Talk:US Airways/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Airline Name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  listing HP on airport pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logo Ideas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aircraft markings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Express fleet 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Airways Shuttle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mesa Airways announcement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A350 orders 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of America West brand 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hubs 

message: 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
*Observations are not encylopedic material.  Do you have any offical sources that say DCA is used as a hub?  Vegaswikian 02:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DCA 

message: Did these orders move when MidAtlantic merged with Republic?  I think they stayed, but just checking. Vegaswikian 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embraer 190 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incident summary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger vs Acquisition 

message: 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)
replies: text: Some movement and elimination of duplicate information would make sense.  Create a small overview in the US Airways article under a  pointing to Allegheny Airlines would work to get the details from the other article.  Vegaswikian 06:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Allegheny merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fleet 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Why is HP any different then PSA Airlines and Piedmont Airlines?  All three are subsidaries.  Vegaswikian 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  USAirways/HP/USAirways Group 

message: 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.
*What are you proposing to leave in All American Airways and Allegheny Airlines? Vegaswikian 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Revision

message: 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)
thread_title:  30 Aug 2006 Announcment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Airways's Callsign 

message: 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
*Sorry, but united.com is not the source for information that overrides information from the US websites.  There is already enough confusion here, so adding in unsuportable information from united would not be acceptable.  Also, does it list a US hub or a Star Alliance hub.  I'd think it would be the later.  Vegaswikian 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pittsburgh 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fleet Table 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Establishment Date 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's quite simple, really 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delta non-merger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Same with it not really being right in the Delta article. --Matt 05:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parker's DUI 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fleet table-sortable 

message: Low cost airline?--Bbudik1001 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airways is an American low-cost airline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A318 order 

message: Can Talk:US Airways/Aug23Proposed be deleted? Vegaswikian 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'll flag it now.. —Cliffb 01:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aug23Proposed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Envoy Sleeper 

message: 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)
thread_title:  winglets 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:USAir dividendmiles.gif 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:USAir clublogo.gif 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Simplifying transfers? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Domestic First Class is a joke 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to Boston Logan as Focus City 

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The route was awarded to the airline on Sept. 25. Bucs2004 19:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airways new Philadelphia-Shanghai route 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Single certificate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  history section 

message: 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" .75.24.192.141 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, agreed, but the OP claimed "compared to other international airlines." Jendeyoung 02:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *Ack! You're right. I got C and F mixed-up!Happysomeone 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Envoy Sleeper Seats Considered International Business Class 

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

message: '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)
thread_title:  Reverts explained 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Low Cost Carrier"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Las Vegas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Acquisition" 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, they do not. That order was changed to A319/A320 aircraft long ago. FCYTravis (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A318? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Collapsable Fleet Tables 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former Codeshare Agreements Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Airline Pilots Association article - Solicitation for input 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Excellent research! QualityControl3533 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pittsburgh no longer a focus city 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Callsign 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Flight 1549 - LaGuardia to Charlotte 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aircraft count 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PHX-NRT 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's definitely 12/15.  http://www.usairways.com/awa/Content/travelplanning/planning/destinations/rio-de-janeiro.aspx --Nicola.tesla.rowe (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rio de Janeiro service 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weird Airbus aircraft numbers should removed!  Airbus A320-'''
214
''' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  US Airways vs America West 

message: I wroting text, but two other editors are delete it:  
* US Airways terminating crew base in LGA and BOS, but disapproved it by US Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) which they will object directly to public.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/nyregion/07shuttle.html
Can you help improve (my poor English) and help me put in correct section? Thanks.--B767-500 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Airways terminating crew base LGA and BOS 

message: 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 →  ← 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)
thread_title:  No SOCKS allowed~! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Condensing and Editing 

message: *Jones, Clarisse. "US Airways' efforts to improve service pay off." USA Today. September 14, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Both MileagePlus and AAdvantage include information about benefits. CapsLock NumLock ... CapsTalk NumTalk 20:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  split Dividend Miles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Okay, let's hope we don't get into an edit war with .  —Compdude123 15:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan National Airport is not a hub. 

message: 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)
thread_title: I don't do the edit war with editors due to ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split should be vetted properly <nowiki>{{split2|AMR Corporation–US Airways Group merger|date=February 2013}}</nowiki> 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: * It seems to me that the content of the merge article should be included in one (1) of the two (2) articles American Airlines and US Airways. Would the users above have a thought on which would be the better target for that information? --Izno (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion related to the merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Defunct: America West vs. US Air 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Commenced in 1996"?! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Headquarters and CEO 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I will when I get home. (Around 3 1/2 hours.) Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You can archive the thread. Top:  and bottom: . SW3 5DL (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc: Should the Twitter incident be included in the article? 

message: *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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  When to change airport destination lists to AA op by US? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yes, American Airlines operates all flights as US Airways Nrwairport (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections after single operating certificate on April 8, 2015 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Then you can use the comment code (e.g. ) 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)
replies: text:  Oh okay, but ALL of the airports should be updated and so everyone should start doing it with the  thing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrwairport (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding end date for US Airways and US Airways Express flights and adding start date for American Airlines/ American Eagle? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  October 17, 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060528004710/http://www.unisys.com:80/transportation/insights/articles/articles.htm?insightsID=88353 to http://www.unisys.com/transportation/insights/articles/articles.htm?insightsID=88353
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701021313/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X01727&key=1 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X01727&key=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091102093258/http://www.usairways.com:80/en-IL/about/default.html to http://www2.usairways.com/en-IL/about/default.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929165351/http://www.usairways.com/en-US/aboutus/alliances/codeshare.html to http://www.usairways.com/en-US/aboutus/alliances/codeshare.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081011194550/http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/intheair/foodandbeverages/maincabin.aspx to http://www.usairways.com/awa/content/traveltools/intheair/foodandbeverages/maincabin.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621021408/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29335&key=1 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X29335&key=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090621060510/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X16433&key=1 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X16433&key=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703143303/http://www.ntsb.gov:80/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14270&key=1 to http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X14270&key=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on US Airways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121022004425/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-157056534/us-airways-vows-fight.html to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-157056534/us-airways-vows-fight.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131128075802/http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/judge-oks-american-airlines-us-airways-merger-americans-exit-from-bankruptcy.html/ to http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/11/judge-oks-american-airlines-us-airways-merger-americans-exit-from-bankruptcy.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified