US Airways could be facing the end within just two to four weeks

US Airways, according to an independent report, is just weeks from a bankruptcy and if it files again, it liquidates. Some suggest the filing could come by the end of August!!!

This is bad news for the poor workers, of course, but also the economy as a whole. US Air is the primary carrier in Boston, New York LaGuardia, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington National and Charlotte. It's the primary international carrier and hub carrier in Philadelphia and Charlotte.

If it shut down, all those cities would be without MOST of their domestic and international air service, dozens of smaller cities like Ithaca New York would be completely without service, and the entire east coast economy would be severely disrupted. Over 10% of all transatlantic seats between the USA and Europe would vanish. Other carriers are in no condition to suddenly pick up all that slack, and if the carrier closes that quickly it could even disrupt the Republicans' convention. Over 20,000 people would also be out of work, with the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Charlotte areas hardest hit. :(

Thanks Bush for ruining our economy!

it was always a shitty airline. They never should've survived this long.

They've always had the most reliable timetable and the best service of the majorsm with the most professional staff. And that's over 20,000 jobs, hundreds of planes and an entire region of the country that will be hit VERY hard if they go under.

The reason they're struggling is Bush's economy, not anything that they had control over.

. . . if they DO go under, the other major carriers will squeeze even more concessions out of their underpaid and overworked staffs.

Do you really want an airline system loaded up with resentful employees who are underpaid and things like maintenance and safety "cut to the bone"? I don't.

I know several employees of one of the major airlines...one of them is my son. He's in aircraft maintenence, and he does work hard, but he makes a real nice buck too. I will also tell you that, at least at the airline I'm talking about, there are never concessions with maintenence or safety! The last time I heard of that happening it was Eastern, and lots of people don't even remember them.

He spent twenty years working his way up from a junior pilot who made nothing (literally under $6,000 per year when he started!) to making a good salary at $160,000. The idea was that he'd make up for the low pay in his later years when he could save for retirement.

Well, now he earns $48,000 per year after pay cuts. His retirement is ruined and if the airline goes broke, his life's work is over.

He flew for the US Air Force before entering aviation and this is the thanks he gets? Years of hard work and when he makes it to the reward, getting screwed?

To add insult to injury, his retirement account is full of worthless stock, and the company is trying to default on its pension, which means retirees who gave their all will get only a small fraction of their actual amounts due if the government has to take over payments.

Don't the workers deserve better?

I hope all the people who are saying "good" don't have to experience similar circumstances.

So many here forget that 90% of the "airline are the workers that end getting stiffed.

I've flown a LOT and USAirways was always one of the very worst airlines. Absolutely horrendous service. Bad companies deserve to go under.

But it's nice to know that you're oh-so-happy that 20,000 people are going to lose their jobs and pensions because you didn't like the fact they didn't give you free wine on your flight.

my experiences with USAirways. It had nothing to do with free wine.

I'm sorry people are going to lose their jobs. Their company should've sucked less.

The majors are all going to fall like dominoes, not because of your "bad experiences" but because of 9/11 and the Bush economy.

If you think you get bad service now, wait until after Southwest and AirTran are the only choices.

And if you think economic aid is expensive, wait until the government Pension Guarantee board gets the pension bill for 20,000 laid-off workers.

And if you think flights are full now, just wait until the major carrier in the northeast goes under.

And if you think transatlantic flights and transcontinental flights were expensive before, wait until after a few major carriers go down and the rest jack up fares.

that no company ever be allowed to fail no matter how bad they suck? Should the government prop up EVERY corporation that fails?

He's been trying to argue that point with me too. So far all he claims is that the airlines should get priority over other failing companies. As if all the other places that have gone under, or laid people off don't matter to our "infrastructure".

If Southern Company just shut down and stopped providing electricity, that's the equivalent of one of the major airlines going under.

we bail out failing airlines and power companies. Anyone else who should get priority?

You don't let utilities or major banks or airlines just up and fold.

Even if you're going to let US Air go under, you don't just say "oh well" when it happens. You ensure that the communities hit hard have an alternative.

That's what government is for.

The course you advocate would allow banks to just close and "lose" depositors' accounts, or power companies to go under and leave entire states in the dark, or water companies to collapse and leave a major city completely dry.

corporate welfare is your solution. I disagree.

I call it investment in infrastructure.

If the government gets a payoff for its investment, it makes sense too.

And the assistance costs FAR less to the government then all those pension defaults will. $100 billion from airlines alone.

we should have a national airline. But giving billions to private corporations that aren't smart enough to stay in business is just welfare for idiots. Why should my tax money go to protect THEIR shareholders?

9/11, the Bush recession, doubling fuel prices, preferential treatment for some airlines who get loans (like American and Delta) and other airlines who don't (United, US Air), huge capital expenditures required, dead capital markets thanks to the stock market's deflation under Bush, etc.

The people who run these carriers aren't stupid. Every single major carrier that's in trouble today earned billions before 9/11 and the Bush recession. Now EVERY SINGLE ONE is facing bankruptcy.

That's obviously an industry-wide problem brought on by poor government management of economic concerns, not "stupid companies who cannot stay in business."

getting billions in federal support after 9/11

How long do we have to support them? Forever? Why? Why not, if we need one, establish a national airline? You didn't answer the question about why MY tax dollars should benefit the shareholders of a private corporation.

Sorry, Brian, but the entire industry will not collapse because one carrier goes under. You're overstating things, as usual.

If they go under, all those loans are forfeit. It makes more sense to give them a bit more to tide them over and then get into a position to pay those loans back. US Air showed progress with a profit last quarter, but the reason they're facing liquidation is because the ATSB won't restructure the small loan they did receive to give them more time to pay and they don't have a bunch of cash for restructuring.

Most of the "billions" you heard about were budgeted but never lent out. The ATSB received $10 billion to allocate but only loaned about a quarter of that.

Sorry, Brian, but the entire industry will not collapse because one carrier goes under.

No, the entire industry will collapse because the entire industry is collapsing. US Air isn't the first and it won't be the last.

Just take a look at the financials of all the big carriers. The only one I can think of which is not severely negative in terms of cash flow is Continental (and they're still losing money). All the others are either in bankruptcy with the possibility of liquidation or a breath away from it.

for carriers to be profitable, let's scrap the system and create a national airline.

You still haven't shown why my tax dollars should benefit the shareholders of private corporations.

It just requires time and policy changes.

The carriers have been through situations like this before. The difference is 9/11 and the severity of the present recession.

That they're ALL going bankrupt is proof of a problem beyond "mismanagement."

You still haven't shown why my tax dollars should benefit the shareholders of private corporations.

They're not YOUR tax dollars. They're OUR tax dollars, and I think it's common sense to preserve public entities like airlines who are economically important to the country at large.

The government can certainly take a stake in the carriers and profit handsomely from the investment when it pays off, as it did with Chrysler. That's certainly a better option than waiting for them all to collapse and coughing up $100 billion of "your" tax money to pay pension deficits.

I just disagree. I want to CURTAIL corporate welfare, not enlarge it.

It's infrastructure preservation.

These companies perform a valuable economic function, and empowering them to survive is the socially responsible, as well as economically prudent thing to do.

Every other G8 country understands this, which is why Canada didn't let Air Canada fail (it almost did despite being the only carrier in the country of note -- must be mismanagement there too!), why the UK preserved British Airways with a loan (British Airways -- mismanaged too, right?), Lufthansa received tax credits for buying new planes (Germans must be incompetent airline managers too, right?) and Cathay Pacific got a major loan from the Hong Kong government after the SARS crisis.

But I guess by your logic, every airline in the world except Southwest and EasyJet are "mismanaged" and should go under. We'll all just take the steerage ships overseas.

Or hey, who needs to go overseas anyway? This international commerce stuff is overrated and serves no function other than corporate welfare.

valuable economic functions.

End corporate welfare.

Every company does not provide VITAL infrastructure functions.

Certain companies -- rail transport, airlines, banks, utilities -- provide valuable services without which the economy cannot function.

Your sloganeering about corporate welfare is cute, but ultimately meaningless. The private welfare that we'll end up paying -- $100 billion in pension payments -- is far higher than extending the remaining loans in the ATSB to the airlines who all need help to get over the hump.

Although it is charming to see you defending yet another Bush administration policy -- this time on the airline industry. :)

There are a number of airlines that may be on the verge of stepping up and taking the place of the creaking bohemoths like USAir. If USAir goes under, it's entirely possible that within a year, AirTran and Southwest and others have filled the void.

company is folding and 20,000 workers are going to be out of work is more of an overstatement. Whether the company deserves to go under is open to speculation considering the "times", however anyone losing their ability to make a living or having to start over is grossly unfair in any industry and to say that it is good sounds Repuke like to me.

I already stated a few times that I'm sorry people will lose their jobs.

Do you believe that any company at risk of going under should receive federal support? That's the logical conclusion of your position here.

I've been unemployed for over 18 months. I've seen my industry (tech) devastated in the last few years. Fuck anybody who presumes I know nothing about industry failures. I know the results, and I see them first-hand.

