Us Airways U United Airlines Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

USA320Pilot

Veteran
May 18, 2003
8,175
1,539
www.usaviation.com
US Airways – United Airlines Update

Today US Airways Phoenix station manager Ron Roderick told me US Airways will move its Los Angeles gates and facilities from terminal 1 to United’s terminal 7 in January. It appears the move will be similar in scope to the recent move in Seattle where United rejected gates N10 and N11, US Airways took custody of the former gates/associated facilities, and United lowered its unit costs by creating “economies of scaleâ€￾.

Rodick also said the business partners have each signed an agreement for ServiceAir, Inc. to provide cargo handling for both companies.

Today the New York Times published an article titled "A Plan to Postpone Pension Financing at United", which the PBGC is expected to resist forcefully.

See Story

US Airways continues to make progress in re-painting its aircraft in the current paint scheme. Line reports indicate the Boeing aircraft are being painted first with many B737s and B757s sporting the shiny new finish. From a rhetorical perspective, does it make sense in today’s economic climate for the company to bare this expense if the airline or a substantial number of its assets were going to be sold?

Regards,

Chip
 
Chip Munn said:
US Airways – United Airlines Update

Today US Airways Phoenix station manager Rob Rodrick told me US Airways will move its Los Angeles gates and facilities from terminal 1 to United’s terminal 7 in January.
Nothing earth shattering Chip!
We were told this would happen when the alliance started.
Not a valid point to try and prove yoiur merger dream.
 
In Cincinnati both Northwest and Continental are moving from their old homes in Terminal #1 and #2 to the Delta terminal #3.

All Continental and Northwest flights will be departing from Delta Terminal #3, Concourse A.

<GASP!> That must mean that Delta is going to MERGE with Northwest AND Continental.

:rolleyes:
 
Twicebaked:

I agree that the news in this topic could only be alliance synergies designed to cut costs and improve the customer experience.

However, can you tell me why members of US Airways board and senior management met with their United counterparts last Thursday, according to a former US Airways senior vice president who provided the news to our entire crew?

Moreover, US Airways record locators indicated Dave Siegel made multiple trips to New York City last week. Interestingly, the last merger was negotiated in New York to take advantage of investment banking and antitrust legal advisors.

Is there a connection here or not?

Regardless, I now believe a corporate transaction will not occur until US Airways stabalizes its financial position and United proves it can emerge from bankruptcy. Why? In today's market place with LCCs growing much faster than had been expected, I believe neither airline can attract investment capital.

However, I do know that members of each companies executive suite's believe network carrier consolidation is inevitable.

Regards,

Chip
 
Chip Munn said:
Is there a connection here or not?
Not.
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, there's a great deal of coordination required between alliance partners. Every once in a while, it requires face to face meetings.

For someone who is opposed to a merge, you're better than Oliver Stone in cooking up conspiracy theories.
How long did you go on about how the RSA was going to take back UAL's 767s and give them to U? Hasn't happened yet, and the 767 isn't in U's future fleet plan.
 
Iflyjetz:

Iflyjetz: "Whether you are willing to admit it or not, there's a great deal of coordination required between alliance partners. Every once in a while, it requires face to face meetings."

Chip answers: At this point with senior management below the CEO level yes, but not with the board of directors. The sentiment of the former senior vice president (not Chip Munn) was that there is something going on much deeper than the alliance, although it is still unclear what will be the final resolution. Maybe you should talk with all of our crewmembers about the discussion, since you seen to doubt my posts.

Iflyjetz said: "How long did you go on about how the RSA was going to take back UAL's 767s and give them to U?"

Chip answers: The information was supplied by senior US Airways Flight Department management and only relayed by myself. In fact, I have repeatedly said I did not understand the motive to obtain United B767s/B757s. You must have selectively missed that post, huh?

Iflyjetz said: "Hasn't happened yet, and the 767 isn't in U's future fleet plan."

Chip answers: How do you know that? In fact, Siegel has said that the company has not made a decision on its B767/B757 fleet. The only indication that the "767 isn't in U's future fleet plan" was only made by me on this message board, therefore, are you suggesting that I have the power to decide that the 767 isn't in U's future fleet plan?

