New LGW-LAS Route?

Old Mar 17, 2006, 2:58 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
With US leaving Star Alliance(possibly), this may be a new route. LGW-LAS!
With what aircraft? Nothing they've got will consistently make it non-stop in both directions.

Haven't they also been pretty clear about staying in *A? Today's developments notwithstanding, that's been the stance. UA is but one member in the alliance and it's very likely that someone like LH would probably step in and remind the children to behave....
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2006, 4:14 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by McFlyPHL
With what aircraft? Nothing they've got will consistently make it non-stop in both directions.

Haven't they also been pretty clear about staying in *A? Today's developments notwithstanding, that's been the stance. UA is but one member in the alliance and it's very likely that someone like LH would probably step in and remind the children to behave....
You are not reading clearly or between the lines at all for that manner. These are all Forward-Looking Statesments. We are just speculating. Obviously, with the aircraft we currently posess, we cannot make this run at all. But right now, with all this aircraft buying frenzy almost anything is possible. Stay tuned for more, then respond. As of right now just speculate, and assume.

And of course our favorite McFlyPHL tagline. SHOCKING!


Forward-Looking Statements

Certain of the statements contained herein should be considered "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as "may," "will," "expect," "intend," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "plan," "could," "should," and "continue" and similar terms used in connection with statements regarding the outlook of US Airways Group, Inc. (the "Company"), expected fuel costs, the revenue and pricing environment, and expected financial performance. Such statements are based upon the current beliefs and expectations of the Company's management and are subject to significant risks and uncertainties that could cause the Company's actual results and financial position to differ materially from these statements. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the following: the ability of the Company to obtain and maintain any necessary financing for operations and other purposes (including compliance with financial covenants); the ability of the Company to maintain adequate liquidity; the impact of changes in fuel prices; the impact of economic conditions; changes in prevailing interest rates; the ability to attract and retain qualified personnel; the ability of the Company to attract and retain customers; the ability of the Company to obtain and maintain commercially reasonable terms with vendors and service providers; the cyclical nature of the airline industry; competitive practices in the industry, including significant fare restructuring activities by major airlines; labor costs; security-related and insurance costs; weather conditions; government legislation and regulation; relations with unionized employees generally and the impact and outcome of the labor negotiations; the impact of global instability including the potential impact of current and future hostilities, terrorist attacks, infectious disease outbreaks or other global events; the impact of the resolution of remaining claims in US Airways Group's Chapter 11 proceedings; the ability of the Company to fund and execute its business plan following the Chapter 11 proceedings and the merger; and other risks and uncertainties listed from time to time in the companies' reports to the SEC. There may be other factors not identified above of which the Company is not currently aware that may affect matters discussed in the forward-looking statements, and may also cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed. The Company assumes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement to reflect actual results, changes in assumptions or changes in other factors affecting such estimates other than as required by law. Additional factors that may affect the future results of the Company are set forth in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 and in the filings of the Company with the SEC, which are available at www.usairways.com and www.americawest.com.
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2006, 5:56 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
You are not reading clearly or between the lines at all for that manner. These are all Forward-Looking Statesments. We are just speculating. Obviously, with the aircraft we currently posess, we cannot make this run at all. But right now, with all this aircraft buying frenzy almost anything is possible. Stay tuned for more, then respond. As of right now just speculate, and assume.
Wow. You actually found a 10K/Q like document. Impressive.

Do you have any business sense at all? The items in "forward looking statements" are generally worst case, doomsday scenarios. Take a look at some from when US was making money hand over fist, and you'll see that there are some glum statements there as well.

Seriously, why would they leave *A? They've pretty clearly stated they intend to stay. Further, the UA agreement still benefits both parties (particularly UA on the East coast, less so the new US out west). There is near zero incentive on either end to discontinue it.

As for a "buying frenzy", three secondhand 757s and the previously ordered/canceled/changed E-jets does not a "frenzy" make. They're also retiring older planes as well (see 733's and 734's). You might also note that a sale of 25 757s by UA would have to be disclosed via UA and US as it could be considered "material" to operations.
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2006, 6:09 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by McFlyPHL
Wow. You actually found a 10K/Q like document. Impressive.

