Jump to content

Talk:US Airways/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Airline Name

The correct name of the airline is US Airways, not U.S. Airways. This is the way that the company has the name copyrighted, and it is the way that the company uses the name one all official documents including their website. The US in US Airways is not an abbreviation for United States, though it is a representation of it.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merger

The merger changes everything (particularly for us here in Philadelphia!). Should the current article be moved to something like "US Airways pre-2005" and a new article written? Simesa 05:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It will be many months before the merger is completed (assuming regulatory approval) and since the new entity as proposed is to take the US Airways name, I see no need for a rush to integrate the articles. The fundamentals of this article won't change, they can be expanded or modified as facts emerge. Compare for instance the case of Trans World Airlines and American Airlines. -choster 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly wise to wait until the dust settles on the merger. After all, US Airways and United announced their intention to merge a few years ago, which collapsed at a later stage. Had articles been moved or heavily re-written then it would have been in vain. --Ayrshire--77 14:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Given the state of changes, I wonder if some of the history for USAir should be moved into that article. Right now that is a redirect to this article. Given the number of mergers and renames the history here is going to be rather confusing and lengthy. It has also been suggested that a new article be created for the new US Airways since it will be very different from the old one. Vegaswikian 18:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's fine in the US Airways article, really; so the airline has a long and complicated history, that should be covered. And, just a point, the previous name of the carrier was USAir, not US Air. RingMaruf 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Post merger

As a reminder, even when the holding companies merge, US Airways and America West Airlines will still be flying and this will continue for about two years. The airlines are not merging at this time. So no attempt should be made to merge anything right now. This includes the express and shuttle operations. The infoboxes probably will need updates where names have changed. It will take a while for the FAA to approve all of the changes that have too happen before the airlines can actually be merged. Vegaswikian 07:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the changes made by User:Airline today. This article is about US Airways, Inc. NOT America West Airlines, Inc. NOT US Airways Group, Inc. Once the airline merge, then we can add HP information. Not before then. It's misleading--the facts are incorrect. I'm inclined to revert if someone agrees. RingMaruf 23:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree and I just posted to User:Airline's talk page. I was going to revert the changes per my opening comment in this section. There have been a lot of changes today and not all of them, including some of mine, were correct. I think the information for the most part is getting to the point of being correct. Vegaswikian 23:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, however, consdering that America West and US Air are now co-branding all of their materials, including websites, aircraft, and marketing, I believe that the page should be reflected to review the changes even though America West and US Air are operating under separate certificates from the FAA. Another good example to support merging the pages is the "About AWA" section on americawest.com - Look at the fact sheets.Airline 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The point is that they are still two airlines. They have not, and in fact are not allowed to, combine any of their operations. These are not concerns, but they are facts. I am not aware of any cobranded aircraft. In fact even the new livery plane will not enter service until next year. Vegaswikian 00:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

They're two different airlines. They're not even codesharing with each other yet. The fleet numbers are wrong. The focus cities are wrong. US Airways hasn't been in a merger yet at all. US Airways Group and America West Holdings merged. You don't take all the information on the Piedmont Airlines page and combine it with the PSA Airlines page just because they've got the same owner and both operate as USX. If you want to put a combined fleet tally on the US Airways Group article, I think that would be appropriate. Also, I don't feel the HP history belongs here, now or later. That should stay at the America West Airlines page, just like the Piedmont history is at the Piedmont page, the PSA history is at the PSA page, the Mohawk history is at the Mohawk page, and so on. RingMaruf 00:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Given the confusion, maybe there is a need to create an article for the 2007 US Airways. I'm not in favor of that because it would be confusing. But given the current confusion, maybe it is not that bad. Vegaswikian 00:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would be sufficient to post a complete fleet count on the US Group page; I can do that if you'd like. As you've noticed, I also updated the US destinations page, but I think I made it clear there that there are two separate airlines. RingMaruf 00:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yea, I noticed. I'm not sure that I would have done that since it is not really correct, but it does provide some very encylopedic information. I noticed that HP added 11 states bringing the total to 46 with one more to be added later this year. That may be the most states served by any airline group. Vegaswikian 00:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, the old list already included USX destinations, whereas other airlines' lists only show mainline destinations, so I didn't think including the other ones would hurt, and I made sure to show that they're different. Oh, and don't quote me on this, but I think Delta serves 48 or 49 states. No one serves Delaware anymore. RingMaruf 00:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You stated in that update the former America West Express. Do you know this as a fact? I have been just trying to understand the two big airlines and have not seen anything specific on America West Express. I suspect, but don't know, that America West Express will also exist for a while. The FAA approved operating procedures for the Mesa aircraft serving the two airlines is probably different. Once the ground operations procedures are converted to one standard then maybe America West Express can be combined into US Airways. Like I said, I don't know but it's something that we need to understand. Vegaswikian 00:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Technically, it's not quite correct as of today, but will be on October 5. In fact, Mesa is sending some of their current HPX CRJ-900s over to CLT to operate as USX in the "traditional" US system starting then. Of course, it'll take a good while to actually repaint all the planes now in the HPX livery.
          • Maybe the article should be changed to US Airways Group destinations, since that is what it now refects? Airline 02:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, no, it also includes destinations served only by USX or HPX carriers that are not part of US Airways Group. And that's how it's always been. It's never been just US Airways mainline destinations, unlike the articles for some other airlines; it's always included both mainline and US Airways Express destinations. Part of it, I think, was practical--US adds and subtracts mainline from stations rather more frequently than most airlines, making it less convenient to keep separate lists for US and USX destinations. RingMaruf 03:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that since the new US Airways is going to have so much difference from the old, a new article may be wise. This is much more than a minor reorganization, and complicating the matter is the fact that America West is the surviving airlines while US Airways is the surviving brand.Airline 00:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

      • America West will not be the surviving airline. The surviving certificate will be US's. I can provide a link if you'd really like me to dig it out. RingMaruf 00:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • After foolishly editing before, I'd say that the best course of action is to wait until 2007 and then start over. There's no point in arguing over minute details. I apologize for my foolishness. I won't do that again. Airline 00:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I think that Airline is correct. The proxie information said that America West is the surviving airline and that it would be renamed to US Airlines. It is my understanding that this is the basis for the unions to do their merges. Vegaswikian 00:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • You're mistaken. For example, the ALPA transition agreement, available at http://www.donlinrecano.net/dr201/mwc/04-13819/dk003193-0005.pdf I quote #5 "The Airline Parties intend to consolidate operations under the US Airways operating certificate" I can provide more examples, but I don't think its necessary. Perhaps you're confusing the IRS ruling that HP will be surviving company for tax purposes. That's the only instance I can think of where HP will be considered the surviving company. RingMaruf 00:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • That statement does not directly address the surviving carrier. The proxy statement is the only source I'm aware of. Vegaswikian 04:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Please point out to me where on the proxy statement is says that. The only statement I see that could be interpreted as such is on page 21, "For accounting purposes only, New US Airways Group will account for the merger as a ‘‘reverse acquisition’’ using the purchase method of accounting in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Although the merger is structured so that America West Holdings will become a wholly owned subsidiary of New US Airways Group at closing, America West Holdings will be treated as the acquiring company for accounting purposes in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, or SFAS, No. 141, ‘‘Business Combinations.’’". Just as I said above, that's for tax/accounting purposes only, and in fact states that HP Holdings is a subsidiary of US Group. And even that only has to do with the holding companies; my first quote deals with the carriers. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. RingMaruf 15:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

After listening to your discussion, I agree. However, since the airlines are now co-branded, shouldn't their wikipedia pages also be? I do not object to you reverting the US Airways page, but both airlines' logos should be the new, USAIR-AWEST joining together sign as seen on both websites. Airline 00:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • While I see some logic in that, I would lean to what is on the actual aircraft. You will see a combined website long before the two airlines merge. The article is about an airline. Also this is an encylopedia we need to keep that in mind and only put in and keep encylopedic material. Vegaswikian 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone see a need to try and preserve the picture of the airlines as they existed before the holding company merge? Over the next two years, a lot of information will be lost as various aspects of the two airlines are merged. Vegaswikian 00:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that could probably be accomplished by updating the US history section as changes are made, and largely leaving the HP page alone. Also, I've been working on something for the Former US Airways destinations page that I'll have up in a day or two that I think will help things a lot in that area. RingMaruf 00:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there should be a US Airways/America West history page, with the histories of the pre-merger airlines, destinations, etc. Then the US Airways page could be dedicated to the new company and the America West page could be redirected to US Airways. Airline 00:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I think keeping an HP page, not a redirect, is best. All of the other predecessor airlines have their own pages describing their histories.
        • I shouldn't have said redirect, how about just a pre-merger US Airways history page, in addition to a revised US Airways page that reflects the new merged airline?Airline 01:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • If you really think it's necessary. I personally think it would suffice just to add some info to the history section on the existing US page. "Before the US-HP merger, US operated XXXX flights per day, to XX destinations in XX states, with a fleet of XXX aircraft, focusing at such-and-such airports", and so on. RingMaruf 01:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Alright, I updated the US Airways Group article with the combined fleet. Let me know what you think. RingMaruf 01:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the America West Holdings Corporation article with minor post-merger word changes.Airline 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I changed the Former US Airways destinations article. I think the section at the end helps document some of the US history that would've been lost with the HP merger. I'll add more details on dates and a few more destinations in the 1989-98 section as I can. RingMaruf 20:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

listing HP on airport pages

There seems to be some confusion here. Is it America West Airlines dba US Airways or US Airways dba America West Airlines? Vegaswikian 19:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Right now, it's just America West Airlines. But on October 5, when the codeshare starts, it'll be America West Airlines dba US Airways. Just like the Express carriers, you list the operating airline first, doing business as, the marketing airline second. RingMaruf 19:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I needed to confirm with someone before I reverted some changes. I'm not going to worry about the Oct 5 date on those pages, it's so close. Vegaswikian 19:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Realize that codeshare agreements do not reflect a change in name or dba. America West continues to operate under the code HP, and the name America West for a period of time. All that a codeshare changes is what other airlines' codes are on the flight and who can market it. Therefore, I'd suggest saying US Airways operated by America West Airlines. Airline 20:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • This is more than just a codeshare, though, I wasn't being clear enough. They'll be painting HP planes into the new US livery, with a little sticker by the door that will say "Operated by America West Airlines" until the certificates are merged. It's *exactly* like what they do with the Express carriers. RingMaruf 20:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Above, Vegaswikian states that planes in the new livery won't be flying until next year. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Airline 21:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • No, that's not right. HP planes should start to get painted soon--I don't have an exact timetable, but I'd guess within the next month. US already has planes flying in the new livery, as does Air Wisconsin dba USX. RingMaruf 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • My statement was based on the LV ads in the paper that said 'the heritage plane is scheduled to enter service' in 1Q, 2006. I thought that meant the new livery. Apparently that is not the case. Sorry it took so long for me to find my source and figure this out. Vegaswikian 05:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Logo Ideas

Do you guys think that it might be a good idea to have one logo file for all of the US Airways Group subsidiaries during the transition, like this? Airline 21:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

File:Usairwaysgrouplogo.JPG
  • Since no one objected, I'm going to use this image for all US Air Group logos. Airline 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't object because I didn't see it.  :) That would be nice on the US Airways Group page, but not the US Airways page. It's not US Airways' logo. RingMaruf 23:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Waiting only two hours does seem rather short. Since this is not the logo for any airline, I don't think that it belongs on an airline article, especially in the infobox. Leave the airline pages alone, they still have separate identities. Let's not combine or merge too much at the start. I think October 5 is when we will find out more. This may include the end of America West Express. Vegaswikian 05:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The quality of the graphic is poor. I'll have to see if I can find or assemble a higher quality version. Later. Hawaiian717 08:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Aircraft markings

I have not seen the change yet, but I have been told that the entire fleet has the legacy logo located near all of the doors or on the doors, it was not clear which. On the top of the logo is the US Airways name and on the bottom is the 'operated by' phase followed by the name of the airline operating the aircraft (America West Airlines etc.). Vegaswikian 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I know for a fact that there is a small orange America West legacy logo on the newly painted US Airways jets... on the flap that covers the front nose gear. I am also sure (not 100%) that near the front passenger door, located to the lower right, there is the following text: "This aircraft is owned and operated by America West Inc." Iheartcorruption 06:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Express fleet

I was going to build a table of the express fleet. However I'm not sure how to put this together. Would the table need to indicate which company (Mesa, Republic) was operating the aircraft types? Should the MidAtlantic Airways, PSA Airlines and Piedmont Airlines aircraft stay in those company articles like it already is for Piedmont?

