Jetblue/AA bid for UAIR Shuttle

[General Lee]

Speedbird,

But the Long Beach analogy is not the proper one. LGA actually is slot restricted for a reason---actual traffic. LGB has a noise ordinence. You will have fun along with the rest of us at LGA, sitting for an hour to cross runway 4 just to taxi to 13, and wait for all of the landing traffic on 22. It really is fun, but it does give you another NYC airport, which is better for convienence to Manhattan.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[lowecur]

I've only been to LGA a few times, but it seems to me there are an awful lot of small regional props. Are these slot exempt? I would bet LGA could clean up quite a bit of backlog if they would limit the 8-10 of these flights per day from the small/medium markets. I know the DOT wants to keep these smaller markets viable, but frequency is not the answer.

Plugging in 3 or 4 CRJ700-900 or the E-series would probably do wonders to relieve the overcrowding. Of course raising landing fees would be another alternative for limiting frequency. How the heck does a 767 use a 7000' runway? Geesse!!!

 

[OakRBust]

Congratulations Low...

I didn't know that you had the term CRJ in your vocabulary!!!

 

[lowecur]

oak

I can type it, but I can't say it.

 

[dlredline]

Re: Re: USAirways "Triggering" Event

News flash for y'all. TWA's union contracts had lot's of protections in 'em and AA was able to get around them pretty easily. True, they used the bankruptcy court as ammunition, but who's to say anthother Chap 11 isn't in U's future? We live in a pro-business, anti-labor environment. I suspect a few union contracts won't get in the way of important business.

Dude

Excellent point, Dude. The difference between TWA and the plight of USAirways is contained in the covenance language of the ATSB government loan backing. A second filing of Chapter 11 by USAirways would render them in default of the loan convenance, and therefore is not an option.

I disagree with some who've suggested that retaining Morgan Stanley to investigate an asset sale is a "ploy" to get ALPA back to the concession stand (though it did work, didn't it?). The announcement alone has sent revenues down as passengers bail from "troubled" USAirways, not the smartest business move if this were a ploy (though stupid business moves are the norm for USAirways). I believe the asset sale is real, and perhaps their only alternative at this stage, though akin to "burning the furniture to save the house".

And I agree with you that any labor contract these days offers little impediment to the sale of the Shuttle. U's MEC has yet to show the backbone necessary to instill confidence from it's troops (no-furlough, scope, and retirement all gone). But it looks like the point is moot here. ALPA will not have a say in where U's pilots go if/when the Shuttle is sold, their own contractual language shows that.

Red

 

[G4G5]

What's in it for us?

That's a phrase that the mgt at DAL and AA are going to be hearing from all of their labor groups. I know at AA the pilots group would be hard pressed to add USAir pilots with 2,500 AA pilots out on the street. I would venture to guess that the FA's, Tech's, gate agents, baggage folks, yada yada all feel the same way. From what I have read on the union web page their are a few folks asking, why again did we give back the contract concessions? Not to purchase assets and then take the employees. How about just saying, "No" and offering to take care of your own?

This is a tremendous difference between today and when AA purchased TWA. Their were no DAL/AA pilots out on the street back then.

Since neither airline would be intrested in USAir's A320's. The odds are that USAir will keep them. This is probably something that appeals to Siegle. He was floating around the possiblilty of a 60 airbus purchase last week. I would guess that no equipment changes hands. Which would make it even harder for ALPA.

The other big difference is AA is not ALPA. The pilots of AA have their own contract language for intergration. IMHO, Neeleman would take care of his pilot group.

What happens if 19% is sold to more then one airline. I wonder if the 20% is cumulative?

 

[jointops]

What are the chances US Air "leaked" this info and falsely included airlines not even interested in order to start the bidding war?

Especially since our management at B6 just sent an e-mail to the employee groups stating that if/when they made those decisions the employee groups would be notified and not read about it first. That any mention of us at this point is pure specualtion.

Having been furloughed from US Air, I thought it interesting our name (B6) was thrown into the mix. Especially since management came out with a counter offensive e-mail.

Man, back to the expressway visual after finally recovering from all those delays from LGA.

Happy lanidngs

 

[C77MD80]

What's in it for us?

That seems to be a question asked a lot from the AMR types.

This is a tremendous difference between today and when AA purchased TWA. Their were no DAL/AA pilots out on the street back then.

The pilots on the street are just that, pilots on the street. APA doesn't give two hoots about them and they go back to the above question.

I know at AA the pilots group would be hard pressed to add USAir pilots with 2,500 AA pilots out on the street.

See below

The other big difference is AA is not ALPA.

and staple as usual.......

Not to purchase assets and take the employees.

You always staple the majority, percentage wise you do much better in the end, how does this hurt you guys at AMR?