They carry more passengers domestically than any other carrier. They are the most profitable airline for the past 30 years, have the highest paid employees in the industry and have the highest percentage of unionized employees.
They dont layoff, they dont cut pay, they dont park planes unless they are replaced, they dont terminate pensions and most of all they have NEVER filed for bankruptcy.
You have been drinking too much Delta Punch.
and that means the rest of the industry is supposed to roll over and play dead whenever they show up and toss out their own business models in favor of WN's that doesn't begin - and never will serve tens of thousands of markets that are served by network carriers?
I don't think so.
WN is a great airline ... I have never doubted that. But they are not the end all and be all to air transportation, even in the USA.
Network carriers including US play a vital role in the US air transportation system and carriers like US and others that intend to stick around know what they have to do to build on the strengths they do have - which are significant.
.
Specific to this discussion, US was part of a massive wave in the industry that thought that going out west at the same time was a good idea. Three network airlines beat each other silly - and then WN showed up to mop up the mess and set up a little light housekeeping in California - and they haven't stopped since. The west has remained a relatively low yield environment for network carriers esp. LAS which was why US decided it wasn't worth its while to continue to operate dual hubs a couple hundred miles apart - one of which was in a heavily leisure orieted market. Network carriers could make more money in the eastern US and that is still largely true.
.
No, it has nothing to do with drinking kool aid. It has to do with understanding the industry and recognizing that every business model, every airline has strengths...
.
there are far too many people here who think that US mgmt can do nothing right - and while you may argue that point with respect to labor relations and some other issues, it is not true with their network.
Even pre-merger US was a combination of smaller east coast airlines most of which sat in the shadows of larger network carriers. US has been fighting that battle for years and it likely won't change.
The combination of all of those small east coast airlines left US overhubbed at a time when they had no choice but to retrench to larger markets where they could survive. US has built PHL and CLT as well as DCA into strong, competitive hubs... while they may be smaller than those operated by some of their peers in the same region, all of US' east coast hubs are viable.... the slot deal will only help US focus on what it does well.
HP quite frankly bought US to save HP's backside... the west coast was then and remains a difficult environment for network airlines. DEN is still a competitive basketcase and it is entirely possible that a stronger WN in DEN will take a little pressure off of US in PHX since DEN is geographically a superior location for a western hub.
UA at SFO is the only viable intra-CA hub and their domestic operation works in large part because of the large int'l operation.
AS does a great job with a hub in the corner of the country and has also managed to build a viable north-south position in California.
.
US probably could have held onto some of its network had it not been for 9/11 and the restructuring that it required - but everyone makes the best choices you can given the timing.
The fact that US has retained the most valuable parts of the PIT local market shows they have learned from previous industry hub closures.
.
US and other network carriers have viable business strategies that are necessary along side WN.... I see every reason to believe that the core of what we know as US today will remain viable for many years to come, even if the pieces might get traded among various airlines... which I hope for US employees' sake doesn't occur.