Winging It

I think the bus argument is weak and just a ploy to get the gates. If it gets me off the plane, thru Customs faster and on my merry way, works for me. Does a bus make it less of a world class experience? Really folks, get over yourselves.
It's bad enough duplicating the "Battann death march" we are subjected to in A teminal. Anything that cuts that experience down, I'm for it.

I would GLADLY use a PTV to get from my plane to the terminal anytime. There's nothing "third-world" about it. It's truly uncivilized to make passengers sit in a plane on the tarmac because of over-crowded runways and gates. Much better to wait in an airport terminal than in a stuffy, crowded, under-serviced jet. The airlines should endeavor to keep passengers off a motionless airplane as much as possible... THAT will give me more confidence in the airlines.

From my experience, USAirways international operations worked just fine last summer at PHL.

While I have some complaints about US Airways international flights (the inedible food, the cleanliness of the airplane, and the too often failure of the in flight movie system) I flew US Air twice this year (Barcelona and Vienna) and the departures and arrivals were fine.

I’ve used PTVs at several overseas airports (most recently at Frankfurt – which I hardly consider 3rd world) and find them perfectly acceptable.. I would not avoid PHL if US Air began using them. Besides that – where would I go? Newark – not so much! Too far, to crazy.

Thanks for your article. I am following this issue with great interest. I am sending a copy of this e-mail to Philadelphia Airport.

Regarding the use of the PTVs:

In the 70's, Montreal and DC (Dulles) built their new airports, both of which prominently use PTVs for their flights. They refer to them as "mobile lounges" and were marketed as being efficient and innovative (at the time). I never thought of them as "buses". I think that US Airways (or PHL) can install plusher interiors in the PTVs and market them the same way that Dulles and Montreal did. I assume that Montreal and Dulles still use these mobile lounges. It's all how you market it! I have used them in Philadelphia, and they do the job just fine. However, they are noisy and "stripped down" in appearance. By the way, many things about Philadelphia are still "third worldly", but don't get me started!

I took one roundtrip US airways international flight this summer. The experience with the airport was excellent (A West was very crowded, and the food court at the far end of the terminal was over utilized). Security was the best experience I ever had at any airport anywhere! Fast, courteous, and efficient. The flight left late (on purpose) due to high tail winds, and we arrived right on time in Glasgow. US airways kept everyone informed about the reason for the delayed departure which was greatly appreciated.

On arrival back in PHL, there was confusion about which belt on which the luggage would arrive. And the luggage took too long to arrive on the belt (but not an awfully long time).

I still avoid US airways anytime I can because of luggage delays. I still don't trust them. However, I always choose non-stop flights when I can.

US airways did a fine job with the flight. However, using a 757 for a long flight is really a bad idea. It's uncomfortable with too few amenities in this era.

I really believe that US airways is doing all this squawking to do anything it can to delay Southwest's expansion. They would do better if they spent ALL their energy to improve the luggage service and their own amenities and planes! I would like to return to US airways as my primary choice of airline, but that's going to take some time.

just read your article in today's paper about delays with US Airways. You ask about our experiences in using buses in airports abroad - I would absolutely support using buses to get off of the plane if a gate isn't immediately available. I travel to Europe several times a year, and I've been on busses in Frankfurt and Rome.

There is nothing more frustrating than having landed and being THIS CLOSE to home and not being able to get off of the plane because of the gate being unavailable. I have often wondered why they don't send a bus out - it would seem to make things go much faster.

So, no I would not avoid PHL because of buses, I would prefer it because of that.

In your article "Ideas on solving delays at international gates", you asked for reader feedback concerning the use of "passenger transport vehicles".
Question 1: "What do you think of riding a "passenger-transport vehicle" from a plane to the terminal?"
Answer: Not all bus rides are equal. I have taken such rides at Heathrow airport which involved long walks, up and down steps, to reach the bus, followed by lengthy rides to reach the plane. Not a happy thought. On the other hand, waiting in the plane for 10 minutes or more for a "parking space" is not happy either.
So..
My favorite is a quick exit from the plane directly into a gate.
Second: use a bus transfer which is designed to be fast and comfortable.
Hopefully, other options are not needed.