The PSA article is a stub that needs work and there still is no MidAtlantic article so if someone has some details, feel free to work on those articles. Vegaswikian 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

US Airways Shuttle

Are the aircraft used for the shuttle included in the regular fleet or are these dedicated aircraft? If they are dedicated, they should be listed in the fleet section of the shuttle article. Vegaswikian 22:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Mesa Airways announcement

Did anyone see that Mesa will be operating RJs in Hawaii beinging 1Q 2006? I suspect that these will be code shared with US Airways or be operated as US Airways express since this is when America West will be providing service with 5 daily flights from the mainland. If I'm correct this will add service to one more airport giving US Airways a major presence in Hawaii. Vegaswikian 18:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't necessarily bet on that happening just yet. Mesa has a history of wild announcements that don't get followed through on. And if it does happen, it probably will be codeshared with US, but I highly doubt that it would operate as US Airways Express--that would increase Mesa's costs on the route too much. From what I'm hearing, Mesa is looking at UA to be their primary partner for the service. RingMaruf 21:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Mesa would like US, DL, and UA to codeshare, but it will be branded as an independent airline--also not as Mesa Airlines. Source: [1]. But also consider UA has a long standing relationship with Aloha, so I can't see UA codesharing with both Aloha and Mesa. Hawaiian717 08:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A350 orders

I've heard that US Airways had ordered 20 A350's. Should we add that in the Fleet section of this article. Irfanfaiz 14:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Removal of America West brand

The strong rumor is that all America West branding will be removed on January 6, 2006. At this time, should we take another step in merging the articles by inserting a similar fleet table to the America West article and placing a link to the America West fleet? Also, should we merge America West Express into US Airways Express since that is likely what they will be doing business as? Any comments or other suggestions are welcome. Airline 03:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I did not hear that rumor from any of the HP people I spoke with today. It does seem logical that once they get a reservation system in place to handle all of the flights they would move to US Airways as a single front to present to the public and keep the HP aircraft behind the scenes. Would that require unique flight numbers for US and HP with no overlaps or just a switch to code share numbers? Since Mesa operates all of the America West Express flights as well as some US Airways Express, moving those flights over should be trival, once they have a unified reservation system. You are correct that a decision on how to preserve HP information needs to be made. I'm just not sure how. I would not merge the express articles now. I'd wait until it happens. Then we could freeze the America West Express article to show how it looked at the end. Vegaswikian 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    However when I did more asking around, a switch to a common branding seems to be a rumor that is going around. Vegaswikian 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, whenever the removal of the HP brand takes place, there should be more links to and from the corresponding parts of the HP/US pages. On an unrelated note, I made a US Airways Fleet table from the America West one and put it on the page. I am also going to place a link to the HP fleet from the US fleet section, and vice versa. Airline 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yea, we will need to deal with it. Information on exactly what will happen is still hard to come by. It does appear that at this time the main system that they need to really combine the airline is reservations. It is sounding like that will not happen till 2007. Vegaswikian 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hubs

OK, the US Airways route map lists LAS and PHX as a 'New US Airways Hub Airport served by America West'. Sounds like US Airways does not consider them as US Airways hubs at this time. However they are hubs for the HP portion of the system. Vegaswikian 06:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. I'm going to remove them from the USAir page as hubs, and readd a note saying that additional services are operated by America West. Airline 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was looking at the US Airways 2006 annual report (its 10-K form) and the lengthy company description lists Las Vegas as a secondary hub (like Pittsburgh), not a primary hub. The link for the annual report is http://library.corporate-ir.net/library/19/196/196799/items/192379/Annual%20Report%202005.pdf and the appropriate quote is found on page 20 of the .pdf file. The quote is "The Company has primary hubs in Charlotte, Philadelphia and Phoenix and secondary hubs/focus cities in Pittsburgh, Las Vegas, New York, Washington, D.C. and Boston." I made this change on the article page. Alex 70.58.112.77 08:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm going to have to agree that Las Vegas is a secondary hub. The annual report clearly delineates their airport operations into into Primary Hubs, Secondary Hubs, and Focus Cities. Whereas the route map only delineates their airport operations into Hubs and Focus cities. The annual report is more detailed and I believe it is more definitive. —Cliffb 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

DCA

I would venture to say that DCA is a hub rather than just a focus city for USair, as a person who lives on the approach path to National, i see a LOT of usair planes, and most of USair's domestic routes can be accessed through national

I beleive united's route map shows it as a USAir/Star Alliance hub NweinthalNWeinthal

    • In the June 2006 edition of US Airways' inflight magazine, "Washington, DC" is listed as a "key focus city" not as a hub. Anecdotally, I live in Washington and DCA is my home airport... US Airways does maintain a large operation there, and at different times in the past, both DCA and BWI were considered hubs. At this point, neither are considered as such. Trevormartin227 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Embraer 190

Did these orders move when MidAtlantic merged with Republic? I think they stayed, but just checking. Vegaswikian 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the Embraer 190 is operated by US Airways, not even under the MidAtlantic Division. See [2] Cliffb 01:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Incident summary

Can someone explain to me what the entry Uninjured means under Injuries? Is this an convoluted way to say there were no injuries? Vegaswikian 06:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Best best I've come up with is that is what is on the gov't sites that are linked. I was thinking the same thing -- its insanely convoluted, either the header needs to be changed (say "Passenger/Crew Status") or the uninjured ones need to come off the list... Cliffb 02:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I strongly believe that these should come off unless the incident is really notable for something besides being an incident. I'd almost go so far as too say no article, no mention needed. But that could be a little extreme. Vegaswikian 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


You have accidents listed for Mesa Airlines and other airlines operating under USA code, and yet you missed all the major accidents - including 6 hull losses.

Someone needs to go the the ntsb.gov site and get an accurate list here.

  • That assumes this section is really needed. I for one think it is not since the FAA and NTSB sites already cover this. Maybe a standard link for the external links to point to those sites might work if there was one by airline. Vegaswikian 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I actually think it should be on the wikipedia page.. however it either needs to be a notable incident or accident. You'd be amazed at what qualifies for an incident/accident according to the FAA standards. (I was reading DC-10 incident reports once and a flight attendant steped on a salt shaker during smooth level flight and required rest and medical attention, and an incident report was filed.) Having them linked to the flight number also encourages articles to be written. Some of the accident articles are very interesting. -- Cliffb 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • But is there a reasonable point for a guideline? Clearly some incidents are encylopedic. Something without at least an injury is not very likely to be encylopedic. Vegaswikian 06:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger vs Acquisition

The article recently got changed to say America West acquired US Airways. However legally a US Airways Group subsidiary acquired America West Group. But for accounting purposes America West was considered the acquiring airline. I think the article should state merger. US Airways was the larger airline, but America West provided a majority of the management. I think also since the US Airways name is the surviving name it makes the most sense to stick with merger? Thoughts? Cliffb 01:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This was no merger. The US Airways bond holders received a small interest in the combined company. I forget the exact number but I think it was about 8%. This was the purchase of a bankrupt company. American West Holdings and the new investors contributed all of the assets to make it happen. Vegaswikian 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree. No it was not. Sure this was a bankrupt company, but it was definitely a merger. Talk to any US Airways employee, and they'll tell you it was a merger. Wikipedian27 18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Naah, it was a takeover; however, among the US Airways assets purchased by AW were its name and brand identity, which it chose to apply to the combined entity. It may look like a merger, or even a US Airways takeover of sorts, and was promoted as a merger (as such deals usually are), but it was an acquisition of a near-bankrupt company by another company that put its own mamagement in charge.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Allegheny merge

I think portions of the Allegheny Airlines article should be here, specifically the Allegheny before 1979 section which is really US Air/US Airways' history, not the Allegheny that flew regionally for US Air/US Airways'. This would clean up the corporate lineage a bit. I've been on a bit of a rampage organizing the merged and airlines so each airline is its own company, and this would be another part of it. Of course the Allegheny article would have a dab for the US Airways Article.. —Cliffb 05:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some movement and elimination of duplicate information would make sense. Create a small overview in the US Airways article under a {{Main}} pointing to Allegheny Airlines would work to get the details from the other article. Vegaswikian 06:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that some information should be added in the interests of history, but make sure people know Allegheny is not operating under that name anymore. US Airways has painted several aircraft in the Allegheny livery with the Allegheny logos. Could lead to confusion. -Neo16287 06:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that All American Aviation Company has been added to the mix, I'm convinced that these airline articles need to be kept. By combining them here we create an overly long history for US that includes many previous airlines. When the timelines of the previous airlines overlap, it makes it even more difficult to write a good article. Brief mentions here and details in the other articles seems the better way to go. It also allows more accurate classification of the old airlines in the correct categories for states they were based in and for being defunct. Vegaswikian 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I cast my vote to keep Allegheny Airlines as a separate article (up to 1979). As a seperate entity (& object of nostalgia for some of us) it deserves its own space. Valerius Tygart 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fleet

There has been some disagreement as to what fleet to list here. In the discussion I've had with other users the decision is to list just the airplanes on the US Airways and not the America West certificates -- taking this information from the FAA data. I think this should be until the fleets are integrated under one certificate. —CliffB 04:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. To the public, there no longer is an America West Airlines. It is all US Airways. We should continue to separate out and note that there are two separate fleets, as I have done and as we do in destination lists. But passengers now buy tickets on US Airways from OAK to PHX - it just so happens that the flight is operated by America West Airlines. You might even fly on a jet painted US Airways from OAK to PHX. We owe it to our readers to clearly explain that these flights are on US Airways, but happen to be operated by a subsidiary company. FCYTravis 06:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Legally, these two companies are still just that... two companies. There is no single operating certificate. I agree that there is a lessening presence of America West to the public, but for the time being, they are still legally operating under two separate certificates, even today (May, 2007). Iheartcorruption 06:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

USAirways/HP/USAirways Group

Okay, lets get a consensus on this so we don't keep this slow edit war going. or at minimum a vote of interested editors. How should we report US Airways/US Airways Group/America West?

I believe the US Airways article should only mention the operating company while making reference to the other related companies. —Cliffb 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you have to remove any mention of US Airways serving Hawaii, any mention of the employee count (as we only have one for the combined company), take out half the hubs, on and on and on... US Airways is an airline brand, and that airline brand has encompassed the America West Airlines flights since January. You cannot buy an America West ticket - all flights are sold as US Airways. It is nonsensical and not helpful to readers who are looking for information on US Airways to pretend that they cannot fly US Airways between Los Angeles and Des Moines, or between Hartford and Honolulu, simply because those flights are technically operated by a rapidly vanishing subsidiary. The paint jobs say US Airways (many of them), the ticket says US Airways, the gate area says US Airways, the flight crew says US Airways, the IFE says US Airways... to the public, it's US Airways. For the planegeeks like us, we should continue to make specific mentions that the operations are still separate, and note that there are two separate fleets, but offer up to the rest of our audience a combined overview of the unified airline which will soon be a reality anyway. FCYTravis 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Operations are seperate, as are the reservations systems, operating procedures, most union contracts. Even the frequent flyer plan is not fully intergrated from what some of the members have told me. Their customers are confused since they see a single brand with two different airlines that are not fully intergrated. So it is not just the geeks that see two airlines. When you check in there are usually two lines, one for HP and a different line for US. So the passenger needs to know which airline they are flying on! Vegaswikian 06:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. Travis makes very good points.. But I'm still not in agreement. Perhaps the way to go here is to think more about delineating within the article "US Airways Brand" and "US Airways Operating Company" I know its something unique for us plane geeks but we also owe it to readers to be accurate, and to enlighten if we can... —Cliffb 06:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is HP any different then PSA Airlines and Piedmont Airlines? All three are subsidaries. Vegaswikian 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think part of it is because really US Airways is a defacto subsidiary of HP, although legally and brand marketing wise its the other way around... —Cliffb 07:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Revision

To address this and disentangle the verbiage I put together a proposed revision. It also has the information merged from Allegheny Airlines and All American Airways articles, but also preserves some of the future state info. Also I worked on this in my sandbox, if you're looking for some Edit summaries.

