USAir (3 threads combined)

[hdawson]

Bicker says it best. It is not government's responsibility to subsidize a failing business. Businesses come and businesses go. Currently the bankruptcy courts are facilitating insolvent airlines to cut labor and pension costs which further weakens the the fair competition in the market place. And of course as pensions are abandoned by the airlines, the government pension gauranty agency is having to pick up the tab and that agency is now in the red.

[turtlemichael]

I did miss the point. What is being promoted here is an argument that government has no role in the market. A free trade argument. That's a point of view, but some people have a different point of view. Without getting into a flaming or political argument, governments do play a role. Just look outside the air industry at manufacturing and agriculture in the US. The level of subsidy is astronomical and inefficient manufacturers and farmers are being propped up to the disadvantage of primarliy non-American ones who are more competitive. And it is not solely because of cheaper labor costs. It often has as much to do with greater efficiency.

I am not decrying that. A government's responsibility is to its own electorate and in the cold modern world no free enterprise government is going to be too worried about the effect of its policies a million miles away. It may think that having its own people in work is better than having them out of work. That has a cost. In the case of the air industry the price is deviation from the steel-faced Thatcherite economics being promoted here.

Eventually the market will win out and the inefficient will disappear. Even then the taxpayer will pick up the tab through unemployment benefits etc and in all sorts of other less direct but socially harmful ways. If, in the meantime, people are employed and, more selfishly, there are cheap airfares around, I for one do not think that is necessarily such a bad thing. The taxpayer will pay one way or the other.

[bUU]

I don't think anyone is saying that government should have "no" role in the market. Rather, that government has taken[b] too heavy[/b] a hand in this market, [b]with this action[/b], to [b]deterious effect[/b]. No question that it's a fiscally conservative point-of-view, as mentioned above, but one that has served business well for generations.

[i]Off to Florida for a few days..[/i]

[Globaliser]

[quote name='turtlemichael']Eventually the market will win out and the inefficient will disappear. Even then the taxpayer will pick up the tab through unemployment benefits etc and in all sorts of other less direct but socially harmful ways. If, in the meantime, people are employed and, more selfishly, there are cheap airfares around, I for one do not think that is necessarily such a bad thing. The taxpayer will pay one way or the other.[/QUOTE]You might try to see what reaction you get fropm employees of the airlines which have been financially and operationally prudent, and who have in some cases taken bigger personal hits earlier in order to keep their own companies on the financial straight and narrow.

Their jobs and pay now remain at risk because some defunct carriers are being kept alive artificially by the misuse of mechanisms like Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. I'm sure that those people would rather that their own sacrifices had been rewarded with the demise of the "bad" carriers and the stronger position of their own "good" companies, which is what they intended when they agreed to take the pain. I'd be surprised if they thought that this is a good thing.

[turtlemichael]

[quote name='Globaliser']I'm sure that those people would rather that their own sacrifices had been rewarded with the demise of the "bad" carriers and the stronger position of their own "good" companies, which is what they intended when they agreed to take the pain. I'd be surprised if they thought that this is a good thing.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you are right that the "good" companies, whoever they are, would not be pleased. But then they do not have to tell their thousands of employees they are on the scrap heap through no fault other than bad management and a unfettered regulatory environment.

And what is the misuse of Chapter 11? It was designed to allow struggling companies to restructure, using government assistence if it is available and any other means at their disposal, so they can eventually trade out of their situation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But even very conservative governments accept that there is a social responsibility to try to keep people employed. How far you go depends on how important it is to you.

That ends my participation in this discussion. Can't add anything else but I thought it worthwhile to state that not everyone shares the approach being demonstated by some in this forum. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Globaliser]

I'm sure you are right that the "good" companies, whoever they are, would not be pleased. But then they do not have to tell their thousands of employees they are on the scrap heap through no fault other than bad management and a unfettered regulatory environment.

 

And what is the misuse of Chapter 11? It was designed to allow struggling companies to restructure, using government assistence if it is available and any other means at their disposal, so they can eventually trade out of their situation. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But even very conservative governments accept that there is a social responsibility to try to keep people employed. How far you go depends on how important it is to you.