Question 2: "Would you avoid PHL if you knew you had to take a bus ride?"
Answer: Not unless I had better options and the bus ride was known to be long and uncomfortable.

I read with interest your article that appeared in the Inquirer today on page D3. It is an excellent exposition of the state of affairs. It is somewhat ironic that “US Airways Officials” say that using buses brings to mind a third-world airport, considering that they have for years operated WORSE than a third world airline. After baggage and flight problems in the past, my family and many of my acquaintances try as a priority to AVOID using US Air whenever possible,EVEN if it costs more to use another airline. When we’ve had bags to check, we simply WILL NOT use US Air, such is our lack of trust, preferring to drive to Newark or even JFK for an alternative flight if we have to. That may seem extreme, but given the worse alternative of bags not showing, it is in fact a minor inconvenience. If that isn’t an indictment of the airline’s performance I don’t know what is.

Further, when we travel to Heathrow London on BA from Philly, they use BUSES at Heathrow Terminal 4 NO LESS, arguably one of the most important airports in the world, to get the passengers to the terminal. If they can do it, one might expect a vastly inferior airline to eagerly embrace it, if they cared a hoot about passengers, as a preferred solution to all the problems you enunciate in your article.

Our most recent experience with UsAir International was departing from PHL on Sept 12 to Paris, France and returning on Sept 25, 2007. Security and on time departure were better than on any of their domestic flights. Our return to PHL found Customs to be fast and efficient and as well as extremely friendly and helpful, considering that other flights arrived when we did. Our luggage was waiting for us, which never happens on any USAir domestic flight. As for buses, no problem. Whatever it takes to move passengers quickly and efficiently to and from their flights is fine with us. Tell Mr. Kirby to try polling his customers and not second guessing us.

Saw your article this morning in the Inquirer. Who is US Airways kidding? - they are already a third world airline, busses would do nothing to change that image either positively or negatively. Unfortunately all of the US carriers are in the same boat, on any survey of who has the best International service, none of them make the top ten list. There is just no comparision between the level of service provided by a say Singapore Airlines, or Qantas when to compared to any kind of service from US Airways, United, or Delta. So, if bussing can reduce delays in arrivals or departures, then let's have them.

Personally I don't have any problem with using a bus. The real problem is that the overall quality of service is poor no matter what happens when you arrive.

As noted above, most sizeable European airports do this (management in Tempe needs to get out more -- although some might consider Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle "third-world" airports). It's not generally done here in the US, but I think people will get used to it. If they are not avoiding connecting through PHL now, given what a disaster US Airways has become and how problematic PHL is, buses won't make a difference.

Like many other commenters here, I suspect the real reason US doesn't want to use buses is that it will free up more gates for Southwest.

Really enjoyed your piece on PHL.

In spite of what U. S. Airways Execs say in public, my sense is all the bitching about Delta moving into 'A', is a smoke screen with their real intention being to hold up Southwest's expansion. Big "world-class" airports use buses to handle gate crowding and it works well. PHL's answer with their PTVs is an even better choice than a basic bus with an air stair. By the way, I regard PHL as not much better than a third-world airport. Considering all the construction and money spent, one gets the impression they're more interested in building a mall than an airport. Those narrow concourses with so many huckster's market carts reminds me of my walks through a souk. I just returned from DTW (new NW terminal), HOU, and the new 'E" at BOS and was very impressed with the light and space. PHL needs to be removed from city control and placed into t! he hand s of professional management.

