Air Wisconsin
08-30-2014, 07:26 PM
#762
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: If I tell you, I'd have to kill you
Posts: 292
The contract with US ends sometime in 2015. It could possibly be extended but from what has been floating around it would only be for something like 25-30 of their CRJ-200's and the rate structure would have to be much lower then it currently is. Airways has not been happy with ZW for years and at one point had looked to end the contract outright, but there were 2 things that didn't benefit them (US), 1 being they had no replacement to fly all of the routes that would be available and the other was a financial penalty for ending the contract early. So US has been basically stuck with them. There still is the possibility that ZW will continue to fly for US/AA for years to come but it would be in no way as large of an operation like it is today (71 a/c) and as always its all about the mighty $$$, if someone can do it cheaper the flying becomes theirs. Will be interesting to see what happens.
What's your source for this? I'm sure the future has been decided already. It'd be good to know
08-30-2014, 07:32 PM
#763
patience
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,068
The contract with US ends sometime in 2015. It could possibly be extended but from what has been floating around it would only be for something like 25-30 of their CRJ-200's and the rate structure would have to be much lower then it currently is. Airways has not been happy with ZW for years and at one point had looked to end the contract outright, but there were 2 things that didn't benefit them (US), 1 being they had no replacement to fly all of the routes that would be available and the other was a financial penalty for ending the contract early. So US has been basically stuck with them. There still is the possibility that ZW will continue to fly for US/AA for years to come but it would be in no way as large of an operation like it is today (71 a/c) and as always its all about the mighty $$$, if someone can do it cheaper the flying becomes theirs. Will be interesting to see what happens.
08-31-2014, 06:04 AM
#765
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 547
This assertion is largely BS...but if folks are going to continue to keep restating this inaccurate rumor...its important to keep restating some known facts. I don't carry anyone's water or kool-aid on this forum, but I care about reports of AWAC's demise that are at best premature.
AWAC has twice financially bailed out Airways since 2005.
If you want to talk performance...I have plenty of reliable sources that says AWAC is a top feeder for Airways...if they are unhappy with them it is because of the terms of the contract. I'm sure the JSA Airways signed, under financial duress, was not the best...AWAC has been making tons of money off of this.
Its been said over and over on this thread; Airways keeps coming to AWAC to take more flying because their other feeders can't staff the flying assigned to them.
The incentives in the contract with Airways has been met and so flying will continue through 2017.
08-31-2014, 06:24 PM
#766
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Position: A320 - F/O
Posts: 60
Continue through 2017? Last bit of information I got, and that was directly from K.H., was that if ZW was going to continue to fly for US/AA past 2015 it would be in a reduced role and the remaining operation would most likely go from CLT, DCA & PHL to ORD, after all the adjustments are made to the regional side. Their performance has been horrible, although it has improved a bit over the past few months, its still not where it needs to be when it comes to on-time performance and the daily maintenance issues are out of control. They are a top feeder only because of the amount of flights that they are scheduled to fly but watch how that drops as soon as more 900's and 175's come on-line. They got to keep the flying in-house with the wholly owned operators and stop giving it to the Mesa's, Trans States, Air Wisconsin's and others who keep ruining the US/AA name. Bailed US out twice? I only remember the 125mil that they put on the table to help US and to secure flying after UA kicked them to the curb as they really had no other option.
08-31-2014, 07:35 PM
#767
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2013
Posts: 38
Wow...that's pretty good! You missed your calling...you should have been a lobbyist in DC! ...still waiting on those facts though. You only "remember the 125 million?" Hmmm...maybe you should do some digging and come back with facts again...your memory is not serving you that well. Of course if you believe all that "information" you're getting you probably won't dig too deep, you'll only find info that suits you.
08-31-2014, 09:17 PM
#769
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: (In class)
Posts: 75
Here is a link to an arctic about the second load.... Bloomberg too. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aYmerhJmXt.A
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
08-31-2014, 10:41 PM
#770
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 547
Continue through 2017? Last bit of information I got, and that was directly from K.H., was that if ZW was going to continue to fly for US/AA past 2015 it would be in a reduced role and the remaining operation would most likely go from CLT, DCA & PHL to ORD, after all the adjustments are made to the regional side. Their performance has been horrible, although it has improved a bit over the past few months, its still not where it needs to be when it comes to on-time performance and the daily maintenance issues are out of control. They are a top feeder only because of the amount of flights that they are scheduled to fly but watch how that drops as soon as more 900's and 175's come on-line. They got to keep the flying in-house with the wholly owned operators and stop giving it to the Mesa's, Trans States, Air Wisconsin's and others who keep ruining the US/AA name. Bailed US out twice? I only remember the 125mil that they put on the table to help US and to secure flying after UA kicked them to the curb as they really had no other option.
Oh I see...its the FFD airlines that are giving AA a bad name. So all of the wholly-owneds are great because they are wholly-owned...it is more like this: An airline is really only as good as it's ground handling. If you want to see where the operation often fails, look to what happens once we are blocked at the gate at the hubs. If you want another example, look at ORD...no airline is immune to bad ground handling.
You need to find a better reason other than contract vs. wholly owned
50 seaters are decreasing...but there is still lots of flying to go around because all the pretty new E-175s and 900s still do not make economic sense at many of the current airways markets. These aircraft may make many routes more efficient but they will drag down others if this is the ultimate solution. Also you still have to have pilots to staff all these airplanes that are coming on line...how is that going?
Does AWAC want to fly bigger planes? Duh! But there is a reason they have been in business for 49 years (without a bankruptcy). It is an uneasy feeling for us here of course...but only because of the lack of info...not due to your flawed reasoning. Talk to your guy again...that rumor you are trading on is at least a year old.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