If there are 5 airlines, each with 10,000 employees, but only enough business for 4 of them at their current size, is it better that the four healthy and well-managed airlines (and their employees) should suffer while the fifth airline is artificially propped up?

 

Eventually, 10,000 jobs are going to go. It ought to be the 10,000 jobs at the airline which ought to be dead. Better that that happens when it ought to happen, than the process being dragged out with uncertainty for 50,000 employees and then a more random cull of jobs across all five airlines. Trying to protect the jobs at the dead airline just for the sake of protecting jobs is just rampant socialism of the kind utterly discredited in the 1980s.

 

As for the misuse of Chapter 11, take for example United Airlines. This is a company which has been unable to meet its contractual commitments since December 2002, has repeatedly failed to get any restructuring plans off the ground, and has just announced its latest projected date for emergence from bankruptcy protection as October 2005. This is a company which ought in any rational world to be dead, dead, dead - instead of being allowed to struggle on to:-

1. Distort every market in which it operates;
2. Jeopardise the health of every better-managed company that competes against it in any market; and
3. Put at risk the job of every employee in each of those better-managed companies.

[hdawson]

turtlemichael. I hope you know that we appreciate your opinions. Those thoughts are constructive to the subject. Personally, I'm not automatically against government aid to struggling companys. Example: Chrysler many yrs ago facing shut down or government gauranteed loans. It's a matter of proving that the company can be turned around and the loans backed by the taxpayer being paid back. The loans were in fact paid back in half the time allowed. I guess it should be a matter of viability. I don't believe government aid should be used to support or subsidize employee pay scales that are excessive to the industry prevailing wage. Of course industry over-capacity is another valid consideration. BTW generally our unemployment benefits last 26 weeks; not years and is available due to employer paid unemployment taxes.

[MR.B]

It's time for one or two majors to shut down and end the price wars.

KILL'EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT'EM OUT!?

I THINK WE'LL JUST (RELAX) AND ENJOY THE LOW LOW LOW FARES! $$$$$ (EVERY CLOUD HAS ITS SILVER LINING) "GET OUT THERE" NUF SAID!

[turtlemichael]

Globaliser: Ah, the purity of the market. How could I have missed it? Here I was worried about people's jobs because they happen to work for "bad" companies. How liberal of me.

 

Don't worry hdawson, I have a very thick skin as distinct from, I hope, being very thick! If any of us had all the answers it would be easy.

 

That is definitely my last word but I'll continue to chuckle at you rationalists.

[Globaliser]

Here I was worried about people's jobs because they happen to work for "bad" companies. How liberal of me.

You didn't happen to work for AN, did you? ;)

 

hdawson makes the valid distinction between companies that, with a bit of help, might get going again, and those which are just moribund (in the strict sense of that word). The various troubled US airlines are in the latter situation. The unneeded and excess jobs are going to vanish anyway. Worrying about them isn't going to change anything. And propping up dead companies just to keep some people in work a bit longer just damages everyone else in the long run.

 

A liberal view? No, I'm afraid it's just an outdated and totally debunked socialist one.

[SoCalCruiseguy]

I think one of the biggest problems with the airline industry as a whole was that the industry had the ABSOLUTE worst business model that no other company in the country could ever sustain itself by! As much bashing as we sometimes direct towards Southwest Airlines, they (and the emmulators) are the airline(s) that broke the back of the "majors" and are the reason that fares are so low to most markets today. I think over the years the major airlines have inappropriately used bankruptcy laws as a a strategic financial tool instead of the last chance life rope to enable the companies to get their house in order. So as they say, you reap what you sow.

 

I disagree with those that assert that the general overall problem is overcapacity. If that were the case then airlines like Southwest, Air Tran, Jet Blue and Independence Air would not be adding cities and flights on a near daily basis. No, ignorance, poor management, poor decisions and a healthy dose of unworkable labor agreements have put the once mighty airlines like US AIR, United and Delta on the ropes, not over capacity and the price of gas.

 

After 9/11 when Congress all of a sudden found an opportune time to pump BILLIONS of dollars into airlines that were failing in a big way long before 9/11, I wondered where our transportation system would be if we were willing to invest a fraction of that amount into alternatives like bullet train or maglev train technology. As it is, our train infrastructure compared to that found in Europe and Asia is akin to a Mercedes and a stagecoach and can only be described as a complete disgrace.