I was until this year a Chairman Preferred with US and gave up simply flying them without looking for alternatives because of the way they treat their customers. One reason, at 6'-3" flying so many places in those small CRJs when SW and others offer real airplanes doesn't make sense just to get the points. Sorry, that sounds like a commercial. Flying US in first or Envoy doesn't compare to the other carriers I've tried on long-hauls. These US guys just don't get it. Driving to be the lowest low cost carrier is fine. Being just plain cheep is another matter. Flying US is at the same level as riding the bus. SW offers clean, real planes, peanuts, a coke and (most importantly) a good attitude.

Thanks for asking,

Dear Tom

I enjoyed your article on "Ideas on solving delays."

I think Passenger Transport Vehicles offer a whole lot of solution to many airport problems. If US Air were to use nice vehicles, there would be nothing third-world about them.

Like the trucks that deliver goods to the airplanes, the body could be raised to plane door level - look, ma, not stairs! Then as you pointed out, they could go directly to immigration of baggage claim, eliminating many long walks and escalators.

Back in the mid-70s, I reviewed a loan for a company that made "air busses," and was struck be the common sense of idea then. Near-by, Dallas Airport in DC used them, but the idea did not take. I do not, however, think the PTVs need to be as big as those.

It seems to me that they could also be used for some "stuck-on-the-tarmac" situations as an emergency lounge so that passengers could get some services and get up and move around a bit.

All the airlines need to do as much as possible to put the some fun back into air travel. I believe the air travel hastle-factor, is begining to creep into tourism figures, and lots of other business are going to feel it.

I really do believe that nice PTVs are part of the solution

How educational! US Airways "had no idea" that the international operations at Philly Airport was problematic; and the Airport director didn't get complaints from travelers while they were using their PTVs?

Yes, airports around the world are using buses, and nothing is wrong with that. But please do not, ever!, utilize these horrible PTVs again. Each time I see them parked at the terminal as I get back from Europe (I am making about 6-10 business trips a year from Philly to overseas), I am scared to death that these would be used again. For those who missed it, this is how they worked. After the engines of the plane were stopped, you could easily wait for about 10, 15 minutes and, in case you happened to sit on the left hand side of the plane, watch how the bus would slowly approach the plane. It would then take 3, sometimes 5 minutes for the passenger compartment to be hydraulically lifted up until it reached the height of the exit door. Another 2 minutes to pull up to the exit door. Then the doors opened, and about 40 or 60 people would try and squeeze into this PTV. Fially the PTV doors closed, and another 5 minutes and the PTV would have lowered its passenger compartment and was ready to drive off. With some planes, this procedure could be repeated 3, 4 times, and by the time the last passenger arrived at the airport, an hours could have easily passed. This cannot be compared to buses at airports in Europe where everyone just walks down the plane's exit stairs, steps into one of 3 buses and is being driven to the terminal.

US Airways knows better, and I suddenly find their international operations absolutely marvelous, if for no other reason than resisting the airport's idea to bring back that horrible PTV technology.

Should they change their minds, I am sure I will start a website for people to book their non-PTV flights out of Philly - or choose Newark in case the gates are taken.

Thank you for reporting on this.

This is a bit off topic, but since this article is about US Airways International Service: I just flew US Air roundtrip to Munich and was perfectly happy with the A330 service over to Germany (except the video system had to be reset partly through the flight, not a big deal). Coming back, however, I was on a 767 with an awful entertainment system, video and audio, and a chair that didn't recline.
I'm looking to book a flight from PHL to Dublin now and see that they are using 757s! I assume these are like the 757s they use for Hawaii service, which are pathetic.
I will probably book Lufthansa through Frankfurt just to avoid US Air's awful planes. As a previous reader commented, what's the point of being "Preferred" if you're still treated like cattle.

Enjoyed your insightful article on the Phila. Airport's continuing squabble with US Airways regarding use of Terminal "A".

Like a spoiled child, US Airways refuses to share any Terminal "A" gates with any other airline. My question is, how have they earned the right to make any demands on Mr. Isdell and the flying public, when US Airways continues to be close to last in on time performance, and beyond dreadful in handling checked luggage?