You appear to be bitter that a major economic infrastructure provider like an airline or bank should get aid that a dot-com or other less vital company wouldn't get.

You appear to think that since your company didn't receive help, that none should.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I got laid off too, but I actually found another job, rather than wishing that someone else would lose theirs because of a bad experience with their company.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm just reading what I see, Dookus. You seem to take joy in seeing a lot of people lose their livelihoods because you were inconvenienced over some nebulous offence (which remains a mystery).

I just don't see a consistent argument from you, other than repeating Reaganomics lines from the early 80s Chrysler bailout ("no corporate welfare").

you're making ridiculous assumptions and wild-ass guesses and passing them off as fact. You did it to me the other day by pretending to know something about my background and you were dead-ass wrong.

If you think a position of opposing corporate welfare is a Reaganesque position, you're ignorant of politics, too.

I like the word "lie" when it fits.

at reading minds.

The tech industry in Calif was especially hard hit. And no I don't believe any industry that is not regulated get gov't support. I did beleive in the bailout after 9-11. I think it is up to the employees to take a stand against management for more input and more employee owned airlines. Management has to be held accountable, but again how can anything survive with these fuels costs, it will be hitting the trucking industry next if it hasn't already. One of the reason pilots have always been paid a decent wage is because they are forced to retire early, also it helps safety wise for it to be a job that you can not afford to walk away from. A positive outcome of an alcohol or drug test of pilots is almost unheard of in the majors, they do not want to lose these jobs, if it becomes another ho hum job what's to lose, don't want that at 35,000 feet in the air.

then let's introduce a short-term subsidy for ALL industries that rely on fuel. Why single out ONE company for special treatment?

And I think a subsidy is in order for fuel-dependent industries that are infrastructure industries. Public transport, rail, and airlines.

that's fair. I don't, actually. I think rising fuel prices are necessary to cause some important shifts in how we do things. Subsidizing those fuel prices will just delay the inevitable.

Also, why are there European airlines, where fuel is significantly more expensive?

European governments were willing to invest in them and allow them to revamp their business models. Most are also partially owned by the government.

what I've been saying here. If the model works in Europe, why wouldn't it work here? Let's have a national airline if that's what's needed. But private companies that can't hack it don't deserve automatic protection from the government.

We're going to see underpaid pilots flying as they're older. And $100 billion pension deficits to cover with taxpayer funds.

But the argument you are proposing is how people in Oregon end up subsidizing a businessman in DC's train ride to New York. Some companies need to go away.

even more people while that den of thieves plotted and stole hundreds of millions more? HELL no.

If a company is bad, let them die.
I never had a good experience with USAir. dirty, late, lost me luggage. When I was flying a lot 2-3 yrs ago, I went out of my way to avoid them.

Keeping a company alive simply because it is big is silly. The Soviet Union tried that and see what happened to them?

When they liquidate, should we also spend billions in corporate welfare so another shitty airline can keep operating?

Equating an airline with a mulitstate electric utility is ridiculous. Other airlines will fold but the survivors will buy the planes and hire the workers. Airtran got many new jets when American reneged on its deal with Boeing. They've also hired lots of American pilots who flew the planes - they're just in a new uniform. There was an article in the WSJ about this. It's equilibrium - not the end of the world.

Edited for grammar and spelling.

That's not exactly an option either.

A major reason for these failures is soaring fuel costs. In any other economy that would be a major but not terminal problem. In this economy, it's a triple whammy after 9/11 and the bad Bush economy.

These companies are CRUCIAL to the US economy. Allowing a major airline to shut down and cease service is like allowing a major power utility to shut down and cease providing electricity.

There will always be demand for airlines. If the industry consolidates then fine, but we're never going to wake up with one airline and prices at $1000 domestic. It makes no sense.

With severe wage deflation and $100 billion in federal pension obligations through the Pension Guaranty scheme.

Most international service will double or triple in price, with perhaps two carriers competing on a segment if you're lucky.

Domestic service will be a feeding frenzy of lower cost carriers who pay their pilots tiny wages and scrimp on safety (fewer flight attendants) and maintenance.

There are no artificial barriers to competition. Certain airlines have agreements with airports, sure, but if a major carriers leaves an airport like Atlanta, the Atlanta Airports Authority will find another carrier (or several of them) to fill that gate space.

When I worked for Delta, we used to fly ATL -> ABY or ATL -> BQK sometimes with two people on the plane. With such excess capacity, Delta could easily divert those planes to more profitable routes. Even if making a 30-seat plane travel ATL -> CHT or CLT instead of BQK is always oversold, it's better than flying with two people. I can't speak for other airlines, but I know Delta has many regional flights with 90% unfilled. Those planes could easily reach BOS or PHL to meet that excess demand.

But that's not solving the long-term challenge for the regions hardest hit.

The gate space may or may not be filled depending on the capabilities of the planes and the carriers. And for flights such as Philadelphia to Atlanta, which Delta would already fly, frequency wouldn't change, fares would simply increase.

It is impossible for any of these companues that have OVERSEAS routes, Southwest does not go over seas to have been able to plan or budget for $46.00 barrel of oil.

The JetBlue, Westjet and jetsGO wouldn't be in the black and even expanding. Good times or bad, businesses fail for the same reason- bad management.

I've never flown Southwest but I've certainly flown Air Tran a lot on the Pittsburgh/Orlando route and the the difference between them and USAirways is that Air Tran has newer planes, better last-minute fares, and makes it easier to upgrade to first class.

Do you assume that those of us that had bad service had a problem with the refreshments?

Cheapest tix where I was flying and only one cancellation in years and years. No more direct flight from Germany to Pittsburgh really sucks.

American seems to have been able to attract money, but Chicago-based United and Philly-based US Air just cannot seem to get any help. Why is that?

That's pure Bush country.

So is JFK, which is a big Delta hub (bigger than DFW).

DFW is American Airlines country.

and, yeah, the city is Democratic, but ask me how many of the employees actually live in the city limits. As a matter of fact, the airport is in Hapeville, a seperate city and county. You leave Atlanta in just about any direction and it's repukeville all around.

I have to go to sleep, but it's been fun arguing with you. You know your stuff. I hope you're wrong though, for all our sake. Later!

How does utterly screwing the economy of Pittsburgh, help him?

I guess I'll never see my pension from them if this happens. Nor will any of the thousands of other employees who worked for them a long time.

And perhaps it wasn't so much a shitty airlines as some of the passengers were shitty.

Bankrupt and out on the street because of this.

Three years ago they were in good shape.

I wish there was something I could do to help them and you. All the employees worked hard and did their jobs day in and day out with the expectation they'd get the pensions they earned, and this happens.

And it's "no big deal" because a couple of wealthier DUers once had to wait in the airport for an hour and are pissed off about that.

for anybody losing their jobs. I lost my job 18 months ago.

Do you mean to imply that USAirways is going under because its passengers weren't good enough? That's silly. I think you just wanted to find a way to call me shitty.

If you're angry about the company going under, I suggest you target your anger at management and the Board of Directors, not a single passenger who hasn't flown them in many years. I didn't put your company under, they did.

Every single major carrier is going to go under.

But it's all management's fault. :eyes:

if it is economically impossible for a private carrier to be profitable these days, then let's scrap the system and create a national airline. I see no reason why tax money should go to benefit the shareholders of a private corporation that is unable to make money.

Many airlines DO make money. It can be done. USAir couldn't do it.

That's a REALLY dumb idea that creates lots of problems and would cost more than the aid needed to get through this recession and oil spike.

Many airlines DO make money.

No major US carrier is profitable right now. Not a single one (well except, ironically, US Air which made a profit last quarter -- the only airline to do so since 9/11 -- but may be forced under anyway by onerous loan terms).

It can be done. USAir couldn't do it.

No real carrier can in the present environment where they're expected to pay 2 to 3 times what they were paying for fuel a few years ago. And no, Southwest and AirTran are not real carriers, sorry. They don't fly at the frequency and to the destinations needed to be one.

shouldn't be defined on a quarter-by-quarter basis.

End corporate welfare.

If I demonstrate continuous improvement in my finances, outperforming ALL my other competitors and turn into positive territory, requiring a few more quarters to get back on my feet, I'm a business failure who should be shut down and allow my larger competitors who DID get government loans to dismember me.

Brilliant!

calm down. You have an awful habit of trying to read minds. You're not good at it.

If all those things you say about USAir are true, then there should be no obstacle to using credit to get through a tough patch. Or, they could sell the operation. There are options.

They are a private company, and not a monopoly. They are NOT the only providers of a vital service. I don't think any such business should rely on government largesse to survive.

End corporate welfare.

If all those things you say about USAir are true, then there should be no obstacle to using credit to get through a tough patch.

Things don't work that way. Companies generally don't get credit unless they don't need it, just like individuals.

If you get laid off for six months but have a new job that you're in, and need a loan to pay the rent until you're back on your feet in six months, you're not going to get that either, although you can pay.

They are a private company, and not a monopoly. They are NOT the only providers of a vital service.

They are close to the only providers of non-stop services from the largest cities on the east coast. They're the only provider of substantial international service from Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Charlotte. They're the only company competing with Delta on the Northeast Shuttle.

