Talk:US Airways

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)

Can the plane be salvaged? The news hasn't said anything about this yet.

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)