Now for my opinion. I spent a number of years working for one of the largest companies in the world. It happens to be a Japanese company. Therefore, I had many occasions to fly into both Narita (Tokyo) and Osaka airports. In addition I have traveled to European airports as well. In all cases PTV's were not offered as an option.

As a result, a long walk was required to get from my arriving plane to Immigration and eventually baggage claim.

However, somewhere in my domestic travels, (either LAX, DFW, or SFO) I was required to use PTV's when deboarding the aircraft. The transfer from the aircraft to the bus went smoothly, and the ride to the terminal passed quickly. The best part however, was the fact that I was delivered very close to baggage claim. Overall the PTV deboarding process was faster and far more efficient than traditional gate deboarding.

My vote goes to using PTV's to alleviate the problem. Please tell US Airways "to take a hike".

As a Us Airways employee I can tell you they are not at all concerned
about the passengers perception of international travel. If this was so
they would have never added all those extra seats on the aircraft making
international travel more uncomfortable. Passengers would gladly get on a
Mobile Lounge as apposed to sitting on a tarmac waiting for a gate. The
problem with the new Us Airways and Scott Kirby is that someone else
presented a solution. If the idea doesn’t come from upper management (no
matter how good of an idea it is)he doesn’t want to hear it. This includes
loosing a lot of our flying elite from removing so many first class seats
from most of the aircraft, making upgrades impossible as well as cutting
food and amenities. Us Airways is making a lot of money and not passing it
along to its customers in the way of improved in-flight service or
comfort. As everyone knows they arn't passinging money along to its
employees either. Who knows maybe the press can help.

The issue is not whether US Airways ran a “bad international operation last summer,” the issue is that US Airways is poorly run organization that has little regard for its customers. As a result of its almost monopolistic control of the gates at PHL it can and does regularly over book flights and keeps prices unconsciously high, (try close to $1000 and at times higher to Bangor, Maine, a flight of less than two hours!)

Of course they will not agree to have Southwest expand because the flow of passengers from US Airways to Southwest is already substantial even given the limited number of gates at PHL controlled by Southwest. As a long time user of US Airways I now, when I have time, fly out of Baltimore to head west and to Manchester N.H. on Southwest to go north.

The argument by the airline that the use of PTV’s to transport overseas passengers is a third world option is specious. What about London’s Heathrow or Paris’ Charles De Gaulle? Last time I rode on a PTV in those airports, I was unaware I was in a third world country! The reluctance to use buses to maximize existing gates is an obvious ploy to avoid having expanded competition in Philadelphia. If more gates are possible at PHL, US Airways is the last airline I would allow to operate them.

I have no problem with a ploy to get more newly built international gates. The buses are fine for me as a stopgap measure for 2 years if the insides were upgraded and included audio and video of a welcome to Philadelphia/Airport Guide video and the parking areas to directly next to immigration.

How many gates will Delta use? Frontier should be moved out of the one international gate they occupy and Airfrance should use one of the new Delta gates for their one flight aday as they are part of Delta's alliance thus there are 2 more gates for USAIR.

And, international gates need to be used for arrivals, but not necessarily for departures. At O'Hara, United international flights are mixed into their regular gates. The flight to Frankfort leaves from the same gate that was used 2 hours before for a flight to Denver.

Finally, if Delta has international gates they should use them as such. That should have part of the PHL bargin in moving them in the first place. The Federal Governement is trying to reduce traffic into JFK. Here is Delta's chance to divert some of their overloaded traffic to PHL.

Thanks,

Jim

Contrary to what US Airways officials say such a procedure
would not "bring to mind third-world airports."� Those that I have
travelled through have either several underutilized jet ways or none at
all--passengers are unloaded right on the tarmac and walk to the gate.
Heathrow and Frankfurt are hardly third-world airports yet they make heavy use of busses.
But theirs aren't high level vehicles and are loaded much like a city bus in rush hour.
PHL's shttles sound far more comfortable and they would sure beat sitting
on the plane waiting for a gate to open up.