I believe they should be redirected into the US Airways article. US Airways can trace its linage back to All American so they are part of US Airways' history, right now the articles are short enough that they should be part of this article. —Cliffb 00:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And then we have the mix of old fleets in the article, all of the old code and the issues with correct categories. What if someone decided to add in the last destinations that the airline flew to? While it is suggested that they be combined, when you have several, it's best to leave them seperate. I suppose that you will be merging in HP next? Vegaswikian 03:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No HP should remain its own article... The rationale I'm thinking of is the surviving name rationale. Boeing Air Transport is part of the United article, as it was the company that became United. However Republic Airlines (1979-1986) is its own article, because it wasn't the name/business that survived, Northwest Airlines was. I prepared a little graphic, because I though that would be the best way to illustrate the rationale:

My goal is to go for continuity.. But also given the strange merger structure of the last merger, perhaps we should go the way of the AT&T articles and have a US Airways (pre 2005) article, a America West article, and a US Airways (2005- ) article? Whichever way ends up being the way I think that the history of All American, Allegheny, and US Air until at least the late 80's early 90s, should all be in the same article. Having them split out into little articles breaks up continuity, and can lead to the pedia containing contradictory history on one subject. —Cliffb 06:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm still opposed to this proposal. There are many issues with doing this:
  1. Even while under USAir, Allegheny Airlines was a subsidiary. It merited it's own article per WP:CORP. Merging in all of the information from that article into US Airways in no way helps either article. Right now, the US Airways article is getting close to the size when it would be recommended for a split. I see no value in getting an article to that point only to have to split it out in the near future.
  2. How do you merge in the fleet information? How do you correctly categorize the article so that it shows up correctly? How does someone find all of the information about Allegheny Airlines clearly organized in one place?
  3. How do you do all of this and not make the US Airways confusing for the average reader. Right now there is a lot of information in there and it's getting hard to find what you want. Part of this may be common with some airline articles where the history headings have interesting titles.
  4. A merge like this ignores the needs of an average user who would enter Allegheny Airlines expecting to see an article about that airline. They do not want to sort through another article to find their information.
  5. How many more articles would need to be merged in? Shuttle, Inc? Trump Shuttle? Pacific Southwest Airlines? Vee Neal Airlines? Jetstream International Airlines? US Airways Express? These were real companies that had a history. They had a name and an encyclopedia should respect that fact.
  6. Removing as much as possible from the current article should be a major focus so that next year we can cleanly deal with the airline that results from the merger with America West.
I guess I see these merge suggestions as an attempt to combine the lineage of US Airways in one place. However I think the gain is not worth the problems it will cause for many users of the encyclopedia. Especially in light of the possibility of needing to split this article after the merges there is no reason to merge other articles in. Maybe if they were real stubs I might think otherwise. But given the rich history of several of the airlines involved there is ample justification to keep these articles. Anyone who needs that portion of the USAir history can get it and the rest of the details on those previous airlines with a click. Vegaswikian 18:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't think we're that far apart. I do believe that part of this is that I've not been very clear in communicating. I apologize. I'd like to have the complete lineage of US Airways in one article. Companies that merged into US Airways, or companies that merged into companies that merged into US Airways should have their own articles.
  1. Allegeny, I'm only proposing to merge the section Allegheny before 1979 into the US Airways article. The section Allegheny under USAir and US Airways would stand alone as the Allegheny that flew as an Express carrier from 1979 to 2004. (I'm still curious what is the lineage of this airline? Was it a newly created subsidiary or did US Air buy a carrier and rename it?)
  2. Fleet information would be accomplished in two ways, mentions in the proper historical area, and under the section "Previous Aircraft" (probably should be titled previous fleet).
  3. I think putting the history of the All American Aviation/Allegeny (pre 1979)/US Air/US Airways company on one page will unify the history. We probably do need to add some section headers into the history.
  4. Right now if I want to understand the history of the company we now know as US Airways you have to go through three articles. If you're trying to understand Allegheny pre-1979 its in the US Airways article, Allegheny post 1979 would be in its own article.
  5. I'm not in favor of any more merges. I really want companies to each have their own article, even if they shared a name with a different company. I also would like to have the same company represented in one article even if its flown under different names at times. I think if you look at my recent history with splits Frontier Airlines/Frontier Airlines (1950-1986), Arizona Airways/Arizona Airways (1993-1996), Braniff International Airways/Braniff, Inc./Braniff, Piedmont Airlines/Piedmont Airlines (1948-1989), Republic Airlines/Republic Airlines (1979-1986), and Pan American World Airways (proposed, still need to do it.) I'm trying to get each company its own article, but still keeping the history accessible.
  6. I think there is a little cleanup to be done, but I think we're on track for the future. -- While we've touched there I think America West should be its own article, and should stay that way. (The other option is to have the AWA article just reference a US Airways (193?-2005) article that covers the history of the company that was US Airways previous to the America West Merger. -- I don't favor this.)
I'm honestly just not that sure how much more the pre-1979 Allegeny and All American Aviation articles would need to grow to necessitate their own articles. I think the articles/sections would have to triple or quadruple before they'd merit their own sections. I'm really just wanting to pull the lineage of US Airways into one article, while keeping subsidiaries that existed at the same time as US Airways with their own articles. —Cliffb 06:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

30 Aug 2006 Announcment

I went digging into US Airways' 8K filing, and I'm confused as to what airline (US Airways/AWA) has which aircraft ordered... I just sent an email off to investor relations for clarification to see what they come back with.. —Cliffb 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

US Airways's Callsign

When both US Airways and America West's operations are combined in 2007, will US Airways inherit America West's callsign or will the airline keep its current callsign? Bucs2004 23:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

pittsburgh

If you go to united.com and look at the route map and it clearly labes pittsburgh as a US Airways hub, so i am going to change it -NW

Thanks for clearing it up 72.83.117.107n

Fleet table

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines/Fleet and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines to try and get consensus. No objection has been raised there to keeping orders/options as a heading and I think that we should do so in this article. I bring this up because we seem to have a difference of opinion on the need for that heading in this article. The united table does seem to have some support with the biggest objection being that it has too much data. Discussions should probably be on the project page so that we can arrive at a common format for most or all airline fleet tables. Vegaswikian 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Orders/Options should be displayed in the "Total" column of the fleet table.--Golich17 16:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

LAS

Is LAS really US Airways' secondary hub???? Bucs2004 17:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!! I have changed who ever put US Airways is a secondary hub at LAS back to being its main hub. Bucs2004 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Article size

The aticle is currently at about 30K so we should consider splitting out material that could be a new article. Not sure what that should be. One thought I had was one article for all of the mergers. Vegaswikian 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fleet Table

The fleet table is simple and dispalys basic, yet needed information. Changing it similar to the Singapore Airlines article will not accomplish anything. Considering what Vegaswikian said above, this article shouldn't have America West airlines information displayed in it. The airline is merged, and seperate information is no longer needed. America West information can be displayed in the America West Page!--Golich17 03:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well the fleet table is still basic, but the now shows the two airlines. Since America West purchased US Airways, the airlines have been working as one company but not one airline. So some planes are operating under the US Airways FAA cert, and some under the America West cert. Its not fair to the readers for them not to know the differences between the two fleets. -Ben 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The information is not "unneeded." There are two sets of very different aircraft flying around right now, even though they're both painted US Airways. The seating configurations are entirely different on the 319, 320, 733 and 752 fleets, and that information has to be communicated. Is it pretty? No, but neither is the merger. We can't pretend these differences don't exist just for convenience's sake. FCYTravis 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Establishment Date

This airline traces its history back to 1937. If we're going to pin down by when it took its name it would be 1996 when it changed to US Airways from USAir. Picking a 1979 date is as arbitrary as picking a 1996 date; 1980's USAir looked very similar to 1978's Allegheny Airlines. Changing the name didn't drastically and instantly change the airline. If anything the PSA, Piedmont, and America West mergers were more significant than any of the name changes. —Cliffb 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really

It really isn't rocket science here. You can't ignore the fact that while US and HP are operated together, their aircraft are still configured differently, though a process has begun to standardize the A319 and A320 fleet on the America West interior layout. If we're going to include the US West aircraft in the US Airways fleet count (which we should), we need to make clear the differences involved. No, it's not simple and easy and clean - but neither is life. It makes the table more complicated but it's reality, and you can't deny reality just so the table looks like you want it to, Golich. FCYTravis 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually they are still two airlines with two certificates. At the counter, there are check in stations for US and check in stations for HP. Workers are hired for either US east (US) or US west (HP). Both are a part of the US Airways Group. They are not legally or practically one in the same. They are two airlines operating in very close partnership under one parent. I believe that even the unions are for the most part either different or operating under different contracts for east and west. On the bright side, this confusion should end later this year. Then we will only need to deal with the multiple configurations on the aircraft until that change is completed. Vegaswikian 22:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • By "operated together" I mean that the scheduling, planning and marketing have been unified, pretty much. If you asked the average joe passenger to tell you the difference between a US East flight PHX-PHL and a US West flight PHX-PHL, they'd be hard-pressed to figure out that they were technically on two different airlines. FCYTravis 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The information is very important, yes the normal passenger may not know the difference between US, HP, HPX (Express), USX (Express). But we are here to educate the normal person, we have the information and we are here to pass it on. This needs to be dropped, this is not that big of a deal. I am going to add the fleet information back in. -Ben 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delta non-merger

Ok, so now that the Delta merger isn't going to happen, I'm thinking it's time to clean up that bit of the article. I'm thinking that it doesn't even belong on the US Airways page, or at most a brief mention. I would put the bulk of the information on US Airways Group since without a merger, there's no real effect on the airline's history, it is more relevant to that of the parent company. -- Hawaiian717 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Parker's DUI

I moved Parker's DUI to his article. It isn't really a notable event in the history of US Airways, but it is in the history of Doug Parker. At best it deserves a one sentence mention after the withdraw of the Delta merger offer. —Cliffb 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, per your suggestion, I inserted a one-sentence mention in the same paragraph as the Delta merger withdrawal. Thanks! --Inetpup 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually if this is really needed it should be in the US Airways Group article and not the airline one. Vegaswikian 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Same with it not really being right in the Delta article. --Matt 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

US Airways Group article should be shortened

Much of the content in the US Airways Group should be moved back into the US Airways article. Why? It should be made consistent with other airline holding company articles such as UAL Corporation and AMR Corporation, which are much more compact in detail. --Inetpup 05:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that information about the parent company should be placed in a different article? Maybe the UAL Corporation and AMR Corporation articles need to be restructured. 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I am saying that some info from the parent company should be moved back into the US Airways article. For example, neither the UAL or AMR article list fleet information, nor information about past mergers.--Inetpup 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. The company owns two major airlines. The only correct place to list the combined fleet is in the parent article. So that information correctly belongs there. I'm not sure about the details of UAL or AMR to say if they have the same situation.
  • The holding company is not an airline! It merely exists to wholly operate two subsidiaries that happens to be two airlines. Extending your logic, you would end up listing branches of Citibank under the Citigroup Corporation article, which would not at all be correct.--Inetpup 00:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct, the holding company is not a airline. So if you want to list all of the assets of the holding company, the holding company article would be the correct place. There is simply no better article that would maintain the accuracy of the encyclopedia content. In your citi example, if you wanted to list all of the bank branches for several companies directly owned by citi, then you would do that in the citi article. However those are assets that no one is likely to try and list. Vegaswikian 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Who did the acquisition? Was it US Airways Group or was it US Airways? If the former it belongs there and not here.
  • Its my understanding it was the other way round. America West Holdings merged into Barbell Acquisition Corporation which was a new company owned by US Airways Group. At the same time US Airways Group issued its stock to both former America West Holdings Corporation shareholders, and to the companies that put in additional equity. So America West is a subsidiary of America West Holdings which is a subsidiary of US Airways Group. This is how it is in the America West Holdings article, as well as my understanding from press releases. As an aside to this I believe from a Tax Accounting perspective US Airways Group was the successor (use the losses to offset gains.) and from a Wall Street Accounting perspective America West Group was the successor.. (e.g. They cherry picked all over the place to get the maximum benefit.) —Cliffb 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
As an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to have correct information. What is reported by the press is frequently not correct. So is the way it is listed here incorrect? And for the other two articles, is the data there in the correct articles? Vegaswikian 21:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fleet table-sortable

Can someone explain why this table should not be sortable? To take the position that no one wants to see the table in another order seems so wrong. I have always said it should be by aircraft size. Can I then change this back to aircraft size so that it is in my correct order? I must be missing something here. Vegaswikian 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

US Airways is an American low-cost airline

Low cost airline?--Bbudik1001 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A318 order

I think the A318 Order should be removed. Right around the time the merger began, or even before, America West converted all their 318 orders into 319's. They may have been just straight up canceled, but in any case, US is not taking any A318's.