 

So do I like the idea of 10, 20, 40,000 people losing their jobs? No, but I think those people and society in general in the end, are better off if capitalism is left to its own devises without the intervention of government who often make matters worse than better even when there is genuine intent to do something good. But then again, the real people keeping these airlines afloat are the big investors like pension funds, the aircraft leasing companies etc.

 

As far as everyone who might have US Air or even United tickets and a need to catch a cruise, I think the suggestion to buy backup tickets is sound. Any of the airlines I mentioned earlier in this posting would fit the bill. In fact, I was surprised to find out firsthand that even if you buy Southwests most discounted fares like their Internet and Fun Fares, they are not "refundable" BUT, the entire ticket amount(s) can be used for a future flight WITHOUT penalty, change or reissue fee! In fact, if you purchased three tickets in 3 different names and did not use the tickets, you can even apply those combined ticket amounts towards one or more tickets later (within a year). Really is a slick system.

 

Finally, I agree with the notion that although both US Air and United are bankrupt, I also agree that United is just a nose ahead of US Air in viability. Therefore, for those of you who live in cities where the best or most realistic airline connections to your port are via US Air, I would seriously consider checking one of the airline ticketing services. Often United will market tickets on MANY flights that are operated by US AIR. They are just code shared flights. Funny thing is, booking the same flight with United vice US Air is often cheaper???? (that business model thing again I guess). Anyway, if you went the route of booking the flight on United, even though its a US Air flight and you can get it from them as well, if US Air goes belly up, United owns the ticket and would HAVE to reaccomodate you without charge. You could also plan to arrive a day earlier. Might want to give this serious thought because although I hope it does not happen, IF US Air closes its doors permanently, it WILL happen quickly and without notice! Don't let it ruin your vacation!

 

George

 

 

PS- I read in one of my travel magazines that Southwest may/will be going to assigned seats early in 2006 for whatever thats worth.

[turtlemichael]

You didn't happen to work for AN, did you?

 

A liberal view? No, I'm afraid it's just an outdated and totally debunked socialist one.

 

You are giving me things to respond to! Stop it!

 

Didn't work for Ansett, or any airline, but lost a few FF points there! I ran a successful business and didn't have to "de-employ" anyone.

 

We unfortunately do not have a replica of Chapter 11 protection in this country - not that that that would have saved Ansett but it possibly would have allowed a more orderly market change so that Qantas did not become all dominant so quickly.

 

As to having debunked socialist views I am happy to wear that badge. I dont regard it as any sort of insult. But if someone said I had Maggie Thatcher's economic and social views, that would be insulting. Everything is cyclical. Just try a bit, even rationaists can show a bit of compassion now and then. Thats all I was doing. ;)

[JandD Mom]

Hey everyone,

 

We flew back to Philly from our cruise this Sunday, the day after the big snowstorm. We left FLL at 11:54 am, 1 minute earlier than our scheduled time. We actually would have arrived early into PHL, but when we landed, there was no gate for us, so we had to wait 20 minutes or so on a taxiway while a gate opened.

 

We feel it was a miracle we got in within 1/2 hour of our scheduled time. It was enough time for my brother to get into a taxi and get over the the Linc to watch the Eagles win the Championship. How did this all happen?

 

We flew Airtran. This did not happen to most people flying USAIr. In fact, FLL was full of Irate passengers who arrived at the airport only to find that their USAir flights had been cancelled (they are in the same terminal as Airtran in FLL). While we were there, about 1/2 of the USAIr flights on the board had been cancelled. The reason given was that there were baggage problems in PHL.

 

Today we heard on the news that there were indeed baggage problems. The equipment they use was frozen. Also, due to the weather, many baggage handlers could not get to work. In my opinion, it was due to the Eagles game that many people could not get into work. Why is it that other airlines operated to and from PHL that day without frozen baggage equipment? Why was it baggage handlers from other airlines were able to show up?

 

If you remember my messages, we actually cancelled our USAIr flights to and from FLL for our cruise and ate the cancellation penalty because we were afraid the baggage problems would affect us. I am glad we did it.

