America West FlightFund (Pre-2005 US Airways merger) - AWA's purchase of US...People! Relax!

There is an awful lot of angst in these pages regarding this deal but there are still some hurdles that have to be jumped and the most difficult is definitely going to be the ones that the unions impose. But remember that those of you who feel that the sun rises and sets with AWA should remember that it's the present AWA management that's going to be running the show. Most of you seem to have a soft spot for this team, and I think that's great. I mean they certainly have put AWA into the black (or less red) than most airlines. If this dream (for many people) comes true, think of it like your favorite airline suddenly doubles-plus in size. Transatlantic routes are profitable, especially in the high season. Phoenix may get a hometown airline with non-stop flights to London and Frankfurt (to heck with BA and LH), as well as perhaps Munich and Paris. Major Canadian cities may get more non-stops into the southwest. China is becoming an economic powerhouse...with liberalized air agreements, how about a Phoenix to Beijing nonstop? Shanghai, anyone? Tokyo? Taipei? And, yes, it is true that some employee may lose their jobs and that is very, very unfortunate. But how many industries out there as a whole don't go through lean times? I have seen a lot of friends lose their jobs with no notice whatever. I worked in a non-union office at US Airways when the first and second round of terminations (NOT furloughs) went around, and let me tell you: it was a stressful day! They were puling people away from their desks left and right. Tears were flowing in streams. Fortunately, we employees who kept our jobs were the ones who worked hardest, were always on time, and produced for the company...no union seniority protection for the slouches, that's for d**n sure. ("What? You mean unions aren't always a good thing?" No, Virginia, they aren't always the Santa Claus you might have been led to believe in. Every good thing always comes with a bad.) You should also know that a lot of US employees are currently being offered an "early out" in the form of retirement. For example, a very reliable source told me prior to the purchase announcement that a full one-third of the customer service staff at EWR are taking early retirement. Yes, there may be some job losses. Remember, in business it is the stockholders that wins out in the long run. In the end, however, with a pocketful of cash the new US Airways will be a future powerhouse. Consumers will win...the business will win and that, when all is said and done, is what being in business is all about.

You made some great points!

The thing that I think is the deal here is that first off, of course US flyers are all gonna be excited about this, the airline they've been flying gets out of Ch11 AND gets to keep their name, even though they are being merged in with another carrier.

I think that's one of the main things here, the loss of the HP identity for all of us that have flown the carrier through good times and bad. The name vanishes and is being replaced with the carrier they are buying. The planes at this point will end up looking like US planes, the airports all get new US signage, so it's sort of a psychological blow to us HP flyers, to now be flying on planes and on a carrier that will be known as USAirways, even though HP is the "boss" so to speak.

And I understand the reasoning behind keeping the US name, which is why I really think a complete rebranding is needed. New livery, logo, the whole 9 yards. It would give both carriers a fresh start and maybe pull in new travellers, and maybe even boost morale to those that aren't happy. Just my opinion.

You made some great points!

The thing that I think is the deal here is that first off, of course US flyers are all gonna be excited about this, the airline they've been flying gets out of Ch11 AND gets to keep their name, even though they are being merged in with another carrier.

I think that's one of the main things here, the loss of the HP identity for all of us that have flown the carrier through good times and bad. The name vanishes and is being replaced with the carrier they are buying. The planes at this point will end up looking like US planes, the airports all get new US signage, so it's sort of a psychological blow to us HP flyers, to now be flying on planes and on a carrier that will be known as USAirways, even though HP is the "boss" so to speak.

And I understand the reasoning behind keeping the US name, which is why I really think a complete rebranding is needed. New livery, logo, the whole 9 yards. It would give both carriers a fresh start and maybe pull in new travellers, and maybe even boost morale to those that aren't happy. Just my opinion.

Of course we know the reason that the name US Airways was kept was due to brand recognition. However, even from an economic standpoint, it will be cheaper to repaint a smaller fleet of planes than a larger one. Not to mention all the other logos and names that have to be changed at airports, etc. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a brand new name and logo. If they can't have storied names like Pan-American or Trans World, maybe something along the lines of "Trans America," "Columbia," or "North American" might have worked.

I think that's one of the main things here, the loss of the HP identity for all of us that have flown the carrier through good times and bad. The name vanishes and is being replaced with the carrier they are buying. The planes at this point will end up looking like US planes, the airports all get new US signage, so it's sort of a psychological blow to us HP flyers, ...


That sums it up for me. I like the America West name, and am still seething over the fact that it's going away. I've been flying the airline to some degree since 1985, and it has served me fairly well overall.