And they're just the first of all the majors to go under.

that I have considerable assets and can make money in the future, I can get credit. I've worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years - all the companies I worked for were unprofitable at first and managed to secure financing.

I have considerable assets and can make money in the future, I can get credit

Not in a corporate credit market. For one thing, most assets for EVERY carrier (including the oh-so-vaunted discounters) is encumbered.

've worked in Silicon Valley for 20 years - all the companies I worked for were unprofitable at first and managed to secure financing.

I worked in the Silly Valley bubble too. That's far different than the real world in older industries like transportation, and the party's over in Silicon Valley as well. Even a tech company with an improving income statement isn't going to receive a loan these days under similar circumstances, thanks to the Bush economy.

you're ignorant of the situation.

My 20 years weren't ALL "a bubble".

Everything there -- Apple, Atari, Fairchild, Intel, etc. -- was overvalued from day one and still is.

The economics of high tech in the Silly Valley are NOT real-world economics. This is something I had to learn after escaping the place. The idea that a good idea is "enough" isn't true in the real world. Neither is "proving you can pay."

Just look at the ridiculous valuations of companies like Intel and Apple -- valuations that have no basis in history.

And look at all the Silicon Valley bubbles -- Atari, from $75 million to $2 billion to bust in less than six years. Osborne computer lasted what, two years? From success to bust.

The SV is a different world, and one that's finally waking up to reality in a lot of ways with the popping of the last big SV bubble, the dot com startup bubble.

but very few of the companies I worked for were ever public companies, so "valuation" wasn't even a factor.

Nobody ever thinks about the "shitty" passenger, and i have dealt with plenty. The corporation makes the cuts, pisses the pasgr off and they take it out on us. I love international flying, somehow those pasgrs kind of "get it"

If United, Delta, and US go under, there goes a majority of US international flights.

wouldn't take out their frustrations on the front-line workers for things they don't control.

I was never rude to the people working the desk or the flight attendants.

However, my last straw with USAir was when I had a truly horrendous experience flying home for the holidays. I won't go into the details, but it was awful. I wrote to a man named Kolodny, who was the President at the time. I received a reply that was outrageously offensive. Basically, the attitude was "Hey, it's a busy time. You're still alive, aren't you?"

I see that attitude was pervasive throughout the company, by reading the posts of one of their employees.

Here's a business hint: don't think of your customers as obstacles to doing your job.

Because Lord knows no other carrier every has logistical problems "during the holidays." I mean, none. Just US Air.

And obviously, not a single person at the entire company actually believes in customer service or treating customers well. Just look at Dookus' delay at the airport AND the postings by a disgruntled employee he read! :eyes:

of the circumstances. Why do you want to make up shit you know nothing about?

This had nothing to do with being stuck in an airport for an hour. In fact, being "stuck" in an airport was one small part of the bad experience. You don't know SHIT about what happened, so pretending you do just makes you look like a fool.

But I've heard about an airport delay and a Coke that wasn't served. This is provided as evidence of "terrible service."

Hee hee hee! Wait until you try catching a connecting flight on Southwest. Come back then and tell us again that service is why they're profitable.

it's funny.

My complaints, as I've already told you, had NOTHING to do with refreshments or a short delay.

Why do you continue to post lies that have already been addressed?

If I'm "lying" by trying to solve your riddle, sorry. But I don't see any evidence that your "inconvenience" in flying during a busy holiday travel day is all that bad.

If you provide evidence to the contrary, it will be evaluated. Until then, it's not worth discussing, since "trust me" isn't an option I assign to someone I don't trust. :)

you know NOTHING about what my complaint was. I've already told you it was not about a delay.

Nor am I going to tell you what it was, because it's fun to see what other lies you'll invent.

You keep playing coy with me in a flirtatious way. It's a cute diversionary game so you can switch the topic from the airline situation to what a mean nasty liar I am, since you've clearly not got much to say in that department other than repeating a slogan. Later, dude. :)

I never used the word nasty.

tell me where i stated i asked for a Coke? If you want to make a point, try reading the comments of others, don't assume.

Why clearly, it's a good reason that the whole company should fail.

Will you provide that analysis to the Wall Street Journal?

Why not write a letter to Herb Kelleher at Continental about the "flight attendant Coke joke?" He'd get a kick out of it.

you would see i tried to joke with her AFTER she was rude to me. Not once did i ask for anything, Coke, diet Coke, Starbucks or any other beverage you want to assume i would ask for.

to the people working the desk or the flight attendants. Way too many people are. And for those who then say it's our JOB to be nice to rude SOBs -- they're generally the ones who have never worked in public contact jobs.

It's the calling the airline and everyone connected to it shitty that angers me so much. I just hope you someday are on the receiving end of this kind of compassion.

I have never been on a good US Air flight. Several bad experiences with them. Good Riddance.

Both are likely as the majors go under, especially on international flights. Southwest isn't going to start flying to Europe, Asia or South America (or even Canada for that matter).

It is sad that all the employees will lose jobs, and yes the cost may go up on flights. I doubt it will be as dramatic as you claim. Still not sorry to see them go. The sooner the better.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No i'm not Republican. I'm a very unhappy customer who got screwed one too many times by a shitty airline with terrible service. But hey... my own fault for giving them one to many second chances.

In my experience they weren't bad at all, certainly above average, and their employees certainly don't deserve to have their retirement funds and life savings AND ability to earn a living all destroyed because you are mad that they served you Sanka instead of Starbucks.

the refreshments had nothing to do with the bad service. You thought they were ok, i didn't. So what. I won't miss them. I don't drink coffee anyway. And if i did it sure as hell wouldn't be from Starbucks.

"You thought they were ok, i didn't. So what."

I think United sucked every time I flew them. Other people I know hate American or Continental or Delta. It doesn't mean that I wish for any of them to go under and those people to lose their jobs either, especially with the rape of employees going on in this sector.

And I certainly don't want airlines like AirTran (former ValuJet) setting the standards in safety simply because they fly on the cheap. I value reliable, safe service for an extra $50 per ticket over the lowest possible fares.

It's pathetic that America is so willing to allow its infrastructure to collapse like this. Can you imagine the UK allowing British Airways to shut down and liquidate? Or France saying "Oh well, Air France sucked anyway, they deserve it" if Air France closed, laid off all their workers and defaulted on their pensions?

Yet that's the new standard operating procedure in Bush's America (and amongst many Democrats too apparently). I find that to be scary. You should too, because you and your job are next. All of us are.

Companies are mis-managed and have bad service, they go under. I'm not at all surprised they might be gone soon. I DON'T wish anyone to lose a job. I know many people who have lately. But what i don't get is:

"Can you imagine the UK allowing British Airways to shut down and liquidate? "

We should bail them out and let them continue bad service? Who is allowing them to shut down? They are shutting down because they aren't making money. Why not bail out all failing companies? Doesn't work that way. Why should US Air be more important to save than any other company in trouble?

This is a chain of dominoes getting ready to fall.

We should bail them out and let them continue bad service?

They're not doing bad service -- they have one of the best on-time rankings and customer satisfaction rankings of any carrier.

They're also, more importantly, a MAJOR employer and a MAJOR economic resource for the northeast. They carry about 10% of transatlantic passengers for instance and are a key resource to countless customers in the eastern USA.

They have pension liabilities that US taxpayers will have to pick up for decades that FAR exceed what assistance would cost to get them back on their feet.

Who is allowing them to shut down? They are shutting down because they aren't making money.

No major US carrier is making money. Only Southwest and JetBlue and AirTran are making money (and BTW, they're not renowned for their "service" either).

As long as you don't need to fly across the country or to London, or need more than one or two flights a day between major cities, they're a great choice. Otherwise, you'd better be prepared to provide some bridge funding for major carriers who were hit HARD by the 9/11 situation and the Bush recession.

where does it stop? Can't bail out every major company having financial problems.

And yes, their service is HORRENDOUS. Good bye and good luck.

A modern economy cannot function without a modern airline system.

And if you think a $100 billion pension deficit for Congress to cover with taxpayer money is a good thing, yeah, letting all these companies go under is a GREAT idea.

Heck, perhaps if enough companies ditch their pensions with Congress, we can complete the bankrupting of the federal government and completely reduce the USA to third world nation status, with bankrupt airlines closing down and the EU and Asia pointing and laughing at us. Yay!

can't function when it's citizens don't have jobs. And the fact is many Americans have lost them, not just airline workers. Where was their bailout? Who saved their retirement accounts and pesnions?

Just like a major utility cannot be allowed to go under, a major airline cannot be allowed to just fold, especially a concentrated one like US Air, which doesn't "share" any of its hubs with another carrier.

with one less airline. Unlike water and power which are more crucial to survival. I don't see the connection. There will still be other alternatives to fly on. One crappy airline out of the picture won't stop people from flying.

OK. I need a flight from Philadelphia to Amsterdam for a client meeting. Which airline do I fly?

Oops.

I need a flight from Philadelphia to San Francisco. Oops, no can do, sir.