Iflyjetz, have you thought about debating issues on the United board versus polluting the US Airways board with misinformation?

Regards,

Chip
 
Mr Chip Munn the information you provided is not accurate.

Currently ALL painting of ALL of our aircraft has been halted, due to problems with the paint vendor in New Iberia, LA(ARA). It seems they have damaged our 737s and an Airworthiness Directive is in the works to examine all the planes they have painted for us. During the September pull back of flights of the company ran numerous planes, some 737s and a couple of 757s were sent down their for their five year repaint. A/C 573 is currently in PIT heavy maintenance stripped clean of paint for lap joint repairs. Seems the FAA did a surprise inspection of the paint facitlity and found they were stripping our planes with razor blades damaging the fuselage and causing major repairs.

Great Quality Assurance Management people we have checking the vendors, no wonder why MAE did a horrible job on 700UW!
 
700UW:

Thanks for the update, but I understand the plan is to re-paint the fleet. I'll look into this some more.

Regardless, if the company was going to be sold than why not seek a waiver or not re-paint them until required? Does it make sense to spend the money if the company was going to be sold?

Regards,

Chip
 
There is no waiver to be granted on painting planes, it is a company requirement, nothing to do with the FAA.
 
BDLDFW said:
Are not all aircraft painted in the Wolf livery?
All the aircraft are painted in the "Wolf" livery, however, the first ones to be painted now have to get a new paint job. I guess the company understands that chipped paint on an aircraft may be alarming...although there are many out there now. This should not be ignored.
 
Chip Munn said:
700UW:

Thanks for the update, but I understand the plan is to re-paint the fleet. I'll look into this some more.

Regardless, if the company was going to be sold than why not seek a waiver or not re-paint them until required? Does it make sense to spend the money if the company was going to be sold?

Regards,

Chip
Oh Chip !! Blinded by the glimmer of hope still huh?

Lets see?...How many airbus acft do we have parked? Does that make sense?

Lets see? How many 757/767's that we painted were parked?

Lets see? How many B737-300/400's that we painted have been parked...and even scraped out?

Lets see? How many F-100's were painted and had their A/C systems upgraded then only to be parked ?

To say that this company will not do this or will not do that based on anything is purely grasping at straws. Logic is not a motivation here..We could spend money on damn near anything except our people. I would not be the least surprised to see us take delivery of 50 or more EMB RJ's....then close the doors within weeks for good.

Remember Dave's latest letter...."We should be the ones placing Acft orders" WE didn't need Acft orders...we needed to hold what we had to begin with. If a lease rate could be negotiated properly? I'ts obvoius the acft's value had dropped...hince the pictures of our -400's in new livery that are canabalized and scraped out floating around. I can assure you that these are not photo-shopped either.
 
Chip Munn said:
However, can you tell me why members of US Airways board and senior management met with their United counterparts last Thursday, according to a former US Airways senior vice president who provided the news to our entire crew?

Moreover, US Airways record locators indicated Dave Siegel made multiple trips to New York City last week. Interestingly, the last merger was negotiated in New York to take advantage of investment banking and antitrust legal advisors.
I think the questions should be:

How is a former US VP aware of a board meetings that apparently took place without all the board members, and why would he/she share that information with a line crew, particularly if a merger was discussed?

Little Dave is probably in NYC begging the bankers not to forclose on him when he misses the revenue targets for the ATSB loans next year.
 
Chip Munn said:
Iflyjetz, have you thought about debating issues on the United board versus polluting the US Airways board with misinformation?
:lol: Chip, YGBSM! You post multiple messages about UAL, yet you don't expect UAL employees to make a comment?

Misinformation? Pot, meet kettle. Just about every one of your posts contains information that has been twisted beyond recognition to fit into your UCT/ICT/CPCT (Chip's Pet Corporate Transaction) theories.

You post that you're opposed to a merge, yet you go on & on with how this merge will occur, including engaging in a conversation about how the pilot seniority lists will merge. Why? Give it a rest.
Go out there and be the best U employee that you can. Assist and support your fellow employees rather than add to their stress levels by stirring the pot with these farfetched ideas of some sort of murky corporate transaction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.