I have very fond memories of the "Summer of 1999". During that summer I would fly out on saturday morning, spend the entire day on Coronado beach in SAN, then fly back to PHX that evening. I would repeat the process Sunday morning. I did this almost every weekend from June to August back when I was qualifying by segments, and when fares were cheaper than hotel stays. ^


And I understand the reasoning behind keeping the US name, which is why I really think a complete rebranding is needed. New livery, logo, the whole 9 yards. It would give both carriers a fresh start and maybe pull in new travellers, and maybe even boost morale to those that aren't happy. Just my opinion.

I sincerely hope a new name would also be part of that rebranding. I just can't accept the US airways name as a replacement for America West.

If they can't have storied names like Pan-American...

That could happen if Parker wanted it to.

That sums it up for me.

Me too. But it's more than psychology.

America West has a clearly-defined, unique philosophy: the only discount, FULL SERVICE airline. Clearly not Southwest, yet clearly not another doddering, clumsy, legacy carrier. (And a great first-class snack mix.) No other domestic character has this identity, let alone made it a success (fuel costs be damned).

My fear is this unique identity will, in time, be swept away.

My fear is this unique identity will, in time, be swept away.

You're probably right.

I can understand that from a cost standpoint it makes sense to use the USA name. However, the AWA planes will need to be repainted at some point and they can be repainted in a new USA color scheme. United, which is in bankruptcy, is in the process of slowing changing the color of its planes to a new brighter color. The new airline can do the same. It can over time repaint its planes in a new color that gives a new identity. The process can take several months and maybe even a few years. But that's OK.

Phoenix may get a hometown airline with non-stop flights to London and Frankfurt (to heck with BA and LH), as well as perhaps Munich and Paris. Major Canadian cities may get more non-stops into the southwest. China is becoming an economic powerhouse...with liberalized air agreements, how about a Phoenix to Beijing nonstop? Shanghai, anyone? Tokyo? Taipei?

While I agree that it is not the end of the world....lets come back to reality. 1) The airline that you describe sounds more like UA, not US. You will not see this airline expanding into Pacific routes. (beyond Hawaii).
2) You will only see more Canadian cities served if AC becomes a larger part of the deal in the future. (As has been speculated here).
3) Non-stops to Europe will continue to run out of East Coast gateways in PHL and to a lesser extent CLT.

Phoenix may get a hometown airline with non-stop flights to London and Frankfurt (to heck with BA

To heck with BA? Have you been reading the threads about the state of Envoy over in the US forum? I'll keep BA thank you.

To heck with BA? Have you been reading the threads about the state of Envoy over in the US forum? I'll keep BA thank you.


LOL! :p

To heck with BA? Have you been reading the threads about the state of Envoy over in the US forum? I'll keep BA thank you.

there's zero chance of any PHX-LON service competing with BA, mainly because the competitor would have to serve LGW not LHR.

To heck with BA? Have you been reading the threads about the state of Envoy over in the US forum? I'll keep BA thank you.

From a revenue pax perspective - yeah no one can compete with BA. However, from an upgradability perspective - not to mention the availability of Envoy seats on the A330 (42 for only 228 in coach) - it's a cheaper flyers dream. Envoy service is still decent to quite nice - and leagues above domestic F. And Europe FA's are often oustanding.

As for LGW vs. LHR - on AA and UA of the US Airlines can fly to LHR and AA even used LGW for all DFW. US, DL, CO and NW have been flying to LGW for years and have many pax. that either put up with it or like it compared to the busier, more crowded LHR>

US, DL, CO and NW have been flying to LGW for years and have many pax.

and on how many routes do they successfully compete with a nonstop LHR competitor? not many, and PHX won't be amongst them...

I would just like to add that I flew AWA and US one time each in my entire life. Personally, I prefer AA and CO to them, but I flew AWA when they were partners with CO. Frankly, there is no comparison between AWA and US. US is simply garbage. All-around. I enjoyed my AWA experience and was sad to see it go.

I would just like to add that I flew AWA and US one time each in my entire life. Personally, I prefer AA and CO to them, but I flew AWA when they were partners with CO. Frankly, there is no comparison between AWA and US. US is simply garbage. All-around. I enjoyed my AWA experience and was sad to see it go.


As much as I value everyone's opinion that chooses to express it, I find it remarkable that you would make an assumption like that about US after just one flight. All-around garbage? You only took one flight (out of the 3,500 daily)!!! :confused:

. . . from an upgradability perspective - not to mention the availability of Envoy seats on the A330 (42 for only 228 in coach) - it's a cheaper flyers dream.

