Nic ...
#151
#152
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 405
The Republic | azcentral.com
Sun Feb 9, 2014 9:54 AM
Sky Harbor is still nearly 2 million passengers below the record level of 42.2 million passengers set in 2007, before the recession hit.
#153
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
#154
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
From 2007 article:
This is what the vast majority of east pilots set out to do and fully supported, this is the truth. The east walked out on purpose, the east caused all the harm, period.
Full article:
Angry pilots at US Airways near vote on union ouster - ABC News
A group of disgruntled Usairways pilots says its close
To forcing a vote to choose a new union and stall contract negotiations with the carrier indefinitely[
To forcing a vote to choose a new union and stall contract negotiations with the carrier indefinitely[
Full article:
Angry pilots at US Airways near vote on union ouster - ABC News
Last edited by cactiboss; 09-11-2014 at 08:23 PM.
#156
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Here's another little gem from 2007
The Tempe, Ariz.-based airline has struggled to merge its pilot groups following America West Airlines' acquisition of the former US Airways in 2005. Pilots from both carriers have been trying to hammer out a joint contract, but those who were with the original US Airways recently walked away from the negotiating table, demanding immediate pay raises before they return.
#157
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
Those were the facts in 2005 as testified to by experts and backed by public filings. Everything that happened after the 2005 merger is because of the merger not in spite of it as you like to believe.
Awa 1q 2005
America West Reports First Quarter Results 20.04.2005 | Nachricht | finanzen.net
Usairways 1q 2005
A Tough Quarter for US Airways (washingtonpost.com)
Facts, something easties don't believe in.
Awa 1q 2005
America West Reports First Quarter Results 20.04.2005 | Nachricht | finanzen.net
Usairways 1q 2005
A Tough Quarter for US Airways (washingtonpost.com)
Facts, something easties don't believe in.
Do you ever listen? I said both airlines needed the merger, but you guys think you were working for SWA or something. You weren't, we were both also rans, we both needed the merger, so one side shouldn't have been given a windfall because of it.
You picked one quarter there. How about the whole year 2004? How about the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2005? What makes up the bulk of LUS? Which hubs are the most profitable?
Get those facts and we'll talk.
I'll get you started. From the 2004 AWA 10-K:
"In spite of these initiatives and others designed to increase revenue and productivity and reduce costs, we reported a net loss of $89.0 million in 2004 compared to net income of $57.4 million in 2003. The change in earnings was driven by a $181.1 million increase in fuel expense primarily due to a 39.1% increase in the average price per gallon of fuel. The 2003 results also included a nonoperating gain of $81.3 million related to federal government assistance recognized under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Capacity, as measured by available seat miles (ASMs), was up 8.1% as compared to 2003. Passenger revenues were up 3.9% to $2.2 billion for 2004 over 2003. Passenger revenue per available seat mile (RASM) fell 3.8% during 2004 to 7.29 cents versus 2003 primarily due to a 5.2% decline in yield, a 7.9% increase in aircraft utilization and a 4.7% increase in average stage length.
Total operating expenses were $2.4 billion, an increase of 6.7% from 2003. The average fuel price per gallon increased 39.1% to $1.24 during 2004. This, along with increased fuel burn due to increased flying during 2004, resulted in a 48.1% increase in fuel expenses in 2004 over 2003. In spite of the enormous increase in the cost of fuel, stringent cost controls enabled us to decrease unit costs by 1.3% during 2004 to 7.89 cents.
In spite of our diligent work to contain our costs, we believe revenues will continue to reflect the excess capacity that exists across the domestic system and fuel prices will remain at, or exceed, record highs. Given these conditions, we anticipate significant losses for full year 2005."
Last edited by R57 relay; 09-11-2014 at 10:26 PM.
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
I read both articles. It backs up what I read in the SEC filings and comments from the arbitration.
2005 US Airways was off to a bad start before the reverse acquisition. A $611 million loss and the need for $250 million from outside investors.
For the year, the airline's loss was $611 million
US Airways plans to emerge from its current bankruptcy proceedings by June 30. The airline recently obtained more than $1 billion in pay and benefit cuts from its workers. It also needs about $250 million from outside investors for exit financing
757 really? needs to check the facts before he posts his propaganda. He's got to know that people have access to the truth by clicking on it. He certainly is not credible.
2005 US Airways was off to a bad start before the reverse acquisition. A $611 million loss and the need for $250 million from outside investors.