You're absolutely correct. People keep putting it back in, but it doesn't exist. FCYTravis 08:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aug23Proposed

Can Talk:US Airways/Aug23Proposed be deleted? Vegaswikian 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll flag it now.. —Cliffb 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Envoy Sleeper

I just flew into Manchester, UK on US Airways Flight 734, in Envoy Class - the aircraft was reconfigured to 30C, with the six International First Class/Envoy Sleeper seats still very much in place. I hope that ends this stupid nonsense about the seats being removed. FCYTravis 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

winglets

After the series of changes adding winglet information to this article and after looking at the changes done to the 757 article, I believe that these changes are intended as spam. While they provide some useful information, their basic purpose is for sales promotion of these winglets. What do others think? Vegaswikian 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC) I really don't think Boeing, or anyone for that matter is going to sell, or try to sell winglets through wiki.

Fair use rationale for Image:USAir dividendmiles.gif

Image:USAir dividendmiles.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:USAir clublogo.gif

Image:USAir clublogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

US Airways as an LCC

Please explain why "US Airways' business model is not that of an LCC." An LCC is just that - a carrier with low operating costs, or CASM. US Airways has a low CASM. FCYTravis 04:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because they have used the phrase "low-fares airline" in their advertising doesn't mean we should agree with them and declare them an LCC. Look at Low-cost carrier. The US Airways business model has little to do with the likes of Southwest, easyJet, et. al. If we want to say they are an LCC, we should find an independent aviation-industry source that says they are. Otherwise, we should avoid the phrase; we don't present other companies' slogans as fact. ProhibitOnions (T) 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
What, are you arguing that because US Airways has hubs and a premium cabin, they can't be a "low-cost carrier?" You'd better take AirTran, JetBlue and Frontier out of the "low-cost carrier" list too. Patently absurd. Your definition of "low-cost carrier" fails to fit American market realities. FCYTravis 14:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't define anything. US Airways have used the phrase "low-fares airline" in their advertising. That by itself doesn't make US Airways a low-cost carrier. We don't say "Gillette razors provide the best shave a man can get" or "Coca-Cola is a delicious and refreshing soft drink."
If you think US Airways really is an LCC, find a third party source, preferably an industry analyst, who states that US Airways is one. Otherwise, leave it at "airline" and, if you want to see this phrase in the article, later state that US Airways asserts it is an LCC (Does it? "Low fares" is not necessarily the same thing), without saying it is or isn't.
I'm surprised at the robustness of your response to this. All I did was to remove "low-cost" from the opening sentence, linking simply to "airline." Hardly a controversial change. ProhibitOnions (T) 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
US Airways is essentially the former America West Airlines with a new name. America West Airlines was indisputably a low-cost carrier. Please state why the new US Airways should not be similarly considered. FCYTravis 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it isn't just America West anymore. AW was indeed an LCC, but it bought the much larger US Airways, which had and has a hub-and spoke system, flies a varied fleet, has international routes, is part of an airline alliance with codeshare agreements, issues paper tickets and books through travel agencies, has strong labor unions, serves food on board, has "Express" subsidiaries, etc. Not exactly a textbook definition of a low-cost carrier. In time, US Airways might adopt some of America West's cost-cutting strategies throughout the merged airline, which was part of the AW business proposal to rescue it from (near-)bankruptcy, but (I write this as a regular US Airways flyer) there's not a great deal of evidence for this at present from the consumer side. (If, say, Southwest bought United, it wouldn't turn United instantly into a low-cost carrier, even if Southwest were able to apply some of its strategies to the merged business.) Hence their use of the meaningless slogan "low-fares airline." It's hard to see how the merged business can be considered an LCC, even if (given its rather poor reputation for timeliness and customer service) US Airways would clearly like people to think of it as one of the up-and-coming low-cost carriers. I think we should leave LCC out of the initial description of the airline, unless we can show there's consensus in the industry that US really is now a low-cost carrier. ProhibitOnions (T) 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do your homework before making posts which make incorrect assumptions. (FWIW, I hold Platinum Preferred status on US Airways, dating back to the America West days.) America West Airlines had a bank-scheduled hub-and-spoke route network based in PHX, LAS and formerly CMH (indeed, AWA had virtually no non-hub, point-to-point flights), operated a varied, three-type, four-aircraft fleet (757, 733, A319/A320), regularly served international destinations in Canada, Mexico and Central America, codeshared its flights under agreements with Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Continental, Qantas, Northwest, EVA Air and others, issued paper tickets, participated in all interline agreements and listed in all GDS systems, was completely unionized, served food on board in the First Class cabin and offered buy-on-board in Economy, and had Express carriers (Mesa, with CRJs, CR9s, Beech 1900s and Dash-8s, and formerly Chautauqua with ERJs.) Yet, AWA was a low-cost carrier because... it had low CASM. Next argument, please? FCYTravis 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Simplifying transfers?

Quoth the article, on the combination of the merger of US Air and AW's reservation systems:

Now that the computer systems are merged, America West operated flights are marketed as though America West is a wholly owned carrier. This marketing is common practice for airlines that have code share agreements with other airlines operating the aircraft for feeder or regional routes. This practice is not common for all major airlines, but greatly simplifies the process for a passenger connecting between the US Airways and America West operated flights.

Can someone explain how exactly this simplifies connections between USAir flights and flights operated by AW? I had such a connection before the reservation systems were combined and it wasn't any more complicated than any other transfer between two flights operated by the same airline. --Jfruh (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Well when a passenger checked in with US Airways if an America West segment was in the itinerary, the computer system (Sabre) had to talk to the America West system (Shares) asking if that passenger was on that flight in the America West system and vise versa. However if that passenger had changed the reservation at all whether it be in the HP or US side it would cause the reservations not be in sync. So when the passenger would check in with the one carrier it would not check them in the other carrier. Also if a passenger was connecting the other airline would not be able to see when the flight is coming in or how many passengers where on the flight. There are a ton of different situations that cause the passenger not being able to check in with the other carrier. -Ben 21:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Recent news, 2005: Merger with America West, Post 2005 merger, and Final merger pieces seem to split this information too finely and beg a heading for additional information. I thought post 2005 merger would have done that but apparently not. I know this needs to be changed but I'm not sure how. Suggestions? Vegaswikian 04:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Domestic First Class is a joke

I must say after a first hand experience, US Airways Domestic First class makes United's Domestic F product look like the Ritz! 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've flown both, and I agree United's is much better. But US Airways calls themselves a low cost carrier, and gives away first class to premier members, so I think it somewhat balances out in the end. Now if they cost the same, yeah, that'd be sad. --Matt 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, are you looking to change the article to reflect this somehow? Wikipedia isn't a forum, so we probably should be addressing how to work this into the article. --Matt 20:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Boston Logan as Focus City

On the side where it lists focus city for US Air it seems Boston Logan was taken out, but if you go to the Boston Logan Airport website it says on their main page US Air is a focus city. Additionally it states in the main introduction to this wikipedia article that Boston is a focus city. Why was it taken out in the side graph with all the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.154.74 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

US Airways new Philadelphia-Shanghai route

Is US Airways still planning to fly from Philadelphia to Shanghai? Many users keeps removing that from the destinations list. Bucs2004 21:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'US Airways has said that it would apply to the U.S. Department of Transportation government for a nonstop Philadelphia-Shanghai route, starting in 2008 or 2009, and that it was interested in serving Tokyo and India.' from here on June 19 would imply it is still a pipe dream. So in my opinion it should not be listed as a destination unless they are flying there from another city. Vegaswikian 21:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it should remain listed as a destination until a final decision has been made. Delta also applied to the U.S. Department of Transportation for a Atlanta-Shanghai route. It should be listed as "Pending Gov't Approval" until which airline is awarded the route. Bucs2004 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have come across this document in a discussion forum that says that US Airways' application will in fact be Charlotte-Philadelphia-Beijing. Personally, I have no idea what happened to Shanghai, especially due to this, but nothing is official yet (as far as I know). I don't know if their original Shanghai application is still active, if it got rejected, if it has even been officially filed at all, or if the person in the letter is wrong. In light of this, I think both Shanghai and Beijing (since I've brought it up) should be kept off the destinations list, unless someone else has another source. MRasco 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's official. According to this, US Airways has applied for daily nonstop service between Philadelphia and Beijing starting in March 2009. Looks like Shanghai is off the table (at least for the moment) for US Airways. MRasco 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's why they should not be listed until approved. An application does not mean the route will be flown. Vegaswikian 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The route was awarded to the airline on Sept. 25. Bucs2004 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the link to US Airways in Chinese but it says something about blacklisted. Can someone explain what's going on? HkCaGu 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be something like zh:全美航空 or http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%A8%E7%BE%8E%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA HkCaGu 18:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add it too and got the same. Why not take it to the Spam-whitelist discussion page and ask them to whitelist it? Here's the link: [3]
好运, Twalls 19:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Single certificate

While HP aircraft are now operating under the US certificate, this does not mean that there are no longer flights being operated by HP. It is my understanding that the union contracts have not been revised to allow flight and ground crews to aircraft from either fleet. So there are still HP operated flights. Does anyone have any facts that would make the current operation picture clear? Also, there may be a waver that allows the use of both US and CACTUS as call signs, surely if true, meaning that there are still HP operated flights. Vegaswikian 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to flight tracking websites like flightaware.com and see if AWE flight numbers are still AWE. If it's AWE, it'll still be "Cactus". HkCaGu 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I shall clarify. The airline is operating under one certificate right now. The FAA granted some sort of waiver to allow for the use of both callsigns for the time being, hence flights still being coded AWE as to not confuse ATC. Once the company decides to go all USA, the callsign will be Cactus. -Maverick 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

history section

Anyone want to take a stab at rewriting and organizing the history section? Is has gotten to the point that it is not readable. What exactly is recent news? Isn't that a different wiki? Vegaswikian 08:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Envoy Sleeper Seats Considered International Business Class

It has come to my attention that some users are refering the first row of US' Envoy class as "International First Class." The truth is that US Airways no longer operates 3-class cabin service; only Economy and Business (Envoy) Class. According to US Airway's website, the Sleeper Seat is considered a "lie-flat Envoy Seat" [4].75.24.192.141 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • What would call a group a seats different all the other seats on plane and will a bulkhead divider? No US does not call it International First Class but that is just a marketing decision. Comparing the seats to other international airlines, everyone else would call these seats First Class. -Ben 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it's just an Envoy Sleeper seat. If it was considered International First Class, catering/service would be considered a joke compared to International First Class standards. No First Class lounge, no dedicated First class line, no First Class boarding pass, Envoy catering, etc...It's all plain old mediocre 2nd class Envoy. Also compared to other international airlines, these seats are quite dated. They're just your standard lie-flat seats that are found in MANY business class cabins.