 

I am glad I am not flying into PHL on superbowl Sunday on USAir. Who knows if anyone will show up for work that day.

[hdawson]

AirTran just announced a two day sale for certain markets beginning Tue the 25th.

[Globaliser]

We unfortunately do not have a replica of Chapter 11 protection in this country - not that that that would have saved Ansett but it possibly would have allowed a more orderly market change so that Qantas did not become all dominant so quickly.

 

As to having debunked socialist views I am happy to wear that badge. I dont regard it as any sort of insult. But if someone said I had Maggie Thatcher's economic and social views, that would be insulting. Everything is cyclical. Just try a bit, even rationaists can show a bit of compassion now and then. Thats all I was doing. ;)

No, I understand - it wasn't anything personal. I was only debating points of view, and as hdawson says, we're all entitled to those. I myself have friends who work for US Airways, so I know the personal consequences of market forces all too well.

 

As far as AN was concerned, I would have said that the process was exactly what a Chapter 11 process ought to deliver: breathing space (about 6 months, IIRC) for the company to try to restructure itself into a viable entity. AN wasn't viable and would never again be viable - and so down the tubes it went.

 

Although QF ended up being highly dominant for a while, they recognised that it wouldn't last and it hasn't. You've now got a vibrant industry in which all the major participants are healthy and vigorous. QF has had to respond to real competition from DJ in the lower reaches of the market, and has done so with major changes (whether or not they will work for the company in the long term).

 

But just imagine what it would have been like if AN had been kept artificially alive for years, like UA has been. QF would have remained as inefficient and unresponsive as they used to be in the duopoly years. DJ's growth would have been constrained by AN's capacity, so bringing the benefits of their model to fewer markets. And more than likely, everyone would have been hurt by the over-capacity, as both AN and QF would have been able to snipe at DJ's market sector by dumping cheap seats.

[Christina1003]

As much as I would like to agree with you, any person to go out in that snow on Sunday was insane. The city of Philadelphia made hardly any progress with cleaning the roads from the snow storm.

 

Driving down I-95 to drop off a friend led me to do a doughnut in the middle of the highway.

 

I don't care what your job is - unless it is for a emergency team (medical, fire, police) anyone that would risk their life to go to work is stupid.

 

No, the Eagles didnt help any I'm sure. But the reason the other airlines didn't have problems is because they're not dealing with the already short staff that US Air is. When you have 10 employees and only 2 call out, you're still fine. But when you have only 4 employees and only 2 call out, you're screwed.

 

 

Hey everyone,

 

We flew back to Philly from our cruise this Sunday, the day after the big snowstorm. We left FLL at 11:54 am, 1 minute earlier than our scheduled time. We actually would have arrived early into PHL, but when we landed, there was no gate for us, so we had to wait 20 minutes or so on a taxiway while a gate opened.

 

We feel it was a miracle we got in within 1/2 hour of our scheduled time. It was enough time for my brother to get into a taxi and get over the the Linc to watch the Eagles win the Championship. How did this all happen?

 

We flew Airtran. This did not happen to most people flying USAIr. In fact, FLL was full of Irate passengers who arrived at the airport only to find that their USAir flights had been cancelled (they are in the same terminal as Airtran in FLL). While we were there, about 1/2 of the USAIr flights on the board had been cancelled. The reason given was that there were baggage problems in PHL.

 

Today we heard on the news that there were indeed baggage problems. The equipment they use was frozen. Also, due to the weather, many baggage handlers could not get to work. In my opinion, it was due to the Eagles game that many people could not get into work. Why is it that other airlines operated to and from PHL that day without frozen baggage equipment? Why was it baggage handlers from other airlines were able to show up?

 

If you remember my messages, we actually cancelled our USAIr flights to and from FLL for our cruise and ate the cancellation penalty because we were afraid the baggage problems would affect us. I am glad we did it.

 

I am glad I am not flying into PHL on superbowl Sunday on USAir. Who knows if anyone will show up for work that day.

[ozcaz]

Hi All,

A few may remember from before xmas i was following us air as we had flights with them and where getting no feed back here in australia.