I need a flight from Philadelphia to our Rochester office. Oops, no flights at ALL to Rochester anymore.

I need a flight from Charlotte to anywhere. Well sir, you're SOL.

And oh, by the way, the US treasury owes the workers $7 billion. Best of luck!

the last time i was at Philadelphia airport (or any other airport for that matter) there have been plenty of other airlines to choose from. I find it hard to believe that US Air is the only one that can get me to my destination.

or Charlotte. The other carriers MIGHT fly a few flights a day to one of their hubs. That's it. They're in no position to pick up capacity, and as I mentioned before, US is IT for lots of smaller cities.

You certainly can take an overcrowded and overbooked connecting flight on another major, and get bumped when landing at the hub airport as I did.

Philly and have flown out of it many, many times. Not once was US Air the only airline to have planes on the runway... You might not get a direct flight, but you'll get there. And i've never flown anywhere that US Air was my only option. There are always several to choose from.

UH OH US Air is not flying anymore!! However will i get anywhere?

And fares soar as a result.

And i've never flown anywhere that US Air was my only option.

You must not fly very often then, and certainly not to smaller cities or international destinations.

UH OH US Air is not flying anymore!! However will i get anywhere?

At a much higher cost, with less frequency, reducing Philadelphia's economic potential and opportunity.

Just look at how all the cutbacks in Pittsburgh have slammed the economy there.

at other companies and slammed the local economies. Just so i'm clear, we bail out airlines, power and water companies, and banks? And screw everyone else. Make sense to me!!

It was sensible to provide Chrysler with the help it needed.

It's sensible to help ANY major company experiencing temporary difficulties to help get over the hump, especially when they're an important and VITAL part of the economy.

Sure, Chrysler could have gone under and GM/Ford and the Japanese could have picked up the slack after a time, but the liabilities to the government would have been bigger than the bailout (which the government made LOTS of money from).

Ditto for the major carriers. They made money once and will again once the economy turns around and they're far, far, far too important to let just collapse. Just like banks and power companies.

to bail out a company with terrible service then count me in. And get me a job at a power company so i can be as rude as i want and never have to suffer the consequenses.

It's not true. By all the numbers, they're above average.

The discount carriers (particularly AirTran) tend to have lower numbers across the board for service and on time rate.

The majors who are doing the best also have lower service numbers or have seen HUGE declines in service quality (particularly Continental, Northwest and American).

mean more to me than any "numbers". They were awful. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out US Air. Treat customers like shit, go out of business. Not a very hard concept to understand.

If they had a competitive business model that could've allowed them to compete with the low fare carriers, they wouldn't be going under. And yeah, businesses going under does suck, but what the hell are ya gonna do about it?

And if US Air only flew to secondary cities, they could fly for cheaper too (due to the lower landing fees), but then people would complain about moving to secondary cities.

Ever notice that Southwest doesn't fly Philly to San Francisco? They fly Philly to San Jose. There's a reason for that.

Also, US Air isn't wanting for a lack of passengers. Their planes are loaded to the hilt. I've never been on a flight of theirs in the past year that wasn't at least 85% full. The problem is that soaring fuel costs are doing them in and they weren't able to get a loan and other assistance to weather the tide like some of the other majors.

will probably become Northwest Airlines new trans-Atlantic hub. It's something they've wanted for awhile.

Here's where everything will probably end up
PHL Hub-Northwest Airlines
CLT Hub-American Airlines(probably) or Continental (there will be a gunfight for the place, it's the only remaining good site for a hub in the Southeast)
US Airways Shuttle: American
BOS mini-hub: American
LGA and DCA Assets: Split between Delta and American

AA becomes a dominant player in the East with Hubs in Boston, Charlotte, and Miami and the lucrative Shuttle routes.

DL picks up some nice pieces of the East Coast pie. Northwest gets the trans-Atlantic gateway they've always wanted.

Pittsburgh gets screwed over

I just checked on expedia and there are seven airlines that offer cheaper Philly-SF flights than US Air. Granted, not all of them are non-stop, but it's pretty clear you could make it to San Fran in under 7 hours and save a few hundred dollars in the process.

It cost over 30 million dollars a year more in fuel cost when the price of oil goes up $1.00 over 30.00 dollars a barrel. Put that cost in real dollars and apply it to yourselves and see how well budget stays intact. That is not to say that there are not bad managers or poor service, but the brunt of the airlines problems are fuel cost, which is a direct result of *'s and Cheney's policies, so if US Airways goes under it is a direct result of the * economy. With fuel prices skyrocketing they could not catch up. And do not compare Southwest with an International Carrier, it is not remotely the same. Try changing planes over the Atlantic.

But if your attitude is shared by US Air employees to hell with you, your job, or your pension. Sorry things are bad in the airline industry, but without the customers, you have no industry.

Only a coward blames the customers for the poor business. Maybe if airline customer service was better, US Air wouldn't be going under, and maybe someone would care.

Allegheny was the, or one of the, original airlines that became US Air.

delete

My dad flew with them once, he called it Agony Airlines. Here in Canada we got a good laugh when they changed their name- "U/S" is the label put on any piece of equipment on a plane that doesn't work.

Do you really think if we are hearing this the other carriers aren't? You think they aren't already making contingent plans to do just that in the unfortunate event that US Airways goes away? Come on, of course they are. I can only speak for one airline, but they have a lost of planes stored out of the fleet because they haven't been needed. They can put those into service in a blink of an eye.

I don't want to see US AIrways go out of business because of the terrible effect it will have on the employees, but it won't hurt the industry at all.

I doubt that the other carriers could just rush into cities, particularly ones they dominate, like Philadelphia and Boston, and just "take over."

It would take several months at the earliest. Not to mention that the other carriers don't exactly have lots of planes lying around themselves to put into service, certainly not 280+ needed including international flights.

A lot of those planes require more than "the blink of an eye" to put back in service after sitting in the desert, too.

It looks like US Airways, United and Delta are all going to feel the pinch and perhaps go under. :(

. . . if other carriers take over, they're only going to fly between the big cities. All the profitable smaller routes where US is the only carrier will disappear and be left without any service. That will be a crushing blow.

and there's quite a few of them now, so I doubt there will be much of a stop of service.

Their planes are too large.

JetBlue and Southwest don't do regional jets, nor do they have hubs to feed traffic from smaller cities into in order to fill big planes.

have given the bigger airlines a lot of competition. I take US Air a lot and never really had a bad experience. I flew 100,000 miles in 2000, and nearly as many in 2001.

JetBlue isn't going to fly an A321 into Ithaca or Myrtle Beach. Independence are a possibility, but I cannot see people flying such a distance, and international connections are going to be near impossible.

All those carriers also pay sub-par wages compared to the mainline carriers. This wage deflation is hitting other industries too and is absolutely destroying the middle class in America.

Rinky-Dink Airlines will put a bunch of Embraer propeller planes on the route if there is a customer demand. Lots of smaller cities have lost jet service in the past thirty years and now have commuter airline service.

Why would a profitable route go unserved? Someone else will fly it.

If a carrier lacks the proper equipment to serve the route profitably, it won't be served, or it will be served at a much higher cost.

For instance, Southwest and JetBlue aren't going to do transatlantic flights from the East Coast -- they don't have the planes and the costs for training would be prohibitive.

I also don't buy the notion that the collapse of several majors would allow the others to recover, for the same reason.

And that would suck for those in the northeast, but where are US Air's planes going to go. Will the disgruntled pilots set them ablaze on their last day of work?

No.

They'll do what every other failing company does, LIQUIDATE. Delta, Southwest, Airtran, et al will buy the planes and then selectively hire some of their pilots. The more profitable routes will be claimed first, with the other (if profitable) to follow.

That's how it'll work. Guaranteeed.

And that would suck for those in the northeast, but where are US Air's planes going to go. Will the disgruntled pilots set them ablaze on their last day of work?

They're going to the desert, or the lessors, or the creditors.

They'll do what every other failing company does, LIQUIDATE. Delta, Southwest, Airtran, et al will buy the planes and then selectively hire some of their pilots.

Delta has no money for planes and is on the endangered list.

Southwest and Airtran don't fly US Air's Airbus planes and won't add them to their fleet because the fleet diversity would cost too much. Neither will add the widebody planes for transatlantic services either, those are going to be permanently gone, with the surviving majors pushing up fares for connecting flights before going under a year or two later.

that are going unfilled, then obtaining a small fleet of planes for pennies on the dollar, and the necessary ground crew, pilots, and mechanics will be a small fiscal bump on the way to quickly recouping the original outlays.

The laws of supply and demand will more than take care of this problem. It may not be pretty in the short term, but people in underserved areas will not be left out in the cold. People waving fistfuls of dollars and complaining that they have no one to give it to will be heard loud and clear.

They won't pick up the flights that don't fit their fleets. Period. They cannot make money with those low fares that way.

And the majors cannot afford the expenditures.

The only opportunity would be a startup, but recreating a lot of what made some routes profitable is impossible. Profitable routes to smaller destinations, for instance, require a megahub with lots of connecting flights that is, after the closure, dead and gone forever.

