Talk:US Airways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 60 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.
Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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![[1]] 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)

[edit] 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)