 

Well we were lucky that they were still flying but i am no doubt as to why this airline is going down the drain.

 

It was like a three ring circus. They appear to have very little organisation and i suppose in some ways i can understand employees lack of ethusasm but they are doing themselves no good.

 

We checked in only to be told the three of us would be seperated. Now this would not be a problem except for the fact we where travelling with a 12 year old. I like to know what he is up to. We where told to sort it out once we got to the gate. No help there. Got on spoke to the person at the door told we had good seats to get someone to swap sort it out your self. I was amazed to say the least.

 

We got to philly to find our plane had been delayed. Not a problem these things happen. Get on board and are told anyone who connected luggage would not be on as otherwise they couldnt leave as the pilots flight allowance time was nearly up. So no luggage.

 

Get to orlando fill in paperwork told we would have by 10:30am next morning. Given number to ring as well. We thought great how thoughtful. Got to midday no luggage so we rang the number answer machine telling us at that time our luggage had not been located. Know we had nothing. So we had to go and buy toothbrushes, clothes and even shoes as we where dressed to leave out of New York. We did not receive our luggage for three days. Luckily we had 10 days before our cruise. But what infuriated me was there was no customer service. We could not get hold of anyone who could help us just machines. To be in business you need to be efficent, effective and most importantly service driven. US Airways had none of these.

 

Flew south west and they where great and even flew United and so where they but US never again. Just totally useless.

 

They dont deserve to have funding let alone be in business.

 

Thats just my thoughts after our flight.

 

Caz

[cruisinfever]

We are flying on US Air on Friday from Manchester, NH. Has anyone heard

any recent problems? We also have backup tickets on Southwest.

[parody]

We are flying on US Air on Friday from Manchester, NH. Has anyone heard

any recent problems? We also have backup tickets on Southwest.

 

I don't think you will need to use your backup tickets on Southwest. According to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/business/05air.html

Two factors are helping keep US Airways aloft. It has a lifeline from the federal government, letting it use cash that it pledged to secure loan guarantees for operating costs over the next few months. And it has a taskmaster of sorts in GE Capital Aviation Services, which has set a strict timetable requiring the airline to leave bankruptcy protection by June 30.

[phlydude]

Any flight before June 30th is OK. The Eagles are done so the call outs in Philly won't be there unless it snows again. Philly has a very large low-pay public transportation dependent workforce.

 

As for after 6/30, we'll have to see although everything I read yesterday seems to be positive and the airline is getting to be known as "the airline that just won't die".

[sweetjem]

can anyone help me with this i have booked just last week on usair and was not sure of any of this always fly Airtran but could not get a early flight for cruise may 21 i'm really worried don't wnat to lose my money and not have a flight.

[phlydude]

US Air is guaranteed through 6/30 - don't worry if you fly before then. If you don't have to go through Philly, your bags should be fine as well. If you connect in Philly, bagage transfers have been slow and that can affect whether your bags arrive with you or after you.

[Christina1003]

As I get closer to our cruise, I get more and more worried about our flight with US Air. We booked the next to last flight out for May 7th (the 9:!5, instead of the 10:15 / 10:45 whatever it was).

 

I just don't want to get a cancellation and then wind up spending our wedding night on the seats at the airport. :confused:

 

Has anyone ever experienced this - cancellations of late night flights during normal season? I know it's Mother's Day weekend, but I don't think that should affect it.

 

And, in the matter if they do cancel it - what happens then? Do they put me on another flight? What if there is none available? Do they turn to another carrier? Do they put us up for the night? (Yeah, right!).

[TravelingDi]

Christina - I don't think that you need to worry. Flights have pretty normal lately and USAir is pretty much ok through 6-30. However, normal means that there is always a chance of a cancellation and the time of day doesn't really make too much difference. Flights can be canceled for a number of reasons and some are out of the airlines control.

 

If your flight is canceled, yes they put you on another flight. It could be theirs or another airline. If all else fails, there is a good chance that yes, they will put you up for the night.

[SoCalCruiseguy]

Just read in todays paper where Air Wisconsin, one of their regional affiliates had given USAIR something like $150M to use towards exiting bankruptcy which is about half of what they need. Maybe things are taking a turn for the better for them