Just look at the F-cabins of other international airlines: Singapore [5] Emirates [6] Qatar [7] ANA [8]

Now THAT'S what I call International First Class.

Jendeyoung 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for an American business class cabin, the old First Class sleeper seats are quite advanced. No other American carrier has true flat seating available in Business Class. That still doesn't change the fact that it's not at all marketed as or intended to be a First Class product, and should not be listed as such. It's business class with a flat seat. FCYTravis 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, but the OP claimed "compared to other international airlines." Jendeyoung 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi FCYTravis- FWIW, United Airlines will begin rolling out the 180-degree sleeper beds in Int'l First on Oct. 29, 2007. It's funny that no one talks about the fact that US Airways has had these lie-flat seats for some time - they're a bit narrow and around 6' long, but as of right now (Oct.17) the only US carrier that has truly 180-degree "Lie-Flat" seats. Happysomeone 18:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's incorrect. United Airlines has had fully-flat 180-degree sleepers in most of its International First cabins for years - ever since the United First Suite was introduced in the 1990s. That product is installed onboard all Boeing 747 and 777 international-configuration aircraft. However, United Business will gain 180-degree flat bed seats with the new product rollout. American Airlines also has full-flat seats in its 777 International First cabin. FCYTravis 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
United has had the First Suites for a decade now, and they are 180-degree lie flat seats. USAirways is so cheap that they had to merge their Int F and Int C cabins, just like many other American carriers. I don't consider an airline to be a true international carrier unless they offer and publish THREE classes of service. Jendeyoung 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jendeyoung (talk • contribs)

Auto archive

I'll be turning on auto archiving for the talk page leaving active discussions for 60 days. Vegaswikian 08:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

PHL-PEK happening?

I was just wondering if the new Philadelphia-Beijing nonstop service will launch in March 2009. US Airways has not made an announcement since the announced it in September. Some sources say that it may not launch. Bucs2004 (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the service is still set to launch next year. I heard the same rumors about it possibly not launching (concerning a controversy at PHL over gates) but for now it seems that US Airways was bluffing there. US Airways also has two A343s on order specifically for this flight (with delivery scheduled for just before the flight launches), and they haven't canceled that order yet. Until US Airways (or some other news agency) concretely says otherwise, it seems PHL-PEK will launch.
Note that the other airlines launching new China flights in 2009 (AA, CO, NW) also haven't made any announcements since September either (and there is no reason to believe their routes will not launch), and that the DOT has recently finalized the route authorities for all four airlines. MRasco 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's an article talking about the A340s as well as the threat US Airways made to not fly the route: [9] MRasco 20:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the route is still happening the main reason that the route might have failed was due to the lack of gates space at PHL in the international terminal which has been worked out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.212.143 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverts explained

'Refer to main article.' to replace text is not an appropriate change. Kansas City International Airport is not a focus city per the airlines own web site. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Low Cost Carrier"?

While the carrier likes to refer to itself as "Low Cost Carrier", pays lower salaries than other network carries, and its stockticker symbol is LCC, its overall operating costs are not that low at all. Its business model is not that of a Southwest or Frontier, neither is its fare structure on most routes.

I suggest that "low cost carrier" be deleted from the description paragraph.

Agreed. (Please remember to sign your comments with four tildes next time (~~~~). US Airways is not a low-cost carrier at all, and the sources linked to in the intro do not support this assertion at all. BusinessWeek describes it as a "legacy carrier" that has resorted to fare slashing on a handful of routes as a last-ditch effort to drum up business. The Unisys article describes US Airways as a "network carrier" (ie, not an LCC), that is probably doomed unless it can reduce its costs, which are much higher than those of the low-cost airlines. The RITA article states that US has traditionally been a "network carrier" but its statistics are presently being collated with low-cost airlines due to its use of America West's certification -- hardly clear-cut proof of US Airways being a low-cost carrier. And the Las Vegas newspaper article about another airline that mentions US Airways peripherally in a throwaway sentence is not a reliable source by itself. To be charitable to User:FCYTravis, who seems to be the only person adding the "low-cost carrier" assertion to the text, it's at least a matter of debate as to what extent US Airways may be a low-cost carrier, and I'd be happy to see this discussed in more neutral terms later on in the article. However, the sources he has supplied indicate it's a legacy carrier with high costs. US Airways itself doesn't use the term "low-cost carrier"; it calls itself a "low-fares airline", which is just advertising, and not an assertion of a specific business model. However, it's a little odd that the phrases "low-cost carrier" and "low-cost airline" appear in the intro before the word "airline" by itself ever appears; and as a matter of Wikipedia policy, linking to sources in the intro is also unnecessary, as anything in the intro will be expanded upon later in the article. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm hardly the only person calling it an LCC. I provided you a reference from the United States government that says US Airways is categorized under the "low-cost carrier" segment of airlines. Its costs *are* generally lower than other airlines, and the fact that its "business model is not that of a Southwest or Frontier" is neither here nor there. JetBlue's business model is not that of Southwest or Frontier, and neither is AirTran's. Heck, Frontier's business model is not that of Southwest's, either. Last I checked, Frontier was entirely a hub-and-spoke carrier, with 98%+ of its flights going in and out of Denver. Oh, and yes, US Airways *does* call itself a low-cost carrier. Take a look at its stock ticker sometime. FCYTravis (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's an academic reference to US Airways as a low-cost carrier. Please, you're being absurd. This is the most referenced thing in any airline article on the entire encyclopedia. FCYTravis (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. The article you quote above also says: "The legacy carriers have particularly suffered: Delta, Northwest, US Air, and United are in bankruptcy, and the remaining nonbankrupt legacy carriers (Alaska, American, and Continental) have failed to achieve consistent profitability." Legacy carrier. It then goes on to say the bit you quote: "America West has merged with US Airways to become the nation's largest low-cost carrier. The airline will operate under US Airway's name but will use Phoenix as its headquarters—America West's territory. Many remain skeptical that this merger will lead to success given that US Airways has been in bankruptcy twice in the last decade and profitability has recently eluded America West. For a time the airlines will continue to operate separately. The newly configured US Airways argues for a strategy that appears to be based upon "synergy" of right-sizing the fleet, improving connectivity, and better utilizing assets ("US Airways" 2005). Nonetheless, many remain skeptical that the new US Airways can successfully merge two workforces and two cultures ("US Airways Faces Challenges" 2005). " In other words, good luck. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
All the sources are there because people like you keep trying to remove "low-cost carrier/airline" from the intro. If you think it's ugly, then quit complaining about the sourcing. I'd like you to link to the so-called "policy" which prohibits sourcing in lead paragraphs, because I don't think such a thing exists. There might be a guideline suggesting that sourcing in ledes be minimized, but that's not binding and, in fact, I could point you to a squillion articles with sourcing in the lede. FCYTravis (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there was confusion caused by the America West buyout and retaining the US name. The sources were forced into the intro to prevent edit waring over the type of carrier that US is. To now try and remove the references and the cited facts seems to not make any sense at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Further on the point that "LCC" is not as simple as some people think it is - conflating Southwest and Frontier's business models shows that you really need to study airlines more closely. WN and F9 couldn't, almost, be farther apart on their business models. WN is dominated by a point-to-point route network, with about 10-15 major "focus cities." F9's route network is entirely, almost, centered around DEN - all their experiments at point-to-point flying outside that system have failed. WN has no IFE. F9 has seatback TVs in every aircraft. WN has never even considered express-type subcontracted operations. F9 has two - a contract with small jet provider Republic Airlines for Embraer 170 lift, and a contract with a new wholly-owned subsidiary to operate Dash 8-Q400 turboprops. There is almost nothing the same about WN and F9... but they're both low-cost carriers. FCYTravis (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
In other words, the term is meaningless. The sources you link to don't provide clear-cut support for the assertion; several describe US Airways primarily as a "legacy carrier" (and any Google search will find more news articles referring to US as such, or one of the "big six", etc.). If this is a matter of debate -- and I think it is -- then the place for it isn't the intro. I've already suggested the use of the term be moved further down in the article and that the uncontroversial term "airline" be used in the intro. I fail to see your objection to this. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss this in two places at once. See the discussion you started at WP:AIRLINES for future posts. FCYTravis (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas

Please stop changing Las Vegas from a hub to a secondary hub as their current route map lists LAS as one of their hubs. Also, please see past discussions on this talk page. Thanks! Bucs2004 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Acquisition"

I changed "acquisition by America West" in a heading to "merger with" but it was reverted. Anyone care to explain why?--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Still wondering. If I don't hear from anyone soon, I'm changing it back to merger.--Velvet elvis81 (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For the simple reason that it was an acquisition. This was discussed at the time. Bottom line is that the new company was financed by the old US Airways bondholders getting 10% equity. America West and many other companies were the partnership that acquired the old US assesses and had 90% of the financing and ownership. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A318?

Does US Airways have an order for 3 A318's. Airbus' orderbook claims they have 3 on order, which is quite odd I must admit because I haven't heard anything about this.--Golich17 (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they do not. That order was changed to A319/A320 aircraft long ago. FCYTravis (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable Fleet Tables

Let's not collapse the fleet tables. We should remain consistent with other airline pages, which is to display the data without being able to have the option to collapse or not. I think we can and should condense this table as it is starting to grow at a rapid pace, but with ongoing retirements, this table will get smaller over the years.--Golich17 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Former Codeshare Agreements Section

I don't think this section is very encyclopedia worthy nor does it provide any influential details regarding the airline. This is one of the few, if not the only, pages that has this section. I think it takes up space and it can be deleted. Any thoughts on this?--Golich17 (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Portions could be made into paragraphs for historical background, but as it stands the section doesn't warrant inclusion. --Matt (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input

Hello. I'm soliciting opinions regarding the controversy surrounding the formation of the US Airline Pilots Association. Please see Talk:US Airline Pilots Association#Controversy and add you opinion. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

America West became a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways Group

in keeping with the SEC documents, I think its very clear how this transaction took place. What is your opinion? I have someone changing this section even though I use reference from the factual SEC filing and the editor does not provide any reference to back up their changes to my work. I would guess that they are not interested in keeping wikipedia factual. Thanks EditWithFacts (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Read through all of the documentation and previous discussions. What happened and how it was structured for the court proceedings are two different things. The old US Airways Group is gone. What was left is the old America West Holdings with a bunch of other investors, and the bond holders of the old US Airways Group owning 10% of the new company. There were legal reasons for calling it a merger in the court documents. However that does not changes the facts. Review all of the other long discussions here and all of the other documents and filings. It is a new company with with owners and both old companies are gone. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the source, I agree with EditWithFacts. The action was characterized as a "merger" throughout the SEC filing and the "Structure of the Merger" in the document states that "On the effective date of the merger, Barbell Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of US Airways Group newly organized to effect the merger, merged with and into America West Holdings. Through this transaction, America West Holdings became our wholly owned subsidiary." After reviewing the rest of the document I think this is a better description of what went on. The "for accounting purposes only" statement may be relevant to the article, but only warrants a passing reference. It certainly shouldn't be used to drive the section title. I suggest changing the title to either "Acquisition of America West" or the more neutral "Merger with America West". Organizational and accounting details are covered in the body of the text. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can live with a rename of the header, to a totally NPOV Emerging from Bankruptcy. Vegaswikian (talk)
I assume that was tongue-in-cheek. After reading further, I see that this appears to be more of a case where investors were brought in to finance a new company (New US Airways Group) that effectively acquired both airlines. Following that path, what exists today is a totally new airline, which just happens have acquired and retained the US Airways brand name. Looking at prior discussions, I see statements to the effect that America West as the surviving airline. Other than the retention of their headquarters and several positions on the combined board of directors, are there any references supporting this view? If those were brought to light, I think that would help resolve this issue. Currently the only reference for this section is an embedded link to the SEC filing. I apologize for stirring the pot, but this seemed like another East vs West pride thing. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Not an East v West thing. I'm not sure those differences will ever be resolved until most of the old group of employees retires. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. I'll be retired first. But the section heading has been challenged. I don't think we can ignore the question without a source to back the present language. -- Tcncv (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; Wikipedia is supposed to be factual and my input has been nothing but factual. The SEC document is very accurate and very clear as to what took place. My posts give exact location and language references to back up the statements. Vegaswikian on the other hand never cites any credible references to back up or to verify his/her statements. Notice that the SEC reference to documents is always deleted when vegaswikian changes the title to his/ her favor. I have studied in great detail this merger and the mergers of major corporations in a professional capacity; some of which included Mobil Exxon, and Chevron Texaco. Lets keep this web source factual![[10]] EditWithFacts (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and everything must be presented in a neutral point of view. Excessively lengthening a section title and including a long URL are violating both. HkCaGu (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Would "Merger with America West" be more appropriate for length and neutrality? Several past editors of this article appear to support the "America West acquired US Airways" view. But no one has responded with a reference supporting this view, when I asked about it. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds neutral to me. Any POV stuff should be explained in the text. HkCaGu (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Beijing service

Did US Airways push back the Philadephia-Beijing service from 2009 to 2010? 74.183.173.237 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was changed because US Airways couldn't obtain an Airbus A340 in time (They had until May). One thing I'd like to know is why isn't the A340 listed as on order?