I'm very curious to hear more about this, as this very issue is one of my biggest concerns with respect to losing BA as a partner.

Here is why: BA allows you to purchase a discounted World Traveler Plus (Premium Economy) ticket in T class and use 25K BA miles to upgrade it to their Club World flat bed business class. The miles must come from a BA Executive Club account, but that's not a problem, as I transfer SPG points into that account for the miles. Once a year for the past two years they've offered specials on that conversion of either double miles or 1.5 miles per SPG point (in addition to SPG's 5K bonus for every 20K you transfer), making the transfer quite lucurative. I earn Elite Qualifying Miles in my America West account, with a bonus for the WT+ ticket.

The T class ticket costs between $800 and $1200, depending upon the BA gateway and fares at the time($800-$900 from the east coast and progressively more as you move west). You can add on virtually any of BA's destinations within Europe for another $100-$250 and fly in their Club Europe business class on a seamless connection, with lounge access in London.

Availability is posted on their web site and tickets are easy to book and confirm straight into business class. There is no wait-listing or gate upgrade issues to deal with.

Over the past two years I have booked 14 of these tickets that I can remember -- probably more. I've never wanted to book a trip that I couldn't work out, as long as I was somewhat flexible on dates and the gateway I flew out of. Most were booked a few months out, but a couple were within the month of travel.

I would love it if someone would seriously contrast this with the current situation with upgrades to Envoy class on US (which I've never flown). I don't expect that anyone would seriously compare BA's Club World Service with US's, nor likely any other domestic carrier's business class, but that's not really my point with this comparison.

The biggest issue for me "from an upgradability perspective" is the availability of seats reasonably close to the dates I want, confirmed in advance (no stress or surprises at the airport). I have had fantastic experiences with BA through the HP partnership. How is US in this regard?

I'm very curious to hear more about this, as this very issue is one of my biggest concerns with respect to losing BA as a partner.

Here is why: BA allows you to purchase a discounted World Traveler Plus (Premium Economy) ticket in T class and use 25K BA miles to upgrade it to their Club World flat bed business class. The miles must come from a BA Executive Club account, but that's not a problem, as I transfer SPG points into that account for the miles. Once a year for the past two years they've offered specials on that conversion of either double miles or 1.5 miles per SPG point (in addition to SPG's 5K bonus for every 20K you transfer), making the transfer quite lucurative. I earn Elite Qualifying Miles in my America West account, with a bonus for the WT+ ticket.

The T class ticket costs between $800 and $1200, depending upon the BA gateway and fares at the time($800-$900 from the east coast and progressively more as you move west). You can add on virtually any of BA's destinations within Europe for another $100-$250 and fly in their Club Europe business class on a seamless connection, with lounge access in London.

Availability is posted on their web site and tickets are easy to book and confirm straight into business class. There is no wait-listing or gate upgrade issues to deal with.

Over the past two years I have booked 14 of these tickets that I can remember -- probably more. I've never wanted to book a trip that I couldn't work out, as long as I was somewhat flexible on dates and the gateway I flew out of. Most were booked a few months out, but a couple were within the month of travel.

I would love it if someone would seriously contrast this with the current situation with upgrades to Envoy class on US (which I've never flown). I don't expect that anyone would seriously compare BA's Club World Service with US's, nor likely any other domestic carrier's business class, but that's not really my point with this comparison.

The biggest issue for me "from an upgradability perspective" is the availability of seats reasonably close to the dates I want, confirmed in advance (no stress or surprises at the airport). I have had fantastic experiences with BA through the HP partnership. How is US in this regard?


OK, this is what I know regarding Envoy Class upgrades:

Regardless of the fare, i.e. restrictive or full-fare, US Airways opens 2 "R" seats in advance for upgrades. They also block 2-4 seats for children traveling alone, mothers traveling with infants, or passengers needing special assistance on A330 flights, not sure about 767 flights. I believe these seats on the A330 are 6A, 6B, 6G, and 6H. Moreover, 5C is always reserved as a crew rest.

As departure gets closer and closer, they start opening more seats for upgrades 3 days in advance. Sometimes if the flight is very empty in Envoy Class, Chairman's Preferred members can ask their personal liasons to call the inventory department and have them open one seat so that the CP member can confirm the upgrade at that time.