People waving fistfuls of dollars and complaining that they have no one to give it to will be heard loud and clear.

That's what they said in Rochester, NY and Syracuse, NY. They were wrong. The federal and state governments had to subsidize flights there as a result to get JetBlue to come in and reconnect them.

They'd have to do similar things for smaller routes that are profitable for US today and which are connected into their megahubs. Once US goes, those routes are no longer profitable unless someone buys up the whole operation lock stock and barrel and keeps it running exactly the same -- an unlikely outcome.

I can only speak for one airline, but, that one has a couple of hundred stored right now.

I agree, the blink of an eye was overstated. But rumors in this business are more efficient than the internet. Every airline will know a few weeks before any announcement is made. I will know soon because planes will be coming back from the desert for maintenence.

Delta and American are on the brink of bankruptcy and United's on the absolute brink of collapse.

A lot of those "stored planes" are also old or the wrong type (not economical). Dragging a bunch of old 727s or huge 767s out of the desert isn't going to cut it either.

But some aren't. Sure it would be a challenge to each existing airline, but there is such a fight for customers, they will find a way to handle it. Other than the terrible loss of jobs, the others that will be hurt is the public. Any reduction in the # of carriers reduces competition. It will be quite a battle if this does happen.

. . . I doubt the "new" carriers or the existing mainlines will bring wages back to decent levels after things recover. Wages are permanently deflated in this important industry, as well as in many others like technology and manufacturing.

"Not to mention that the other carriers don't exactly have lots of planes "

The desert is full of them. Parked, waiting for better times.

I think there are something like 80 747's parked at this time.

Literally hundreds are parked in the Nevada dessert, where conditions are ideal to put unused planes in storage.

Besides, its not like US air's planes will just evaporate. If the airline is liquated, their planes and routes will be purchased by other carriers, and life will go on.

The ones that are parked are ANCIENT planes like 727s and original 747s. They guzzle gas and require high maintenance. The newest planes are still in service, and the ones sent to the desert were due to be replaced, the carriers simply cancelled the orders for future deliveries for their replacement.

Newer planes that were sent to the desert were usually sold and sent off to overseas airlines by the lessors or finance companies.

You're not going to run the US Air network with old 747s and L-1011s in the Mojave.

Aside from the fact that they don't have the money or the ability to obtain financing, airlines usually don't like to buy "used" airplanes from other airlines. Those planes will not be configured like the buying airline's fleet, and will be so expensive to reconfigure that what seems to be a great deal, usually isn't. Also, many of those parked airplanes have cannibalized to some extent -- engines and other usable parts removed or sold.

This situation is nothing to be cavalier about. If any major airline goes out of business the ripple effect will be huge. When a large number of people lose jobs that pay well, entire communities, not just the employees, suffer.

When United needed help under the special 911 deal to help Airlines, they were turned down by the Secty. of Transportation (turncoat Dem.) and others. Hadn't given enough to the Repigs. Now US Air. I wonder what story they'll hear from the Feds. Just wonderful. Thanks Bush!

. . . that would be 100,000 lost jobs and retirement pensions destroyed, with countless more lives permanently destroyed for families struggling to get by with permanently unemployed workers whose professional skills are no longer in demand and with little hope for the future.

And Southwest ain't gonna fly Atlanta to Tokyo or Philly to London anytime soon, either.

and they won't anytime soon - Southwest will be in there so fast. Trust me. Delta has a stranglehold on Hartsfield Airport and I guarantee that either Airtran or Southwest will snatch up that gate space at the world's busiest/largest airport (depending on which surveys you read).

It posted a $2 billion loss last quarter -- the highest loss ever reported in a single quarter by ANY company -- and is struggling to avoid closure. If US goes down, Delta is probably next.

Southwest will be in there so fast. Trust me. Delta has a stranglehold on Hartsfield Airport and I guarantee that either Airtran or Southwest will snatch up that gate space at the world's busiest/largest airport

And when are Southwest/Airtran going to pick up the flights to Asia, Europe, and South America that MAKE Hartsfield the busiest airport?

When Delta collapses, all that international connecting traffic that makes it the world's busiest airport goes bye-bye along with it.

When Eastern collapsed, all of their gates and landing plus takeoff "slots" were quickly filled by other carriers. Why should that not happen this time?? How is there so much new business for airlines like Spirit and AirTran?? Their growth is restricted more by the stranglehold that existing airlines have on airports.

Many airlines have announced "deferred" pensions, including:

1) US Airways: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6510-2004Aug16.html

2) United:
http://menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=Cqr7FWeicvu5jveve

3) Northwest, who managed to get over $400 million of its pension deficit "waived"

4) American and Delta are thought to not be far behind:
http://menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?StoryId=Cqr7FWeicvu5jveve

As usual, workers get screwed and if the pensions go unfunded, the US government has to pick up part of it, with the worker losing the rest (often a majority) despite having worked for the company for the entire term.

This is a major, major problem that just keeps getting ignored.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

US Airways has been having problems for a LONG time. As for those losing their jobs, it sucks that they are losing them, but to say they are getting screwed is not quite accurate. The company is going under. Everyone is losing their jobs. It's not as if they're firing ground crew and keeping all of the CEOs at top salaries. Everyone will be gone.

As for all of these routes that will go unfilled, BULL. I hope AirTran and Delta and Southwest snatch up those routes because the low-cost model is the only one that works. I worked as a ground crew employee (ramp agent) for Delta two years ago in Atlanta. While you may feel that employees are underpaid (I made $8.45/hr) - and they may be - the competition for these jobs is unreal. You have to know someone who already has the job to even get an application. It's a tough life, believe me, I know this. I worked 10-12 hour days in the Atlanta summer heat, and temps on the ramp could reach 115 degrees if you caught a jet blast. But it was a hell of a time too. Watching Airline on A&E makes me want it all again, even the 8.45.

All this being said, it's no secret to airline employees that they work in a volatile industry. Aside from the pilots and the mechanics, most of these employees haven't invested too much in their training and job skills. My FAA required training only lasted one week before I was taxiing planes up to the jetway. They'll find other jobs, maybe not in the same industry.

One thing I will say about US Air, they do have the coolest paint scheme for their jets. That is all.

As for all of these routes that will go unfilled, BULL. I hope AirTran and Delta and Southwest snatch up those routes because the low-cost model is the only one that works.

Well, Delta's next in line for collapse. It posted the largest loss in ever recorded by a corporation last quarter.

And Airtran's not going to fly to Europe, and has a less than enviable safety record. Southwest doesn't fly to most major cities, but only secondary airports.

All this being said, it's no secret to airline employees that they work in a volatile industry.

That's a recent phenomenon too. Up until 9/11 and the Bush economy, the thought of a major carrier going under was inconceivable.

Before you bring up Pan Am, it wasn't a hub carrier and was made obsolete by the changing airline climate, and Eastern wasn't a major carrier with hubs all to itself -- Delta easily picked up its routes.

My FAA required training only lasted one week before I was taxiing planes up to the jetway. They'll find other jobs, maybe not in the same industry.

A lot of the employees at the majors are older -- in their fifties and sixties -- and have seen all their retirement money lost in the last four years.

When laid off, they'll never work again, and their pension payments will be a tiny fraction of what they were promised. They'll be wards of the state.

How many times did US Air go through its death throes? At least twice before this round that I can remember. Delta has just begun having labor relations problems this year, and to my knowledge has never filed for bankruptcy before.

As I said in an above post, the major carriers will buy US Air's equipment for pennies on the dollar and resume service shortly (in relative terms). They'll hire some of their employees too.

So we have two examples of major airlines failing but I'm not allowed to use them as examples. Sure, if all companies continue to operates as they did before US Air failed then maybe Southwest couldn't fly international, but that doesn't mean it doesn't want to expand its reach. SOMEONE will take those routes. It may not happend fast, but the industry won't allow profitable seats to go unfilled. You have given me no evidence to the contrary. Eastern was made obsolete by the changing climte, much like US Air? Low cost is the new model, so maybe it's best that US Air disappears. Again, US Airways assets will be purchased by some airline, and that will require new mechanics. Sure, some of them will just stop working, but that's their choice. A skilled airline mechanic could fix much more than just a jet engine. They could become ASE certified and work on cars, or fix private jets. No one promised these airline mechanics that they would work forever as airline mechanics when they took the job 20 years ago. Airlines are risky. To an extent, taking any job is risky. That's life.

US turned a profit last quarter and are still staring down extinction. Delta posted a $2 billion loss!

the major carriers will buy US Air's equipment for pennies on the dollar

With what? None of the majors have the money, and the only majors who fly Airbuses are United (not exactly in a great position itself) or Northwest (which is not awash in cash to buy hundreds of airplanes).

It's far more likely that the Airbuses will go back to Airbus, who will use them to fill back orders with their other customers overseas (Airbus is experiencing record demand) and the old Boeings go to the desert and the scrap heap.

So we have two examples of major airlines failing but I'm not allowed to use them as examples.

Feel free to use them as examples -- I'll demonstrate why they're not good ones.