User:Seanwarner86 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Officially the airline position is due to the dramatic increase in fuel prices they have requested a one year delay. Whether they could have obtained enough A340's in time for the previous May 2009 launch or not who knows. They could have done the route with a tech stop in Anchorage using the A330's they already have. A tech stop and potentially reduced cargo capability though mean a lot less revenue. I've seen a few A340's have changed hands recently so I'm not certain the problem was inability to get the aircraft. One does wonder though about the wisdom in launching service using a plane you don't already have. Skywayman (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh no longer a focus city

There's an internal document available here spelling out the last major round of cuts.

Q: So where does PIT shape up compared to other stations in the system? Are we still a focus city or whatever the term du jour is?

A: PIT in January (and to a certain extent today), is now operating about the same number of flights as other large, non-hub cities around our system, i.e., LAX, DFW. It’s fair to say that PIT is an important city for us, but would not qualify for hub or focus city status.

Hope this clears that up. FCYTravis (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent research! QualityControl3533 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Doug Parker's DUI Convictions Are Significant, and Should Be Added to the Main Article

US AIRWAYS CEO Doug Parker’s DUI conviction in 2007 is a significant issue (and his two priors roughly 20 years before have a lesser degree of signifigance. [Sources: East Valley Tribune (www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/83778)]; Aircrew Buzz (aircrewbuzz.com/2007/02/doug-parker-pleads-guilty-to-dui-charge.html); (aircrewbuzz.com/2007/02/us-airways-ceo-arrested-for-dui.html), numerous others available on internet news sites. Although he is only one person, he is the visible ambassador for this company, and is expected to set an example. The pilots he oversees have strict rules against drinking before flying for very obvious reasons; drinking and driving is also a crime, and should not be permissible for the lead executive of a company in the transportation industry. That he didn’t resign or be terminated by the board for this violation of the law is certainly relevant, as it gives the reader information of the style of governance of the board of US AIRWAYS.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a college classmate of mine whom I had respected, left office because of what is normally considered to be a minor crime, and it was completely appropriate that he did leave office. He made an an ethics violation, set a poor example, and appeared clearly hypocritical based upon his history of taking a hard line on violators of the law, including operators of prostitution rings. He could no longer be considered what we thought he was, and lost his credibility and effectiveness when his history with prostitutes came to light.

In my position as a retained executive search consultant (to learn more about me, go to www.alandarling.com), a significant part of my job is evaluating senior executives, their current impact on their current business and their potential impact on a potential new one (I may charge in excess of $100,000 for this service). I would not present a candidate with a recent DUI conviction for a senior position in the transportation industry, nor, if I was a board member, would I permit the person to remain in a senior position. US Airways has made a statement, and not a favorable one in my view, by keeping Parker in place.

The airline currently ranks dead last among the major carriers for customer satisfaction as of May, 2008, (source: (www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/19/daily24.html?ana=from_rss). Whether that is due to Parker's DUI, his overall leadership, or is completely based on the hand he has been dealt is unclear, but the results the airline is producing are poor in the customer's eyes.

Information on the company’s leadership and board governance is certainly lacking in this article. I would like to learn more about it in general, and about the decision-making process they took when discussing retaining or terminating Doug Parker based upon this legal violation. 216.158.173.132 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Mr. Parker's criminal transgression has had any long-term effects on his governance or on the company. It was a brief news story, and nothing more.
It is up to you to provide sources which justify its inclusion here. Your personal opinion about what should or should not be permissible and what is and is not ethical, is interesting (and I don't necessarily disagree with it) but it is not encyclopedic. FCYTravis (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is not in any way encyclopedic information about the airline. Remember that this is an encyclopedia and not a job search service. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm... so the fact that Dougie got a DUI affected the carrier's low customer satisfaction? Hey, look, US Airways is among the top-three carriers for on-time performance. Did Dougie's DUI do that, too? Fun with correlation!
As I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you (I speak as an ex-US frequent-flyer who jumped ship in 07 to United) about Dougie's job performance. But we need independent sources that discuss how this past incident is relevant to the broader history and affairs of the airline. If there aren't any sources outside the news stories (arrested, pled guilty, jailed, end of it,) then I can't see how the mention fits here. FCYTravis (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You should also not make significant changes to prior comments. Add them a new ones with a date and time stamp. An encyclopedia needs to contain sources that are reliable for the information provided. How the DUIs affected his performance is pure conjecture and have no place in the encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Callsign

There have been a lot of rumors about the callsign over the last few years. Ever since the merger became official the former America West division has continued to use Cactus as the callsign. The rumors have been that the combined carrier will use the Cactus callsign. When the merger was announced it was felt that US Airways had more brand recognition then America West and the combined carrier kept the US Airways name. Since most of the general public is not aware of the callsign many employees from the America West side would like to retain the Cactus callsign to show they were the acquiring company without harming the US Airways brand. Most flights on the west side of the airline since the merger have been using the ICAO code AWE and callsign Cactus while the east side uses USA code and USAir callsign. The latest rumor is September 1, 2008 ICAO code for all flights will be USA and callsign Cactus. Guess we'll see if it becomes official or not then. Skywayman (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed someone asked the company about this on page 5 of the 21-Aug-2008 edition of About US. An online version can be found at http://www.justplanenews.com/PDF/AboutUS%20082108.pdf. There is a question about the call sign in which the company responds they will start using the "Cactus" call sign on Sept. 1st. Moelleref (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a pretty official source to me. All I could find online were discussion threads and I consider those rumors unless they list credible sources. I was fairly certain that Cactus was going to the callsign in the end. However last year around this time the rumor was it would happen when they got one operating certificate. Somehow and for reasons I'm not certain of they got a waiver to continue using two callsigns anyway. I would recomend leaving the field entry as US USA USAir/Cactus until September 1st. Then on that day change it to US USA Cactus. The previous unsigned edit that had read US USA US AIR/Cactus(becoming all Cactus on Sep 1st 2008) seems to clutter the infobox. There has been some grumblings from east side pilots on this, but it's a little petty if you ask me. You can't spell cactus without US (or USA either). Come fly with cactUS :) Skywayman (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should just leave it as is and change it on September 1st since it is only 9 days away. I also remember them saying they were going to change to Cactus when they combined operating certificates and then at the last minute they changed their mind. Better to wait until it is actually in use on the east side. Moelleref (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
It's official finally. I just heard Philadelphia tower clear Cactus 728 Heavy for takeoff, destination Heathrow. Cactus over the Atlantic! Skywayman (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger vs. Acquisition - The Dispute

The combined company has publicly referred to the combination transaction as a merger. However, employees, the media and the public sector alike, have taken this merger, and called it at times an acquisition. People from both sides claim that their side bought the other. Articles on the internet, including the Wikipedia article on America West and US AIRWAYS, are usually tailored to the authors' opinion. Those who favor America West will claim that America West bought and rescued US Airways. US Airways supporters will claim the opposite.

These types of disputes of opinions have resonated throughout the current US Airways workforce, and have contributed to the various labor disputes going on during the integration of both workforces from former America West and US Airways. The company has abstained from using phrases such as "suggested putting the airline up for sale," "acquired," "acquisition," and "bought them..." due to their adverse effect.

A similar situation is currently underway at the current merger of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines. Employees of both sides are already bickering over who bought who on different internet blogs.

For a factual account of the merger, please refer to the company's OFFICIAL SEC filing

It is also possible to find the actual merger announcement, which makes no reference about "acquisition" on the US Airways website, under the archived press releases:

America West Official Announcement

US AIRWAYS Official Announcement

Miamijunge (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So the question is what does the SEC document say?
For accounting purposes only, we will account for the merger as a “reverse acquisition” using the purchase method of accounting in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Although the merger is structured such that America West Holdings became our wholly owned subsidiary at closing, America West Holdings will be treated as the acquiring company for accounting purposes in accordance with SFAS No. 141, “Business Combinations.” Because America West Holdings’ stockholders are expected to own approximately 37% of the shares of New US Airways Group after the merger as compared to the former US Airways Group creditors who will own 12%, which assumes the exchange of certain convertible debt and reflects the impact of certain securities that are dilutive at the per share price paid by the equity investors, America West Holdings received a larger number of designees to the New US Airways Group board of directors, and America West Holdings’ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer serves as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of New US Airways Group, America West Holdings is deemed to be the acquiring company for accounting purposes.
The bottom line once you cut through the legalese, is that the old US Airways Group is dead. All that survives is a 'new' company that bought out of bankruptcy by another company with a long list of additional investors. The only equity in the deal from the dead company is the 12% state given the to creditors of the old company. All of the previous owners, stockholders in that company, got nothing. So while it is referred to as a merger to make it happen, it was structured as a “reverse acquisition”. So you could call it a merger or a reverse acquisition. Given the financing and the end result, the “reverse acquisition” seems to be most accurate way to describe what actually happened. Interesting the games you need too play to keep certain names in play. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


I have flagged this page as biased, and there it will stay for eternity. To all above, unless you are an attorney or an investment banker, or an accountant, you have no business interpreting something you do not understand. And to skywayman, America West did not purchase anyone. Read the sec filings, as I guess you don't understand the concept,"for accounting purposes only." djs. 21:00, 21 September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.90.104 (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Flight 1549 - LaGuardia to Charlotte

I know Wikipedians orgasm at the thoght of being the first to report, but Please DO NOT ADD THIS INCIDENT TO 'INCIDENTS' yet. the 'incident' is a mere 1 hour old and already Wiki users have put uncomfirmed reports up with NO basis, no matter if CBS, FOX or anyone else has interviewed. Changes will be made anyway; let's wait a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.94.13 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that this accident has been confirmed, clearly US Airways only has 353 airplanes remaining. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should be able to edit the incident immediately. Wiki fans have the right to know what is happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.246.98.132 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

aw man...can't edit this wiki... BlueChainsawMan (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that everyone has had their fun editing the page as fast as they could and now sence it's locked to admins, can someone put in their that it was a Bird Strike. I think it is well established that it was and the it is not WP:CRYSTAL. BW21.--BlackWatch21 23:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

the BBC said 78 people were treated, but only one of them had a reported injury. i'm not sure if it's right to classify a broken leg as serious or not (i would say not), or if being treated for hypothermia should be listed as minor or ignored (i would say not). 71.234.109.192 (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, someone changed the 1549 people count to 155 uninjured but then 78 minor injured. the columns are meant to be mutually exclusive so i will fix this to 154 and 1, since the only reported injury was a broken leg... though supposedly someone also had a cracked sternum, i can't find evidence. it should be expected those people who were in icy water got hypothermia anyway, so i don't think it's worth increasing the minor injury count. 71.234.109.192 (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Can the plane be salvaged? The news hasn't said anything about this yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft count