US Airways definitely has one of the most generous transatlantic upgrade system. I have seen people with no Preferred/Elite status get upgraded at check-in using transatlantic space available certificates which can upgrade you to Envoy Class regardless of the type of fare purchased, subject to availability and will only be confirmed a few hours before departure.

Best of all, US Airways does not charge an upgrade fee for upgrading to Envoy class. Then again, Envoy Class is not really a great way to fly these days. Basically, you get a small bowl of cold mixed nuts, an appetizer, 4 choices for the entree, and a small cheese plate with a tiny piece of something sweet for the main meal. Pretty bad given that they advertise it as international Business Class. On the positive side, there is a great in-between meals snack station by doors 2L/2R with lots of goodies including fresh fruits, chocolates (XOXO bars), cookies, and cheese. Envoy Class passengers also receive a tiny amenity kit with socks, eyeshades, ear plugs, and a toothbrush with toothpaste.

I do recommend row 1 of the A330 since it has 94 inches of leg room, pretty amazing.

To heck with BA? Have you been reading the threads about the state of Envoy over in the US forum? I'll keep BA thank you.

Since I am not an expert on the laws regarding who can fly to the UK from where, I know I can trust someone to correct me if I am wrong. Until that happens, I am going on the assumption that the route authorities that US has with regard to transats that once operated out of PIT could be moved to PHX. Heck, even to LAS for all I know.

The only thing that would probably save BA from getting the proverbial boot from management if the merger goes through is that HP management will be running the airline. There ain't exactly any love lost between BA and the current US after their partnership dissolved in the late 90s. US had to fight to get their PHL/PIT/CLT to LON route authorities back. BA tried to go it alone in PIT and CLT but eventually took their 767s and 777s and went home.

I could also be wrong in believing that the new US would be more interested in feeding their own passengers to a prospective PHX-LGW non-stop than to BA if they can move their route authorities to PHX. But I doubt it. Besides, the idea is to make US the new AWA after the merger...bigger and better.

As for LH, as a *A partner they may return their PHX-FRA non-stop. Or, they could change it to a PHX-MUC non-stop. It seems to be working well for CLT.

While I agree that it is not the end of the world....lets come back to reality. 1) The airline that you describe sounds more like UA, not US. You will not see this airline expanding into Pacific routes. (beyond Hawaii).
2) You will only see more Canadian cities served if AC becomes a larger part of the deal in the future. (As has been speculated here).
3) Non-stops to Europe will continue to run out of East Coast gateways in PHL and to a lesser extent CLT.

1) Perhaps. However, you are betting that UA will continue to be a dominate player after emerging from bankruptcy, IF they emerge from bankruptcy. Additionally, you can't sit there and tell me that any airline with a major west coast presence would not KILL to be awarded route authority to China. It wasn't that long ago that new authority was awarded for a handful of routes and there were more than one or two US carriers that lobbied for them. I know for a fact that DL wanted to start a CVG non-stop alone.

2) Granted, there aren't a lot of major Canadian cities that won't be served by the new US, assuming that they continue to serve the same one's before and after.

3) I profoundly disagree with the implication that no transatlantic non-stops will operate from PHX if the new US has the authorities. Yes, PHL will continue to be the main gateway to Europe and CLT will continue to play a role as well. However, if US has the option to either continue to feed passengers to BA or fly their own routes, which do you think they'll choose?

Since I am not an expert on the laws regarding who can fly to the UK from where, I know I can trust someone to correct me if I am wrong. Until that happens, I am going on the assumption that the route authorities that US has with regard to transats that once operated out of PIT could be moved to PHX. Heck, even to LAS for all I know.

The only thing that would probably save BA from getting the proverbial boot from management if the merger goes through is that HP management will be running the airline. There ain't exactly any love lost between BA and the current US after their partnership dissolved in the late 90s. US had to fight to get their PHL/PIT/CLT to LON route authorities back. BA tried to go it alone in PIT and CLT but eventually took their 767s and 777s and went home.

I could also be wrong in believing that the new US would be more interested in feeding their own passengers to a prospective PHX-LGW non-stop than to BA if they can move their route authorities to PHX. But I doubt it. Besides, the idea is to make US the new AWA after the merger...bigger and better.

As for LH, as a *A partner they may return their PHX-FRA non-stop. Or, they could change it to a PHX-MUC non-stop. It seems to be working well for CLT.


I agree 100%. BA has better airplanes, blankets, pillows, amenity kits, meals, and to top it off, BA cabin crews have been friendlier than US Airways cabin crews in my experience. I think BA is indeed "the world's favourite airline." I can't wait for BA to relaunch its First Class soon.