Pan Am never flew a hub and spoke system and TWA duplicated their routes exactly. When Pan Am folded (due mainly to empty planes -- US Air has full ones) there was another carrier who picked up the small traffic gain.

Eastern took two years to die and did not have a majority of air traffic in any city. It also had its assets purchased by major carriers who had lots of money to spend and could quickly resume service.

None of the majors have any money to spend today, and Southwest/JetBlue/AirTran combined couldn't swing enough money to buy and train and run the US Air network.

"That's a recent phenomenon too. Up until 9/11 and the Bush economy, the thought of a major carrier going under was inconceivable."

I guess you've never heard of Eastern? Pan Am? They went under and don't exist because they weren't competitive. Other carriers took their place, and we have more flights than ever.

employee, it angers and saddens me to see all of the "It was a shitty airline and deserves to go under" comments.

For ten years I put up with, on a DAILY basis, rudeness that actually makes those comments quite mild. I've never known of another job where so often the very first comment from a customer is an insult. I've never been treated by the public as badly as when an airline employee. And most of the time I was polite in return, smiled in response to abuse, and got the passengers on a flight and to their destination.

I sincerely hope that the companies that you assholes work for fold and leave you pensionless. And that when you break the sad news, lots of "friends" assure you your company was crappy and deserves to go under.

As a regular customer who always books you first when possible due to your exceptionally good service (especially international) compared to the other US majors and even some European majors.

The people at the airline were always polite, helpful and friendly and it's never let me down. That's good enough for me.

I totally understand, and I, too, get sick of reading and hearing comments like that. Although I don't work at a job that involves public contact, I travel a lot and I have often seen gate agents and flight attendants tolerate, graciously and with a smile, all kinds of abuse from passengers who blame the airline, and the employees personally, for things like... weather! If you don't believe me, watch a few episodes of "Airline" on A&E. That stuff -- all those drunks and jerks -- is real. I really admire the employees on an airline's front lines -- I don't think I could do what they do.

And nobody should wish the collapse of an employer and the loss of jobs on anybody. Ever. How very... Republican.

Flight attendants, customer service reps, and many other employess i'm sure put up with rude people every day. However, it was my experience with US Air that they were either rude or not helpful to me. I even tried to joke around with one grumpy flight attendant who had basically told me to "wake the hell up if i wanted something to drink." THAT's great customer service. It's too bad when experiences like that ruin it for the good ones.

. . . should condemn all the employees to losing their jobs and retirees losing their pensions and health benefits, and major cities losing their regular nonstop air service with a major blow to their economies in the middle of a recession.

That damn grumpy flight attendant! She and 25,000 other people should lose EVERYTHING because you didn't get that can of Diet Coke while you were sleeping (despite the fact that every frequent traveller knows it's standard procedure not to wake sleeping passengers for food or drink).

Why not just vote for Dubya? Then you can REALLY show those airlines what for!

it's standard procedure not to wake a passenger.. then why did she? I didn't ask for anything. I was perfectly content to sleep or even half sleep and she could have walked right by. DID YOU even read what i wrote? I have been on other flights, been asleep when they came around with drinks, and never had a problem. And that's just one bad experience i have had with US Air. Bad, Bad, Bad service. Sorry again to all the GOOD people who work hard and put up with shit from people you don't deserve. They aren't ALL bad. That was just one example. But overall, terrible rating from my experiences.

I don't drink diet Coke either. Don't even recall asking for one.

and did you stop to think for a minute that if so many people were insulting your airline, perhaps the problem lie with the airline, not the passengers?

As I said above, direct your anger at the management and Board of Directors that put your company in the position it's in, not the passengers.

I've flown over 100,000 miles on US Airways and never, EVER been treated rudely. I have experienced delays on holidays (shocking!) but every carrier experiences problems -- often due to OTHER carriers or bad weather that cascades throughout the system.

The US Airways people are competent and generally quite good. I can see why they'd get irritated if they were abused by people who are rude during a weather or volume delay they have no control over, or by someone who is mad he wasn't woken up for a Coke on a flight.

I've also flown many of the discount carriers in the USA and Europe. If you think their secret to profitability was "customer service," you've got another thing coming. I've never been treated more rudely than on AirTran and Southwest.

you don't know a damned thing about what my particular complaint was. You have already asserted it was a) the refrshments b) an hour's delay and now c) a single customer service issue.

You are wrong. Just as you were wrong the other day when you made outrageous assumptions about my background. Is it pathological that you must invent stories and situtations for people you know NOTHING about?

I'm glad you didn't think USAir sucked. I did. We're even.

I read what I see, Dookus.

You have a need to create a mystery about your life, for whatever reason. I'm not going to apologize for guessing at your riddles.

You'll find others' comments about you might be more accurate if you communicate more clearly. For example, state clearly what your complaint was, or mention the next time you brag about your Jaguar that it's used. Then the mystery is gone (but then I suspect you lose some of the fun!) ;)

why do you lie so much? Do you think it enhances your argument?

Why not simply present your argument WITHOUT making wild-ass and wrong assumptions about other people and their experiences? If you don't know, why not ask? Why pull shit outta your ass and pass it off as truth?

I have communicated VERY clearly and you continue to lie.

As for my jaguar, jealous much? I mentioned it in a thread long over a year ago. I don't bring it up - you do. I see you can't get over it.

It's a bitchin' car. I hope some day you'll get to ride in one.

so much for all these years, then why the hell were you flying them all the time? I thought you had a choice of various airlines?

I said I haven't flown them for years. Probably over 15 years by now. Where did you ever get the impression I've continued to fly them? Are you taking reading lessons from Brian?

you ought to try them again. Things might have changed after all this time. After all, you must have been flying when I was working for them, and now that I, the insensitive counter agent, no longer work there, it's probably vastly better.

I won't try them again: my experience was so bad they don't deserve a second chance.

I'm glad you're not working there, because from reading your posts here, you are ill-suited to dealing with the public.

in fact, 99% are. If you can't deal with the rudeness, it is better that you go somewhere else.

I know that your attitude isn't shared by other USAIR employees. At least I hope it isn't. Unfortunately, your job depended on dealing with our "rudeness". You were wise to seek another job. Given your comments, hopefully it isn't one where you deal with humans.

I deal with rude customers too. It is frustrating, but in the end it is my job to deal with it. Since they put food on the table, I do it happily.

We all have problems of our own. Most of us have been screwed by an employer or two. We don't blame it on the customer. That attitude is why most people don't want to subsidize your pension (by the way, congratulations on the pension, most people don't get one anymore).

I also don't blame YOUR rudeness on you. Management puts lots of pressures on flight crews, to move planes, and doesn't give you the tools to solve problems. You can also blame management for reducing the amount of fresh air mandated in cabins. Lack of air leads to stress on the crew and the passengers. You never heard of air rage before recycled air was the mandate.

and quantity of rudeness from the travelling public that is hard to imagine until you deal with it on a daily basis. Watch the A&E show "Airline" and you'll get a hint of what it's like. Only it's not just a half hour once a week, it's eight hours, five days a week, and often more because of obligatory overtime.

Yes, it's the job of those dealing with the public to put up with them and to be nice. And the vast majority of the airline employees are friendly and gracious in the face of contempt and loathing from the some of the customers. Not all, by any means. But when I start telling some of the stories of what happened over the years, a lot of people are quite simply amazed at what it was like.

And, at the risk of repeating myself, I'm appalled by the total callousness of those here who think USAir is a crappy airline, deserves to go under, and don't care at all that thousands of employees will be laid off, and thousands more will be pension-less. The airline industry may be volatile, but for someone who worked 30 or 40 years and foolishly counted on the retirement benefit, THAT'S what sucks.

But for what that does for you, I don't know! There are lots of priorities that the government has, recovering a private business from their own malfeasance isn't very high on the list.

Whatever rude customers you or I have, they are not the reason USAir is in trouble.

Back when I used to fly a lot, I spent a lot of time on Piedmont Airlines. I was late, delayed, and broke down a lot on Piedmont, but the stewardesses and gate personnel bent over backwards to show that the passengers were their first concern. Even after USAir took over and began ruining Piedmont Airlines (turning it into the USAir combination of Allegheny and Mohawk that were both crumby airlines), you could still get great treatment in the south by saying "you know there used to be a pretty good airline called Piedmont around here" and the USAir employee (if a former Piedmont type) would fall all over themselves trying to help you. USAir was just a failed corporate culture.

why we should bail out airlines and save jobs over any other hard working person who lost theirs, please let me know. And I'M the Republican... I don't want anyone to lose a job. But i won't feel sad to see a bad company go under. And i sure as hell won't favor giving one company a break over another just because i can't fly directly from Philadelphia to somewhere anymore. That's just a personal inconvenience. NOT vital to our "infrastructure".

Try explaining to all the people who lost jobs in the past few years why their jobs didn't matter, and an airline employee's does.

The Northeast clearly deserves to have its airline shut down and liquidated to make up for this great evil. The airline is no asset at all to the economic infrastructure of the area and god forbid we save the jobs or avoid the $100 billion pension deficit that has to be covered by Uncle Sam.

(which i don't even drink) and didn't ask for if you had read my earlier reply, has nothing to do with this. You have no valid reason for saving one person's job over another.

