL probably does not like the new US Airways-Republic deal either.
[post="255777"][/post]​
Please tell us why you think that. Why does UA not like the US-Republic deal? The Air Whisky situation I understand, but what would they care about the Republic deal?
 
whlinder said:
Please tell us why you think that.  Why does UA not like the US-Republic deal?  The Air Whisky situation I understand, but what would they care about the Republic deal?
[post="255789"][/post]​

Nice Avatar I would get a different mop.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #11
Whlinder:

USA320Pilot said: “It appears UAL is more than confused since it has not yet affirmed the Air Wisconsin “fee for serviceâ€￾ contract, is publicly entering bids to replace the Appleton-based carrier a la Atlantic Coast, and UAL probably does not like the new US Airways-Republic deal either.â€￾

Whlinder said: “Please tell us why you think that. Why does UA not like the US-Republic deal? The Air Whisky situation I understand, but what would they care about the Republic deal?:

Charlotte Observer said: “But United, which contracts with Air Wisconsin to fly regional jets, said in court papers this month that it wants to fully examine US Airways' agreement with Air Wisconsin to see ‘whether it may violate or conflict’ with United agreements. Bankruptcy court papers include the US Airways-Air Wisconsin agreement, but key financial provisions have been blacked out.â€￾

USA320Pilot comments: Nice avatar. Where did you find that?

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
None of that answers my question. Why would UA care about the US-Republic deal? (Aside from how it helps keep US alive, which is good for the codeshare/Star Alliance, yada yada yada.) Why do they not like that deal?
 
whlinder said:
None of that answers my question. Why would UA care about the US-Republic deal? (Aside from how it helps keep US alive, which is good for the codeshare/Star Alliance, yada yada yada.) Why do they not like that deal?
[post="255797"][/post]​

Even if UA cared about the US-Republic deal, I believe that UA already affirmed its contract with Republic, and can't do anything about it.

But it might influence who they chose as the Air Wisconsin replacement. I wouldn't expect Republic to be on the short list after this...
 
whlinder said:
None of that answers my question.
[post="255797"][/post]​

No answer yet, huh? I'll give it a little more time then tell you why.....

Former ModerAAtor said:
I wouldn't expect Republic to be on the short list after this...
[post="255800"][/post]​

Your expections wouldn't be met - Republic (in the form of their Chataugua division) is already flying UA express service with Emb-170's and adding planes as fast as they can get them.

Jim
 
USA320Pilot said:
USA320Pilot comments: Nice avatar. Where did you find that?
[post="255796"][/post]​

Well, as Red says in the Shawshank Redemption, "I'm known to locate certain things from time to time."
 

Latest posts

Back
Top