RDU-Man

I got the exact same email about 5 minutes ago. I was somewhat surprised to get a response after only 2 days, but not surprised to get such a lame explanation. "based on the cost of upkeep versus the usefulness of the power ports" - and who exactly did they consult about the "usefulness" factor? Did they do a scientific poll - right!

J.Edward

CO also offers powerports on the 777 and the rumor is they will outfit the intl. 752 with them as well.

abeflyer

Same old, same old management.

"We know what's best for our customers."

Our customers don't know what is useful for themselves. I do not believe the arrogance of a mangement that has been through two bankruptcies and fell from "America's Most Frequent Flyer" in the late 80's, when they had more flights in the US than any other carrier, to where they are today.

I guess HP is not the savior of US. but just the standard bearer who carries on the US tradition of poor management.

ByrdluvsAWACO

I'd like to know what these costs are. Even on AA, where virtually every mainline flight has them, 90% of the ports go unused. Many people don't know they exist. On a number of occasions, I've heard the phrase(or similiar) "Oh, I can plug my DVD Player in there?".

So I'm pretty suspicious about HP's lame "costs of upkeep" exuse. It sounds more like they don't want to install them fleet-wide. Cheap B*****ds!

I forewarned you all that HP was cheap, and this further proves it! You can expect far more of these "slash-to-save" type of reductions.

SS255

I can understand not wanting to incur the costs installing new ones on aircraft which are not already equipped, but taking the time/trouble to viciously, maliciously rip them out of existing aircraft? Completely unacceptable.

SanDiegoShaun

Although you can still call or write I believe the decision has been made. It appears that US was already having a hard time justifying the power ports on their fleet. The primary reason was usage over cost, as you have to consider the expense of regular upkeep, replacements, mandatory maintenance checks, etc. It is also important to have consistency across the fleet, one way or another.

There was some previous posts that HP may not be aware of the decision and maybe writing or calling would help.

To try and help bring clarification, I have confirmed with the AWA Executive Offices that they are aware of the power ports removal. Like it or not they have a position on it which I detailed for everyone below.

"The decision to deactivate and ultimately remove the in-seat power ports from the US Airways Airbus fleet, with the exception of the A330, was made by US Airways. Upon further research, we were advised the decision was based on a cost comparative of maintaining the units versus deactivating them, based on the relatively few passengers who utilize them. Of course, we realize they are extremely valuable to those who do use them, and we regret your displeasure."

coxm

Hmm...mine was less direct

Dear Dr. XXX:

Thank you for the recent email. I appreciate the opportunity to address this
matter.

We try very hard to please our customers, and I regret that this matter has
caused you any inconvenience. We will make sure your comments are recorded
and passed on directly for further review.

Thank you again for your correspondence, Dr. XXX. Your patronage is
appreciated, and we look forward to serving you again very soon.

Sincerely,
XXXX
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

Is it just me, or did US not "address this matter"?

phillyflyer

I have emailed US Consumer Affairs, HP Consumer Affairs, and the Chairman's desk. So far, just a polite reply for Consumer Affairs (below). Does not look good... This is very disappointing news.


Dear phillyflyer:

Thank you for sending your e-mail about our recent decision to discontinue the use of power ports on our Airbus 319, 320 and 321 aircraft. I appreciate the opportunity to respond on behalf of US Airways.

The information you have provided has been thoroughly documented. We are grateful to you for helping us identify ways in which we can improve, and hope your next experience is more pleasant.

Mr. phillyflyer, thank you for taking thetime to contact our office. We hope you will continue to consider US Airways for all of your future travel needs.

Sincerely,
Executive Staff
US Airways Office of Consumer Affairs

jimcfsus

The "real" version:

Dear PhillyFlyer,

Thanks for wasting your bandwidth and our time sending your complaint. We are CCY, resistance is futile.

We have completely ignored your comments. We are going to do as we please before we leave and collect our "bonuses".

What we say goes... but we know you will come back and fly with us again real soon as you are a CP.

Screw you.

Sincerely,
CCY

GotCalcio4

If you think about it, all of this consistency thing is just a bunch of crap. US, for years, has flown Airbus planes that have power, and Boeing ones that don't. Where was the consistency there?

Look at other consistency issues. ALL the aircraft have different numbers of seats. Suppose they reconfigure HP F cabins to match those of US, it would be easy to at least install power for the F class passengers.

Take a look at AA. They fly ex-TW 757s, that have no power ports, while the rest of their 757 fleet has ports. They seem to be able to handle it. But, AA also posted a Q2 profit, and has (literally) 10x the cash US does. Mmmmm . . .

SanDiegoShaun

Saying you have something on an Airbus vs Boeing or A320 to A330 for that matter, is not the same as saying you have power ports on some A320's and not on other A320's. People often book trips by the AC type, some like features of different AC. More problems would arise with people that said they booked that A320 for the power only to find that that A320 on that day did not have them. Or even playing on the safe side, people could assume that it would not have power and get to the airport only to find that there is power. Now they are unhappy because they carried an extra battery, there is no way to win unless you have it all or none on a particular AC. This is the same as HP is currently able to list entertainment availability differences between 737 and 757, 319, 320. You can't tell people that movies and music are available on some 737's, you have to go one way or another so people can plan accordingly.

I would imagine you will see some reconfiguring of the fleet but not as you suspect. HP reconfiguring to US, hum you should keep open the strong possibility that it may go the other way around...

Regardless there is a huge difference from reconfiguring some seats or closets to installing power ports, not only do you have the significant initial costs but you have the upkeep. That does not include the additional time the AC has to be scheduled out of service.

Now logically why would HP go through the cost to install them across the fleet if US says they can't justify the cost of having them on the current fleet?

KevAZ

It was a US Air decision that's been in the making for a while.

I think they are making a huge mistake. Who are the most profitable customers? FF business people making long flights. I hate to fly to the east, if I can work on the way there and back, I'll give business to the company that supports this. Therefore AA is the way for me from here on out.

Doug - you are playing with fire here!

From HP Customer Relations (early this morning - turnaround time was <12 hrs.)
"We appreciate the time you have taken to write since
we feel our customer's concerns are considered a vital link to the continued
growth and success of America West Airlines. The decision to deactivate and
ultimately remove the in-seat power ports from US Airways Airbus fleet, with
the exception of the A330, was made by US Airways.

Upon further research, we were advised the decision
was based on a cost comparative to either maintain the units or deactivate
them based on the relatively few passengers who utilize them. Of course,
we realize they are extremely valuable to those who do use them, and we
regret your displeasure."

DataPlumber

The issue with the ex-TW 757s is they are being returned to the lessors as the leases expire. Why sink the money into something that is bound for the desert.

19103_aa

Case in point: Tonight I flew PHL-BOS on an A321. By the time I plug everything in, it's time to land.

Keep the HP Airbus birds for the heavy traveled, short routes. Use the US Airbus birds for the "premium" transcons, keep them equipped with powerpoints, and everyone is happy. It's easily done. This is the stupidest business decision I think I've seen from US (other than giving Dave Siegel his uber-generous golden parachute).

AZ Travels the World

I think that is the key point. Assuming that the justification of having them incorporates the number of business travelers who use them and value them, (and therefore choose to fly US because of them) and those numbers are not sufficient to substantiate the cost of providing them, then this decision is easy for the airline. (And, as I've said elsewhere, very consistent with HP's approach in recent years.) Having said that, as a HP customer who would truly value them, it still sucks that they've decided to remove them.