Do you have any business sense at all? The items in "forward looking statements" are generally worst case, doomsday scenarios. Take a look at some from when US was making money hand over fist, and you'll see that there are some glum statements there as well.

Seriously, why would they leave *A? They've pretty clearly stated they intend to stay. Further, the UA agreement still benefits both parties (particularly UA on the East coast, less so the new US out west). There is near zero incentive on either end to discontinue it.

As for a "buying frenzy", three secondhand 757s and the previously ordered/canceled/changed E-jets does not a "frenzy" make. They're also retiring older planes as well (see 733's and 734's). You might also note that a sale of 25 757s by UA would have to be disclosed via UA and US as it could be considered "material" to operations.

Again, this is all speculation, and forward looking statements. There are plenty reasons why United, may want to call it quits. I am not the one who thinks that US will leave STAR, however I am weighing possibilites, if and possibly should this happen, US will definately have to condiser more to Europe routes. But I truly believe US will not leave *A and heres what I said earlier: http://www.usaviation.com/forums/ind...dpost&p=364108



And of course our favorite McFlyPHL tagline. SHOCKING!
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 17, 2006, 9:42 pm
  #35  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,486
Originally Posted by FCYTravis
Call it what you will. I think it's patently stupid to market a flight as "direct" when it's *not* - make all the excuses you want, but it's essentially deceptive.

That "dissatisfaction" and confusion would not happen if airlines simply loaded connecting flights into their systems and didn't pretend these flights are something they aren't.
It's called a change of gauge flight. It has been around for years. It's NOT deceptive if -- as the rules state -- the airline or the travel agent discloses it BEFORE booking.

These flights are leftover from the era when travel agents did 90% of the airline bookings. Travel agents were also notoriously lazy and would book whatever was on the first screen of their display. At the time, all the non-stop and "direct" flights would appear first on the display.

In the old days, it was absolutely funny to look at a TWA monitor at JFK. For example, there may have actually been 1 physical plane going to Paris, but it would be listed with 8 different flight numbers!!
formeraa is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 9:57 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
Again, this is all speculation, and forward looking statements. There are plenty reasons why United, may want to call it quits. I am not the one who thinks that US will leave STAR, however I am weighing possibilites, if and possibly should this happen, US will definately have to condiser more to Europe routes. But I truly believe US will not leave *A and heres what I said earlier: http://www.usaviation.com/forums/ind...dpost&p=364108
I'm not so sure what you're trying to say here through the gibberish, but it looks as though you posted gibberish somewhere else and imply that UA may want to call it quits with the 757s. The same plane that they use on popular ps routes. With ps rumored on and off to be expanding to run from IAD, I doubt that. Further, they can consider routes all they want. There aren't planes to fly them. There aren't planes to fly many domestic routes, hence the transition to USX.
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 10:26 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by McFlyPHL
I'm not so sure what you're trying to say here through the gibberish, but it looks as though you posted gibberish somewhere else and imply that UA may want to call it quits with the 757s. The same plane that they use on popular ps routes. With ps rumored on and off to be expanding to run from IAD, I doubt that. Further, they can consider routes all they want. There aren't planes to fly them. There aren't planes to fly many domestic routes, hence the transition to USX.

What you have posted is 100 % gb/b.s. There arent planes to fly many domestic routes, no? What about all those planes that they are getting rid of? Were gonna be getting new planes, not for existing routes, but expansion. Big expansion!
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 10:31 am
  #38  
Suspended
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,992
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
What you have posted is 100 % gb/b.s. There arent planes to fly many domestic routes, no? What about all those planes that they are getting rid of? Were gonna be getting new planes, not for existing routes, but expansion. Big expansion!

er....I was only wondering if there was going to be a LGW-LAS route....
FlyerTalker7654 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 10:50 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ketchikan, Alaska
Programs: GSA City-Pair; emeritus AS MVPG/UA 1K/US Plat, etc.
Posts: 2,635
What new planes for what big expansion?