Plain and simple it is the cost of oil. Do not make the mistake of comparing Southwest with an international carrier, they have one type of aircraft one. US air has to have an aircraft to go cross country, go overseas, go into the little market, that means higher training cost for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics etc. Southwest can not go everywhere US air goes but guarantee US Air could go anywhere southwest goes and that cost money, but you can't be just an international carrier because that is what happened to Pan Am, they thought they could get rid of Pan Am domestic routes when they bought national way back and just keep flying International. It is a complicated expensive industry made more expensive in the * economy, best of luck to you US Air employees, and anyone else who has lost their jobs, the airline I work for cut my husband pay and benefits by 35% overnight and mine by 17% and I don't want to hear he's lucky he still has a job, he got his job training in the fall of Saigon, of course I'm sure the house of Saud/Bush are doing just fine.

The notion that "US Air is the primary carrier in Boston, New York LaGuardia, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington National and Charlotte," and that "if it shut down, all those cities would be without MOST of their domestic and international air service" is laughable to an extreme. Sorry, but no one airline dominates Boston or New York to that extent.

For example, I just checked out the connections from my home base, Seattle, to Boston. US Airways offers service with one stop. So do American, Alaska, Northwest, ATA, Continental, United, America West, and Delta, with the first two having many more flights than US Airways (including some non-stops). But maybe Seattle-Boston isn't a fair comparison. Let's check out Boston-Miami: Another US Airways one-stop, but with similar service from American (non-stop), United, Northwest, Delta, Continental, and AirTran. Try Detroit-Boston: US Airways, of course, but also Northwest (non-stop), American, United, Continental, Delta. Dallas-Boston? Delta and American (non-stop), plus Northwest, United, AirTran, Delta, Continental, ATA, Midwest...and US Airways. And this is all from Orbitz, which I understand doesn't carry airlines like Southwest or JetBlue. In Boston's case, at least, it's hard to justify the notion that a US Airways collapse would leave it "without MOST" (emphasis yours) of its air service.

That's not to say that a bankruptcy wouldn't be a severe hardship for employees. Since airlines don't have any concept of "transferral of seniority," any long-time, topnotch US Airways pilot forced to look to another airline would be forced to start at the very bottom, piloting puddle-jumpers on their "alternate express" subsidiary, earning little more than minimum wage, and having to work their way up that airline's seniority ladder from square one. But it scarcely means that airline service as we know it will disappear, even to the airports you mention.

A personal note: I haven't flown on US Airways, so I can't gauge their service (although I did have some harrowing experiences several decades ago on one of their predecessors, Alleghany).

If I had to pick an airline today to make the leap to the to the bigtime, it would be them. I flew from Vegas to Dulles on them last year and was very pleased. Granted, it was a no-frills flight, but I figured I would rather have the $250 I saved instead of an edited Kate Hudson movie.

And they will hire all the unemployed US Air employees (for lower wages and benefits) and lease all of the planes under a new name.

Meanwhile in Africa, a million people are dying of AIDS this year because the developed world doesn't give a shit.

Get some perspective people.

:nuke:

"And they will hire all the unemployed US Air employees (for lower wages and benefits) and lease all of the planes under a new name."

They will hire them like Delta did when they bought out PanAm? And ask leading questions to screen out the gay applicants? ("So why have you never married?").....or not hire them like one of the heroine flight attendants at the Tenrife disaster who pulled crew members and passengers to safety, and when she applied to Delta the takeover company they told her she was too fat?

It's easy to make statements like "they will hire everyone" but it's just not the fact. Then you leave long-tenured employees without health insurance or jobs in this wonderful economy.

When Canada 3000 folded in 2001, two existing discount carriers ramped up service so fast that nobody was stranded. Within a year, a former shareholder started a new airline that is in the black and expanding.

I was flying from Lima to Philadelphia with a stopover in Miami. I had suffered from severe food poisoning in Peru (projectile vomiting and uncontrollable diarrhea) for four days at that point. My uncle's brother was a doctor who prescribed some gut paralysing drugs for me to take every six hours.

The first stage went fine, but when I arrived in Miami I was starting to feel sick again and realized I had left my medicine at my uncle's house in Lima. I tried to tough it out, but I was feeling extremely nausous. It occured to me that the airlines probably keep some kind of medic on call, or there might be a doctor in the airport who could write me a quick prescription during the three hour layover.
So I went to the desk clerk and, obviously fighting back tears, explained the situation and politely asked if she could help me find a doctor.

Her response: "If you're that sick you need to go to the hospital and get a ticket on a later flight." And then she walked away from me.
I burst into tears and she just walked away faster.
Two hours later, I had composed myself enough to actually get on the plane but I found I was seated next to a window in the middle of the plane with two people sitting between me and the aisle.
So I walked to the back of the plane, politely explained the situation to the men sitting in the aisle seat near the bathroom and asked if they would do me a favor and switch seats with me. A flight attendant was standing three feet away listening to everything. Who knew aisle seats by the toilet were such hot propetry? Both of the men refused to change seats with me. I looked to the flight attendant for help and she just shrugged and told me to sit in my assigned seat because we were about to take off. I went back to my seat in tears and spent the flight with my head in a paper bag.

When I got home I wrote a letter to the complaint department for US Air but they couldn't be bothered to respond.

I'm sorry for the many people who are losing their jobs and getting screwed over by their company.

But fuck US Air. My experience pointed not only to a complete lack of training in the employees I encountered but a lack of basic humanity as well. Unemployment is too good for them. They deserve to spend eight hours in a cramped space holding back violent diarrhea because the toilet is too far away if they stand up.

and they haven't ever, and certainly not from Miami. You were probably a victim of American Airlines and thir notoriously bad Miami staff.

The US Air flight was apparently Miami to Philadelphia.

Some airports have a medical office. But, oddly enough, emergency rooms and hospitals are designed to deal with your problem. Why anyone would want to fly when feeling violently ill is beyond me.

Are you suggesting the flight attendant should have arbitrarily obligated someone to change seats with you? Maybe they should have allowed you to fly the entire flight in the restroom, not minding that it's illegal and unsafe to do so. You think some other airline would have magically found a doctor to prescribe the medication YOU left behind in Peru in the hour or so between flights?

Airline employees are not medical personnel. I do have sympathy for how sick you were, but it wasn't the airline's fault that you were sick or that you'd left your medicine behind. So please blame the one responsible and think through how you might have better handled YOUR illness.

Glad I never flew with you.

the flight attendants have no choice but to tell you to take your seat. If the FAA is on board they could be fined for allowing you to use the lav. Also with time slots being alloted for take off times in todays crowded skies, if they were to call the cockpit which should only be done in an emergency during the sterile cockpit time the aircraft would be asked to pull off to an inactive runway until the cabin is prepared for take off by then you would have lost your slot. If you were so violently ill before the flight you should have stayed off the aircraft, there are to many situations in todays aviation environment that is not "psgr friendly", it comes down to whether to piss off 100 people or one and with the cut back in crew members there are less people to help, also i hope that the violent diarreha wasn't the flu or anything else contagious as the aircraft recurculates air which is a perfect breeding ground for air borne disease. I know we get yelled at for hanging out in the back of the aircraft during boarding and not helping. We are required by law to remain in the AFT part of the aircraft in case of the need for an evacuation, the flight attendant that used to be on board to "float" no longer has a job, most crews are now "minimum" and all have assigned duties per FAA.

For the poster reminding folks that the airlines were talking about BK before 9-11, yes some were and they were in the planning phases of restructuring, 9-11 put an end to that and now in the midst of restructuring again oil prices have sabotaged their efforts again.

Once again to the employees of US Air on this board I hope it is not true, I hope that fuel prices start to drop so there might be a light at the end of that tunnel, and to everyone who has lost their jobs.

Were here to discuss, agree to disagree etc, but we were brought together for the greater good. Let's continue to have respect for each other even in our disagreements, it's what sets us apart from the other side.

I figured, why not join in?

I wasn't asking to use the bathroom during the takeoff. I was asking one of the passengers to trade seats with me. And when the flight attendant asked me to sit down, I did. I hate those assholes who have to adjust their luggage until the last possible second too.

BUT... given that it was an eight hour flight and not even full, I believe that the flight attendant at a bare screaming minimum might have lent her weight by *asking* some people if they'd be willing to move. Or maybe, you know, checking up on me once during the entire flight. I wasn't asking anyone to piss of 100 people. I was asking if one person would mind the minor inconvenience of a window seat so that I wouldn't spend eight hours worried to death that I was going to crap in my pants.

And it wasn't even the flight attendant who turned me off US Air. It was the gate desk person who walked away when I asked her to help me find a doctor. How much to you want to bet that if I were a slightly more vindictive person, I could sue the pants off her and the airline?

I didn't feel that awful when I took off because I was on the meds. I didn't realize they were missing until I started going down hill in Miami. And I wouldn't have flown if it was anything contagious, but I knew it was food poisoning because I'd seen a doctor in Lima. Sometimes you just have to fly, no matter how bad you feel.