The lead section of this article shows "353 mainline jet aircraft" (down from 354), but the Fleet section shows "a fleet of 356 twinjets" (down from 357). In that same section, the sum of the active aircraft counts totals 353 (after a reduction of the Airbus A320-200 count from 75 to 74. It sounds like 353 is correct. Also, the term "twinjets" seems incorrectly qualify the given count. I suspect that many of the regional jet aircraft excluded from this count also have a twinjet configuration. Someone with more knowledge than I might want to review this. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

PHX-NRT

I know that US Airways is planning to fly PHX-NRT nonstop in 2012 but should we add them as destinations. I am not sure that this is confirmed or not. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a small edit war going on between an IP and a more established user, with the latter citing wp:crystal as justification for his reverts. Admittedly the IP was not providing a source, which is available, and hopefully that will be enough to calm the situation. I disagree with the established that wp:crystal is applicable here, the event is not too far in the future, almost certain to take place and verifiable. Furthermore, the fleet table in the article refers to company activity expected to take place in 2015 and in other articles the PHX-NRT route is also mentioned. With all this in mind I have re-added the information, with a reference but ofcourse welcome discussion. RaseaC (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see how NRT can make sense in this article, but not in the destination listing or the PHX or NRT airport pages. HkCaGu (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
yeah, since PHL-PEK is listed here to begin in "Spring 2010" that would make sense. However I would wait until the airline gives a date and the flight do appear in schedules before listing it in airport articles. However, US Airways did not say GRU will be flown from (presumely PHX or CLT). 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.173.237 (talk)
The source does not states that PHX-NRT begins January 2012...so i changed it to read only "2012" since no where in the article states January. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with all of the above. Sorry about the January part, I literally just re-instated the IP's edits and pasted a ref at the end, a slight oversight on my part. RaseaC (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro service

When EXACTLY are they launching service from Charlotte to Rio? Some say the route is to begin as scheduled on December 2nd, some changed it to December 15th, back to December 2nd, and back to December 15th again. Did they postpone the launch again? Snoozlepet (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, December 2nd. Best bet is to go on the site and see when they are bookable onwards. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely 12/15. [1] --Nicola.tesla.rowe (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird Airbus aircraft numbers should removed! Airbus A320-214

I hate this extra three digits:

  • Airbus A320-214
  • Airbus A320-231
  • Airbus A320-232

We don't need it "-214", "-231", "-232"! Extra information which became cluttered and difficult to read it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but there is a dicussion about this already over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Please put view there, also the -231 and -232 defines the engine models on aircraft, so they have every right as Boeing 737-300. It's not you're opinion it's the information being shown. Regards.Zaps93 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

US Airways vs America West

The focus of this article is about the airlines named US Airways and its predecessors. However, today's airline was essentially an acquisition of US Airways (east) by America West. The ICAO code, callsign, ticket numbers, management, and headquarters are all America West heritage. I understand there is a separate America West article describing its history, but shouldn't there at least be a link at the top noting that article and that this one is focused on the named US Airways companies only? Crescent22 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

US Airways terminating crew base LGA and BOS

I wroting text, but two other editors are delete it:

Can you help improve (my poor English) and help me put in correct section? Thanks.--B767-500 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No SOCKS allowed~!

Guys, you know the drill after the edit-waring is stopped... please take your time to talk it out here. Also, note that the editor was → B767-500 (talk · contribs) ← was BLOCKED for SPAMMING trollish remarks on the talk pages of 4 editors (including mine). Lastly, note that there will no more tolerance for IP socking here, anyone who wilfully does it again is liable to be BLOCKED as well, worst case scenario being an INDEFINITE BLOCK. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Condensing and Editing

The more I go through the page, the more I realize how convoluted and excessively detailed the entire history is, especially after the turn of the century. I'm willing to go through and research/add citations wherever needed (as I've done for the entire period up to the 90's), but I'm wary of deleting information that others might deem too important. Is there anyone else that I can work with to try and condense some of this? At least minimize clutter and streamline the history. And if there are no volunteers, what's the best way to do this myself without upsetting people? Thanks. Bizzarechipmonk (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

split Dividend Miles

United MileagePlus and Delta Skymiles both have their own articles and I feel if some history can be added, there's enough information to spin Dividend Miles off into its own article. Thoughts? CapsLock NumLock ... CapsTalk NumTalk 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split off yet. First of all, I'm not sure it's as notable as MileagePlus or AAdvantage, which were the first two frequent flyer programs made by a large airline. Also, that entire section is unsourced, and it looks like a travel guide because of the lists of benefits for each tier of the program. People reading an encyclopedia really don't care about that stuff; rather they would expect to find that information on the airline's website or in an ad or travel guide. If it was split off in its current form, it would probably be subject to deletion. If you think it's notable enough to have its own article, it should first be improved with history added, benefits removed, and refs added. —Compdude123 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Both MileagePlus and AAdvantage include information about benefits. CapsLock NumLock ... CapsTalk NumTalk 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but both of those articles include info about the programs' histories, too. That should be added to this article. Also trim down the lengthy benefits listing. —Compdude123 22:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reagan National Airport is not a hub.

Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is not a hub of US Airways, it is a focus city. It clearly states here: http://www.usairways.com/en-US/aboutus/pressroom/factsheets.html on the first pdf link, which was updated on April 1st, that Ronald Reagan National Airport is a focus city, not a hub. --Greggy123 (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it already and included the reference to it, although some staff may say that DCA is a hub, the primary sources as per WP:V should be taken over what the staff had said. Sb617 (Talk) 09:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
But you have weakness in argument due to Scott Kirby is President, which he is not just a staff! --B767-500 (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, let's hope we don't get into an edit war with B767-500 (talk · contribs). —Compdude123 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't do the edit war with editors due to ...

You explains issues and don't just dumps my text. So, I just wait for upgrade to hub status when lefting the gates by Delta, and update DCA portion in summer.--B767-500 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Split should be vetted properly {{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

The following split should on the table for discussion: 

{{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}

I don't know if the above is a split or a rename proposal, but just wanted to put it forward for discussion. The above is in reference to the article American Airlines–US Airways merger.

--71.135.164.241 (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that American Airlines-US Airways merger be merged into both American Airlines and US Airways--Petebutt (talk) 07:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Defunct: America West vs. US Air

It should be noted that America West purchased US Air and thus the company US Air ceased to exist but the branding, which was determined to be much better for the entire combined airline as was retained. The entire line of corporations comes all from the America West side and the original US Airways ceased to exist as Chapter 11 bankruptcy and then sale to an America West created entity. The combined company uses the AWE identifier with nickname "cactus" to signify the airline that "really" survived. The defunct company is US Airways not America West. I suggest using the Bank of America Corporation/NationsBank wiki page as the template for company details in summary and entry. This will also template the American Airlines merger very nicely.

Do you have any sources to support this please? --JetBlast (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Merger Details:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701345/000095012305011287/p70803a2sv1za.htm p. A-2-4

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701345/000095012305011287/p70803a2sv1za.htm p. B-2-18

Callsign:

http://www.allacronyms.com/CACTUS/United_States__Airways/1302569

http://www.flightradar24.com/

"Commenced in 1996"?!

Dear all, I think this statement (founded in 1937, commenced in 1996) in the infobox is misleading. Obviously, the purpose of these two "data slots" is to cater for airlines which launched revenue flights considerably later than being founded. Take Lufthansa as an example: The company was founded in 1953, but the actual "airline stuff" was only started in 1955. I can fully understand that the history of the various predecesors of US Airways is complicated and must be well explained, but this infobox spot is not the right place.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem with mergers, acquisitions and name changes. Even the buyout by AWA does not change the fact that this airline and its successors has been flying for a lot longer. Simply stated it did not start flying in 1996! Now was a new name only, right? So no problem removing it from my point of view. On a slightly different topic, I have been thinking that the history detail should be moved to its own article. The same thing should probably be done for AA. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Headquarters and CEO

Please note that US Airways is still headquartered in Tempe, Arizona NOT Fort Worth, Texas (that is actually the HQ for the airline's holding company American Airlines Group) as per http://www.usairways.com/en-US/contact/general.html; please provide a source stating that US Airways have relocated its headquarters to Fort Worth. Parker is the CEO of American Airlines Group. US Airways's CEO is also Robert Isom as per http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/corporateInformation/facts/structure.jsp. Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Twitter Pornographic Incident

I deem it as necessary because major publications such as Huffington Post and other reliable sources have stories about it. It is encyclopedic as it uses encyclopedic language, and is an accurate description of what had occurred. EDIT: How many more sources do you need? It passes WP:DUE as a majority of the sources reporting on it are reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is nothing more then not the news! Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to use an exclamation point after every sentence. Now, the main factor here is notability for WP:EVENTS. Here are my relevant arguments. Each relevant source that reports on it covers it in depth, satisfying WP:DEPTH. It also satisfies WP:DIVERSE as in more than 8+ reliable sources have reported on it. Even CNN has no reported on it. http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/14/news/companies/us-airways-tweet/ Tutelary (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Vegaswikian:, you're the only one who's dissenting at this point. You haven't responded, but have continued editing other articles. If you don't respond, I'm going to edit it back. Rather than contributing solely with edit summaries, contribute on the talk page. Like you said, 'SEE THE TALK'. Tutelary (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll dissent as well. This is a one-off event that will get coverage for one or two days, and then disappear forever. Forget all the silly WP guidelines: in the long-term history of this company, is this something anyone's going to care about? When they write the history of US Airways, should there be even a paragraph devoted to this one silly incident? No, obviously not. Delete it and move on. Esrever (klaT) 14:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is what governs what content should be added. I can find at least 10+ reliable sources documenting this incident. It has achieved adequate coverage. Tutelary (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to ignore all the rules and do what makes sense. Literally no one is going to care about this in a month's time, much less ten years from now. Esrever (klaT) 15:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
If no one cared, I wouldn't be able to find sufficient sources to document its inclusion. It passes WP:DUE and WP:EVENT I haven't seen a single concise arguments from you arguing for its exclusion other than 'ignore all guidelines' and some policy about ignoring all rules. No. That's for being bold and doesn't qualify for content. Tutelary (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to admit that when I first read about the story and did a Google search solely using "US Airways", the results were quite interesting. News stories about the Twitter image and their Twitter page were ranked above the airline's homepage and its Wikipedia article. It takes an ENORMOUS amount of traffic to change rankings like that. It doesn't matter that activity or interest will likely "blow over" in a few days (which is the norm with news cycles in mainstream media), but the incident will likely be in the minds of the public's psyche for months or years to come. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Zero notablity or importance for an encyclopedic entry for an airline, this is not a newsblog. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that the more reliable sources a subject has, the more worthy it is for an encylopedia. It is encylopedic; just a brief overview, a neutral point of view, and not taking sides. It has achieved more than adequate coverage for inclusion. Tutelary (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources in any quantity are not a free ticket to being added, you have weigh thinks like how important in the eighty-odd year history of the airline the small incident is, as the answer is zero then it doesnt matter how reliable or how many your sources are. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What content policies are you citing for this? Mine are WP:DIVERSE as well as WP:EVENTS and WP:DEPTH. This event meets those criteria given on that page. All I've heard is that it's vaguely 'encyclopedic' without any specific reason why. Tutelary (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably because it is better to give a reasoned argument than quote an alphabet soup of policies and guidelines, but if you wish you could try WP:BALASPS. The result of a consensus to include or not is based on valid reasoning and argument not on how much alphabet soup you can use. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, however note that the majority of the claims on this page only have 1/2 sources. I can easily find 10+. It was covered extensively by many reputable sites, covering WP:DIVERSE. Tutelary (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Do note that Google is deliberately geared to weight brand new events above the standard rank and file; try doing the search again in 31 days time and I doubt that simply googling "US Airways" shall show it then. Short-term prominence doesn't immediately equate to long-term notability, the very fact that the Google rankings will have very likely pushed it down into obscurity without specific term-searching ironically undermines that position. Kyteto (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