The Embraer 190s will likely be used on existing routes that have been RJized, and to replace some 737s. They'll only be delivered very slowly - one per month for the next two years.
FCYTravis is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 1:18 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by FCYTravis
What new planes for what big expansion?

The Embraer 190s will likely be used on existing routes that have been RJized, and to replace some 737s. They'll only be delivered very slowly - one per month for the next two years.
The 20 possible 757's, theyre will not be taking over 737 or RJ routes. Some will probably got transcon, but most will be for new routes, or additional intl service!
kinglobjaw is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 3:20 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
Originally Posted by kinglobjaw
What you have posted is 100 % gb/b.s. There arent planes to fly many domestic routes, no? What about all those planes that they are getting rid of? Were gonna be getting new planes, not for existing routes, but expansion. Big expansion!
Right. That's why if you look at PHL-RDU or CLT-DFW there have been no changes in aircraft. They're all (or mostly) RJs and the reason is that they're losing mainline aircraft. The routes remain open thanks to express, but at a much higher CASM. The debate of RJ CASM vs RASM/Yield is beyond where we are here.

To get back to the original topic of the thread, LGW-LAS isn't going to happen any time soon. There just aren't aircraft to run it. 332s and 350s will change this when they come online, but until then the west hubs to Europe or Asia aren't a possibility.
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 3:54 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: From: PWM
Programs: United GS, Fairmont Platinum,SPG LTPlat, Hilton Diamond, MarriottGold..like the rest of the world
Posts: 4,401
Post

Please stop feeding the troll --- I mean the "king".

enough is enough is enough is enough is enough. If someone has too little experience or insight into the business model of modern commercial aviation, then it would make this board far more enjoyable for me if that person would stop commenting and posting every 15 minutes with miscellany that is, ultimately, neither accurate nor helpful.

I share his interest in USAirways. I do not share his need to post 5 times an hour with all manner of commentary.
sbtinme is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 5:08 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Programs: MR Plat
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by sbtinme
Please stop feeding the troll --- I mean the "king".

enough is enough is enough is enough is enough. If someone has too little experience or insight into the business model of modern commercial aviation, then it would make this board far more enjoyable for me if that person would stop commenting and posting every 15 minutes with miscellany that is, ultimately, neither accurate nor helpful.

I share his interest in USAirways. I do not share his need to post 5 times an hour with all manner of commentary.
Well said!!!
waterdog is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 5:19 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Stuck Between the Moon and CLD or SAN, Your local Taco Bell
Programs: AA EXP/LT PLT, DL PM, UA Silver, SPG Plat, Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 3,510
My bad.
McFlyPHL is offline  
Old Mar 18, 2006, 10:13 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,452
Originally Posted by McFlyPHL
Right. That's why if you look at PHL-RDU or CLT-DFW there have been no changes in aircraft. They're all (or mostly) RJs and the reason is that they're losing mainline aircraft. The routes remain open thanks to express, but at a much higher CASM. The debate of RJ CASM vs RASM/Yield is beyond where we are here.

To get back to the original topic of the thread, LGW-LAS isn't going to happen any time soon. There just aren't aircraft to run it. 332s and 350s will change this when they come online, but until then the west hubs to Europe or Asia aren't a possibility.

Getting back to the origianl topic thread?? The thing you restated is wasting server space, as you have restated what was said so many times.

So now youre trying to convey a message that the 757's which me may get just like those 3 will rune PHL-RDU or CLT-DFW. Get a grip! You think you can us more w/ a few airline terms! Hell, Ive done a huge statistics report on the whole US Airways deal, the whole 10 yards on available seat miles, revenue miles and such, which was presented to the school board. How low can you go?

But hey, as anyone else does, I feel proud for those who have a goal, and work hard. So, I a proudly nominate you as preffered person to suceed Douglas W. Parker. Go for it, buddy!

And our favorite McFlyPHL tagline... SHOCKING!
kinglobjaw is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.