For the year, the airline's loss was $611 million
US Airways plans to emerge from its current bankruptcy proceedings by June 30. The airline recently obtained more than $1 billion in pay and benefit cuts from its workers. It also needs about $250 million from outside investors for exit financing
757 really? needs to check the facts before he posts his propaganda. He's got to know that people have access to the truth by clicking on it. He certainly is not credible.
See the questions I posed to cacti. You are free to answer.
Here's another one for you. Would you like the same standards Nic applied to us applied to you. I mean, you guys were in chp11. Most of the airline world said that your management team was doing a lousy job and that their plan was doomed to fail. This merger is magically producing great numbers right after the closing, just like US/AW. Dang, imagine that. Should LUS pilots get extra credit for that? Let me help you-NO.
#160
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the rear.
Do you ever listen? I said both airlines needed the merger, but you guys think you were working for SWA or something. You weren't, we were both also rans, we both needed the merger, so one side shouldn't have been given a windfall because of it.
You picked one quarter there. How about the whole year 2004? How about the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2005? What makes up the bulk of LUS? Which hubs are the most profitable?
Get those facts and we'll talk.
I'll get you started. From the 2004 AWA 10-K:
"In spite of these initiatives and others designed to increase revenue and productivity and reduce costs, we reported a net loss of $89.0 million in 2004 compared to net income of $57.4 million in 2003. The change in earnings was driven by a $181.1 million increase in fuel expense primarily due to a 39.1% increase in the average price per gallon of fuel. The 2003 results also included a nonoperating gain of $81.3 million related to federal government assistance recognized under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Capacity, as measured by available seat miles (ASMs), was up 8.1% as compared to 2003. Passenger revenues were up 3.9% to $2.2 billion for 2004 over 2003. Passenger revenue per available seat mile (RASM) fell 3.8% during 2004 to 7.29 cents versus 2003 primarily due to a 5.2% decline in yield, a 7.9% increase in aircraft utilization and a 4.7% increase in average stage length.
Total operating expenses were $2.4 billion, an increase of 6.7% from 2003. The average fuel price per gallon increased 39.1% to $1.24 during 2004. This, along with increased fuel burn due to increased flying during 2004, resulted in a 48.1% increase in fuel expenses in 2004 over 2003. In spite of the enormous increase in the cost of fuel, stringent cost controls enabled us to decrease unit costs by 1.3% during 2004 to 7.89 cents.
In spite of our diligent work to contain our costs, we believe revenues will continue to reflect the excess capacity that exists across the domestic system and fuel prices will remain at, or exceed, record highs. Given these conditions, we anticipate significant losses for full year 2005."
Do you ever listen? I said both airlines needed the merger, but you guys think you were working for SWA or something. You weren't, we were both also rans, we both needed the merger, so one side shouldn't have been given a windfall because of it.
You picked one quarter there. How about the whole year 2004? How about the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2005? What makes up the bulk of LUS? Which hubs are the most profitable?
Get those facts and we'll talk.
I'll get you started. From the 2004 AWA 10-K:
"In spite of these initiatives and others designed to increase revenue and productivity and reduce costs, we reported a net loss of $89.0 million in 2004 compared to net income of $57.4 million in 2003. The change in earnings was driven by a $181.1 million increase in fuel expense primarily due to a 39.1% increase in the average price per gallon of fuel. The 2003 results also included a nonoperating gain of $81.3 million related to federal government assistance recognized under the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.
Capacity, as measured by available seat miles (ASMs), was up 8.1% as compared to 2003. Passenger revenues were up 3.9% to $2.2 billion for 2004 over 2003. Passenger revenue per available seat mile (RASM) fell 3.8% during 2004 to 7.29 cents versus 2003 primarily due to a 5.2% decline in yield, a 7.9% increase in aircraft utilization and a 4.7% increase in average stage length.
Total operating expenses were $2.4 billion, an increase of 6.7% from 2003. The average fuel price per gallon increased 39.1% to $1.24 during 2004. This, along with increased fuel burn due to increased flying during 2004, resulted in a 48.1% increase in fuel expenses in 2004 over 2003. In spite of the enormous increase in the cost of fuel, stringent cost controls enabled us to decrease unit costs by 1.3% during 2004 to 7.89 cents.
In spite of our diligent work to contain our costs, we believe revenues will continue to reflect the excess capacity that exists across the domestic system and fuel prices will remain at, or exceed, record highs. Given these conditions, we anticipate significant losses for full year 2005."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post