←I believe the appropriate point in this case is not every fart is notable. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that 'not every fart is notable'. However, 'farts' that get substancial coverage in a variety of reliable sources qualifies under WP:DIVERSE of WP:EVENTS. CNN, Huffington Post, USA Today, and a variety of other sources have covered it. Not in passing, but in length. The majority of the claims in this article only have one or two citations, I can easily find 10+ for this. It passes WP:DUE due to such. It had an impact on the airline's ability to communicate with its customers. Tutelary (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. While it is big news now, we are not compelled to include every guffaw that gets posted on a companies twitter feed. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You're missing what I'm saying. I agree with you, but you're missing what I'm saying. We don't report on individual treats. However, this event has been covered by mainstream news publications, and extensively, not in pass, so therefore we would be right to include it. Tutelary (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not missing what you are saying. I understand completely. I am saying you are wrong. This is an individual tweet, it was a screw up, the media picked up on it. Simply being in the news doesn't mean that it needs to be in the article. US Airways has been in business for more than 75 years, one minor mess up with their twitter account is not significant enough to be included in the history section of an encyclopedia article about the airline, that is a textbook definition of undue weight.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I agree with the above. No one here is "misunderstanding" what those of you lobbying for inclusion are arguing about. But it's absolutely a "non-notable fart," so to speak. It's getting coverage now because that's what the 24-hour news cycle does. Again, in a month, no one is going to remember or care about this, because it is a totally minor hiccup in the long history of one airline. Esrever (klaT) 16:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, let's review WP:UNDUE, shall we? Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. as well as Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

The key point is reliable sources which this has already qualified for. We don't determine the content, we merely look at the reliable sources, and see what they say. As I said before, unless you can come up with a Wikipedia policy that says exactly what you're saying, WP:DUE does not qualify as there are the necessary sources for it, and in large mass. It does not matter in the sense that you feel it isn't significant enough. The sources are there, they are reliable, and we can use them. Tutelary (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure:
Do you see a pattern developing? The event isn't notable from a Wikipedia perspective. You are confusing newsworthy with notability. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel there's a little bit more to notability than reliable sources exist'. For instance, there are plenty of reliable sources covering the appearance of famous aircraft such as the Avro Lancaster and the Supermarine Spitfire at this year's annual Cosford airshow (And even more from newspapers detailing their appearance last year in the past tense), but its not on their respective articles. Despite that I could cite ten sources to validate the information as verifiably correct, it's not notable, and its undue weight - no airshows are singled out, even though we could more than double the amount of citations used on some articles by doing so; simply having the sources present isn't the only factor here, or even the most important in my eyes. It's a question of impact, long-term significance, and implications - summed up as notability. For instance, let's look at other chances in the company: The CEOs, perhaps the most influential men that are present in the organization, we don't even note who they all are, what they were appointed to do (usually they come in under one grand mission statement or a circumstance present they intent to change), or what caused their downfall and resignation. It's an WP:Otherstuff point I concede, but I find it oddly humourous that we have little to no information on Corporate affairs, which I'd dare say would likely hold a hundred-fold more importance in the overall scheme of the company history and actions, but this is the issue that MUST go in. What I am saying is, there is plenty, plenty of notable information that could be found out and cited that hasn't made it into this article across a huge breadth of time, and we're focusing down on a minor blip like this. It's very much what WP:RECENTISM warns us against, and to consider the long-term importance of. Kyteto (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted. The event has been given its WP:DUE weight and deserves a mention. I am willing to start a RfC over this, as I believe it has achieved its notability. Tutelary (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do start an RfC. There is certainly no consensus for inclusion (not that I am saying that there is clear consensus for exclusion either). It would be nice to get some wider input, and put this to bed, so to speak. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I will when I get home. (Around 3 1/2 hours.) Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Rfc: Should the Twitter incident be included in the article?

Withdrawn by proposer. Early consensus is to leave omitted due to lack of long term significance. Tutelary (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over the course of this page, I added the incident of what happened on the company's official Twitter account; The United Airways official feed accidentally tweeted a pornographic photo to a consumer who was complaining about a flight delay. The photo was an image of an unidentified woman with a scale plane deposited in her genitalia. There have been numerous reliable sources that have been invoked to display notability for this incident, all discuss the content and the incident in depth, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The concerns raised by the opponents include WP:BALASPS, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:EVENT, mainly the fact that the content is not relevant in the long term scheme of the company, and that it was a blip in the news cycle so to speak. They also have said that it was newsworthy, but not notable enough for an event. I must also note, as to not engage in reckless RfC's, that if there is a clear, early community consensus that this event is not notable, I will withdraw this Rfc. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn

I'd like to formally withdraw this request (if possible) as I second guessed myself and now know that this event is not notable in terms of long scheme of things. This stems from a rather intelligent conversation with an admin on the IRC channel. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
You can archive the thread. Top: {{cot}} and bottom: {{cob}}. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose inclusion: As I have mentioned before, This is merely a blip in the radar in the nearly eighty-year history of a company like US Airways. A dirty picture got sent out on Twitter, and it offended some potential customers. Some of them probably chose to fly with a different carrier because of it, but not likely many. By now, there is no remaining lasting impact of this minor slip up, and as I have said before, not all farts are notable, and that is exactly what this is. Consider it another way, if William Shatner, who is six years older than US Airways and an avid Twitter user in his own right, accidentally posted a picture of a naked woman with a model of the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701, naturally) in a questionable location, would that be fit to print in his Biography? Of course not, it would be a minor mistake in a long and distinguished career. George Takai would say oh myyyy!, and following a media frenzy of about a week (as long as this lasted) it would be long forgotten. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think I have participated in an RfC before, if this extended comment belongs in the threaded discussion, just let me know and I will move it.

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When to change airport destination lists to AA op by US?

I have noticed on a few airport articles that US destinations are characterized as "American Airlines operated by US Airways". Is it too early in the merger process to begin reformatting these destination tables on each airport US flies to? As a precedent, all AirTran destinations have already switched to this model (Southwest Airlines operated by AirTran) and their merger is yet to be complete, as AirTran still operates flights. Just wondering if we should start changing US Airways destinations to this format. tommer419 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's too early. US Airways is still branded as a separate airline, from the customer's point of view. (To prove that point, go to usairways.com and notice that there's not a single mention of the merger or new airline on their home page.) But we're getting close. They are preparing for a single-branded airline soon. When that happens is when we should designate these flights as mentioned above, IMO. HuffTheWeevil / talk / contribs 05:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I concur. The legal/operating definition will not change until the FAA grants a single operating certificate to the combined airlines. Until that time, all flights are treated as being operated by separate carriers. I believe single operating certificate would be the best logical time to merge the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpedronogal (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it is "US Airways operated by American Airlines" should be listed not the other way around. SOC was achieved on April 8, 2015 for the carriers but the US Airways name and brand will still stick around for now but the operator is American Airlines (since US Airways does not technically operate flights as its certificate ceased). The change has been made now but don't merge into a entry yet until websites and reservation systems are finally combined. Citydude1017 (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrections after single operating certificate on April 8, 2015

Several edits on April 8 began referring to US Airways in the past tense after it received its single operating certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration. However, US Airways still operates its own flights. It is one of two airline subsidiaries owned by American Airlines Group Inc. The single operating certificate simply means that FAA regulates American Airlines and US Airways as one airline, with common FAA-regulated procedures and manuals. It doesn't mean that US Airways has ceased to exist as an airline.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-07/farewell-cactus-us-airways-fades-as-american-merger-advances?cmpid=yhoo

As the above article notes, the US Airways callsign does change to "American," from "Cactus." The summary box on the wiki page still says "Cactus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Freed (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, with the single operating certificate, US Airways has ceased to exist as an airline. Only the brand itself is still in use for now until the reservation system and website will be merged.Piper13 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Flights continue to be marketed as US Airways but the operator is American Airlines. Websites, codes, and reservation systems are still seperate for now. If you take a look at northwest and continental articles, the ceased date was actually the date when reservation systems and websites are merged not the date SOC was achieved. AA and US are one airline from a technical point-of-view but if you are trying to book a flight on US Airways or American Airlines, you still book flights as if they are still 2 separate carriers. Remember, US Airways planes are in the process of being repainted, websites and reservation systems will need to take time to combine. There is a discussion at WT:AIRPORTS regarding this. Citydude1017 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, American Airlines operates all flights as US Airways Nrwairport (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding end date for US Airways and US Airways Express flights and adding start date for American Airlines/ American Eagle?

I have noticed that a few airports have already added an end date for US Airways flights and US Airways Express flights, and people have already added a start date for American Airlines/American Eagle destinations/flights at non-hub airport. Is it time to start doing that to all non-hub airports and do all of them end on October 16, 2015 and begin on October 17, 2015? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeexpert777 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I've reverted quite a few. Per WP:NOTTRAVEL, there are no services being terminated or added. It's a branding change that has nothing to do with how planes are painted or operating certificate changes. There will be signage and computer system changes, but the same planes, staffing and crew. Maybe a note about branding change added to the mention of US Airways, but I don't think "(ends October 16, 2015)" or "(begins October 17, 2015)" are appropriate. HkCaGu (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That is what I meant, adding beginning and end dates. Planeexpert777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planeexpert777 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(brought here by a note at WT:AIRPORTS.) Currently, all US Airways flights are pure US Airways. (Despite what most airport articles say, they are not operated by American Airlines; they operate under US Airways procedures in the US Airways reservations system under an operating certificate that says "operated by American Airlines and/or US Airways", and must be marked as "operated by US Airways" when sold as marketed by another airline including American Airlines.) That's what will change. I think that the "US Airways operated by American Airlines" line on the left of the airport destination tables should become something like "US Airways (all become American Airlines October 17, 2015)"; similarly, "US Airways Express" should change to "US Airways Express (all become American Eagle October 17, 2015)". I agree with HkCaGu that mixing the destinations into the American Airlines line with start dates and end dates under US Airways is cluttered and unnecessary; this conveys the information with a minimum of clutter. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 09:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I would just leave it as it is until October 16, 2015 then when the last US Airways flight depart then we just simply merge all the destinations into the AA listing. 97.85.113.113 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, please note that at some airports (i.e. LAX/SFO) American Airlines and US Airways operate from different terminals. Will US Airways move to the terminal that AA is in once the merger is completed? At LAX, AA operates out of Terminal 4 while US Airways operates out of Terminal 6 (a footnote was made stating that US Airways will move to Terminal 4 upon completion of merger). At SFO, AA operates out of Terminal 2 Boarding Area D while US Airways operate out of Terminal 1 Boarding Area B or C (not exactly sure). At MCO, AA and US check-in and baggage claim is at Terminal B but gates are at different airsides (AA uses Terminal A Airside 1 gates while US uses Terminal B Airside 4 gates). 97.85.113.113 (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
That is not a good idea. It will take some time to update all Wikipedia pages for all of the airports, so i think this should start now. All US Airways non-hub airports should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 23:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Then you can use the comment code (e.g. <!-- [[Los Angeles International Airport|Los Angeles]] -->) to hide all the current US destinations on AA listings. Then on October 17, just remove a few characters and we're good to go. Beside my previous points on why not having the clutters of "ends Oct 16" and "begins Oct 17", this will be much easier to do. HkCaGu (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay, but ALL of the airports should be updated and so everyone should start doing it with the <!-- XXX --> thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

October 17, 2015

When US Airways ceases operations on October 17, 2015, how should we fix the infobox? Should we remove any AA stuff (frequent flyer programs and lounges) and keep former US information as this page should be kept historical (with the exception of alliance as US Airways was in Star Alliance and Oneworld as a former member) after October 17th. What about the codes? Should we keep them or merge them? Northwest Airlines, Continental Airlines, America West Airlines, and other carriers that have ceased operations had their infobox to their original information pre-merger information. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DCA is now definitely hub - I found source!

US Airways President: Reagan National Most Profitable Hub for Airline see article [<a href="http://www.sungazette.net/arlington/news/us-airways-president-reagan-national-most-profitable-hub-for-airline/article_1b7e2996-773d-11e1-bd8d-001871e3ce6c.html"></a>]. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport is the most profitable major hub [..] of the US Airways route system, the carrier’s president recently said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.usairways.com/awa/Content/travelplanning/planning/destinations/rio-de-janeiro.aspx
  2. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/nyregion/07shuttle.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:US_Airways/Archive_1&oldid=1143537064"