I do feel sorry for flight attendants and I am absolutely the most cooperative person I know. I'm sorry that people are rude and disrespectful, but I was neither. I was in need of help and two consecutive US Air employees turned their backs on me. If a friggin' dog walks up to you in tears and obvious pain, you DO something about it. You call the manager or ask for a doctor over the intercom.

It's a business like any other. When you treat your customers like worse than shit, they stop flying and they encourage their friends and family to do the same. Do I blame all US Air employees for what happened to me? No. But I blame a seriously deficient HR department and an apparently non-existant customer service network.

Lots of people are out of work because they worked for companies that couldn't cut it. Let's get Kerry in and then jobs for everyone!

In the meantime, adios US Air.

Counter agent, gate agent. And yes, with the proper motivation, I could make life hell for the passengers. Or quite delightful. A lot depended on how the passenger behaved when I started out by being nice, being patient, smiling, ignoring the insults. Eventually, even Mother Theresa would have snapped.

I had to fly because I was due in at work the next day and I didn't have any sick leave, not to mention not knowing anyone in Miami, or how to get to the hospital and not having the cash on hand to deal with what might be a protracted illness in a strange city. Oh, and I didn't have medical insurance either.

I wasn't expecting the lady to solve all my problem, but I'm sorry, if someone walks up to you anyway, anytime, and says they're sick and they need a doctor *YOU DO NOT FUCKING WALK AWAY FROM THEM*. You pick up the goddamn phone and do something about it. It doesn't matter if you're on the job or not. Do they real need special training at US AIR to cover common fucking courtesy? (Apparently from your response, they do.)

And I don't have a problem with the flight attendant asking me to sit down because the plane was going to take off. I have a problem with her not even asking the men by the bathroom to reconsider moving after the plane took off. I've seen them hustle people off to make room for babies. I've even seen them snapping at people who refused to do so. So would it have been the end of the world for her to ask around a bit and try to help me out? Or check how I was doing once during the entire damn flight? Or offered me some Pepto-Bismal? I know they keep drugs on flight for quesiness and nauseau. I would have taken anything at that point.

I'm not blaming the airline because I was sick, or because I didn't have my medicine. I am blaming the grotesque negligence of the employee who turned her back and walked away when I told her I needed a doctor. What if I had died in the airport? Do you really think that your airline would not have been open to a MAJOR friggin' lawsuit?

Thanks for reminding me why I never fly US Air.

are inconsiderate enough to die at an airport. And you know what? It's generally not the fault of the airline. At least I've never heard of an airline getting sued for that.

Look, I'm sorry you were sick. I'm sorry you forgot your medication. I'm sorry the two guys in the aisle seats near the restroom wouldn't move, and that there were no other aisle seats any nearer that you could have requested someone trade places with you. I'm sorry the USAir employee was rude to you. I'm gratified to know that all other airline employees have been kind and gracious to you over the years.

But consider this: If USAir goes out of business, maybe, by some horrible stroke of fate, some former USAir employee will get hired by another airline, and then, oh dear! It will be the end of all those other airlines, won't it?

Get over yourself. You were sick, you had a miserable experience, you survived. Next time, don't forget your medication.

And don't bother snapping back about how you didn't intend to forget it. Passengers constantly do totally stupid things, like checking medicine they absolutely must have with them because they take it every three or four hours, and then blaming us for losing their luggage. Granted, luggage ought never to go astray, but only an idiot puts necessary meds in checked luggage.

Poor Sheila... all those nasty inconsiderate passengers dropping dead right in front of you. I wish they had the common courtesy and responsibility to plan ahead for ruptured appendices, strokes, heart attacks, etc.

Here's a news flash- in states with Good Samaritan laws you are legally obligated to help someone who is obviously in need and asks for your help. And it's a sad commentary on our times that we need such laws in the first place. Hell, if she'd pointed me to the taxi stand I would have been satisfied.

Maybe those employees will get jobs at other airlines, and maybe they'll get some minimal training in customer service (or hell, Basic Human Decency 101). Sounds like you could use some yourself.

If not, I guess those airlines will eventually go under. I certainly refuse to waste my money on a company where the employees treat me like shit. That's Economics 101. And judging from other posts on this thread it wasn't the isolated incident you like to think it was.

It sounds to me like you've been doing your job too long and you don't like it that much anyway. So hey, here's a chance to get a job you do like and that doesn't suck away your capacity for compassion.

there's the old USAir attitude!

everyone forgets that the airlines were all predicting bankruptcy before 9/11 happened. Bad economic model, apparently, depending on government support.

Scrap 'em and put in some good high speed rail systems.

at one of the majors, I just love reading the outsider's analysis of our industry...

and the way things are going i dont think ill ever get my job back :(

See my message 166. Amazing that aome people don't care about 20,000 jobs all of a sudden here!

has expressed any happiness over the loss of jobs. Everybody has been properly sympathetic.

But to what degree must our sympathy go? Must we favor a federal bailout for all companies so that nobody ever loses a job? That's silly.

Everything that has happened since de-regulation was predicted by those who opposed de-regulation.

Air service used to be reasonably priced, efficient, and served smaller cities which benefited greatly from having air service. Seats had more space, food was tolerable (yeah, they actually had food back then on domestic flights), there were youth fares for students and the elderly. There were no "gotcha" fares for people who had to book a flight at the last minute.

Can we all now please just accept that this "free market worship" is missplaced and that reasonable government regulation of critical infrastructure is important and useful?

That is what a national airline would be like. Absolutely no employee incentives to perform well. If you took the previously regulated fares and adjusted them for inflation, you would be appallled at how much air fare would be today.

Also, seems to be a fairly two-dimensional view of econmics. One reason why Amtrak suffers is that the demand just isn't there.

The airlines, even if nationalized (which, btw, i don't support, but do support re-regulating), wouldn't suffer the same fate, because the demand for air travel is driven by the speed (short travel times) possible.

Train travel has declined for any route of reasonable distance because there is no comparison in travel times. So, the airlines themselves are far more responsible for the decline in Amtrak than is the nationalization.

If Amtrak had a level of travel demand comparable to the airlines, the operation would be more efficient, simply because the same amount of effort is needed to completely fill 20 cars as to partially fill 8. The economies of scale would lower ticket prices, improve service, and incentivize employees because they wouldn't constantly be worried if this next trip will be their last.

Your comparing pineapples to tombstones with your analogy.
The Professor

Air Canada was a protected, regulated Crown corporation until the late 1980s. When the federal government first created the airline in 1937, their first action was to deny operating permits to three private regional carriers and put friends of cabinet ministers on the company's board. Until the early 1970s it was illegal for AC's competitors to operate more than one transcontinetal flight per day, and they had to notify the government 90 days in advance if they intended to reduce fares. The government had the power to nix fare cuts and even order fare increases. Discount flights with private carriers had to be booked 60 days in advance and were only permitted as part of a vacation package. Fares were high and service was abysmal.

Still not sure i buy it. The corruption you describe happens in private industry, too, and so does nepotism. The biggest problem with this case seems to be corrupt leadership.

Now, i'll grant you your abysmal service. I didn't fly Air Canada in the 70's or before. Since i first flew it to Toronto, it has been fine. BUt, i'm not sure if that started regularly in 1987 or 1988. Maybe it had been privatized by then.

My only real disagreement comes from the causation you imply. I realize you gave just the short form story, but i don't see anything there that creates a causal link between being nationalized and providing bad service. It may haev just been that management just didn't know how to run an airline, and competition wouldn't have improved their service, merely put them out of business. Once again, that's not causally related to being a Crown corportion.

But, thanks, that was a better example.
The Professor

Train travel is bad because the demand isn't there? I got news for you--no one travels on trains because they're awful. They're awful because they've been shamefully neglected. In countries with decent train service they're very popular even for long-distance travel. Here, they were deliberately let go to hell and then taken out of service with the excuse that "No one want to travel on trains."

The cash flow is not there to allow continuous upgrade of service because the demand is not there.

When passenger train service first hit hard times (mid-60's) the quality of air travel wasn't first class in any way. But, people demanded every bit of the supply because IT WAS FAST!

Once jets became the standard for commercial travel, trains couldn't compete.

I think you've got the cause and the effect backward.

Train travel is awful, now, because the demand is so low that there is no solid cash flow. The demand isn't down because it's awful. It's awful because not enough people want it to sustain ongoing improvements.

I don't buy your "deliberately" argument. My friend used to work for Santa Fe. He would disagree with you too! The trains were still VERY nice and a good way to travel when he noticed that on long hauls THERE WAS NOBODY ON THE TRAIN!

I've been on trains all over Europe. You're right that they are very nice. But, remember, there are few trips in Europe over 1000 miles. And, if you've ever been to Orly in Paris, or Linate in Milan, there are short haul flights to cities all around Europe taking off and landing every minute.

Fuel efficiency is, however, much better on electric trains, and their cost of jet fuel is so high, that there is a cost impediment for air travel to efficiently compete (on price) with trains.

Hence, the train demand never fell. The cash flow was stable and solid, and improvements kept moving forward.

Is that clearer that the first post?
The Professor