I have just read your column in Monday's paper about the international
> gates at the Philadelphia Airport.
>
> I have had to use these buses in the past and I just HATE them. It is
> bad enough to try to get up after many hours squeezed into a cramped
> seat, try to gather ones' belongings from the overhead bins without
> beaning some inconsiderate fellow traveler who insists on standing in
> the aisle even though the possibility of leaving the plane is many
> minutes away. Then when the buses are used the passengers are herded
> into these 'people transporters' where they have to stand like
> sardines, trying to hold their carry-on items out of the faces of the
> few seated people. I can only imagine that the airport hears no
> complaints because the passengers are so beat upon, they have no voice
> left.
>
> I have used buses abroad, but usually at the beginning of the journey,
> and not the end. Passengers face different problems at the beginning
> and the end of long international flights. Also, often after a bus
> ride, one has to walk up the outside stairs, unsettling in inclement
> weather!
>
> I do use the Philadelphia airport, both domestically and
> internationally, although past summer I only flew in internationally
> (on BA) and did not fly USAir internationally so I cannot comment on
> the problems USAir might have faced last summer.
>
> In conclusion, people transporters will not keep me from using the
> Philadelphia Airport, but will make me angry every time.
>

I couldn’t respond yesterday to your excellent article about US Airway’s gate problems and your question about international travelers’ preferences. I believe that USAirways officials are being disingenuous when they say that they think people won’t come to Philadelphia if they have to take PTV’s. This is ridiculous! Of course, given a choice, people would prefer to go directly to the arrivals area. But if there are problems, what they want is TO GET OFF THE PLANE ASAP! I have taken PTV’s in Paris, and while it’s a nuisance to drive all around Roissy Airport, it certainly beats getting stuck on the plane at 3 a.m. Philadelphia time after a cramped flight in coach. If US Airways has PTV’s all fueled and ready to go, they should use them. Believe me, the reason foreign travelers don’t come to Philadelphia (if they don’t) is for other reasons than PTV’s. Thanks for asking and thanks for letting me get this off my chest!

I read your recent articles on USAir, including the company's comments on service levels and obtaining aditional gates at new international terminal.
>
>Because I travel nearly every week, primarily on USAir, I'm always interested in PHL activities and potential changes in service. I'm in complete agreement with general opinion that this summer service on USAir has been much worse than normal. All aspects of service - timeliness, passenger treatment, in-flight service and attititude of employees - have been low, even for those of us who are 'prefered'. This includes the handful of international flights I've taken.
>
>My experience on the transatlanic flights is that they are more apt to be on-time, but the service (in Envoy Class) continues to be at a much lower standard than other airlines (BA) I fly for international business travel. The food and wine are average at best, the amenity kits minimal, the staff sullen, and the planes are not nearly as comfortable as other airlines. In fact a recent flight to London we were all appalled at the poor state of maintenance and configuration of the plane in Envoy Class. This may sound snobbish, but for business travelers who are paying full fare - often thousands of dollars - for the convenience and comfort of arriving semi-rested to conduct business in Europe upon arrival, seats that are in disrepair, do not recline flat, etc., is a major drawback.
>
>Regarding the proposal of using PTV's, I absolutely dispise these buses and the process of an extra step in the boarding and deplaning processes. I would definetly avoid this additional hassle if at all possible. I (unknowingly) was on a flight that utilized a PTV from Heathrow this spring and it is miserable, especially if you have carry-on baggage. What I'd like to know is: do airlines have to disclose using a PTV to passengers for specific flights?
>
>Thanks for your coverage and for giving frequent travelers a voice.
>

I would welcome riding a Passenger-Transport vehicle. Would be a lot easier on the return flight when on many occassions one needs to walk a quarter mile from gate to customs along with carry on luggage.

In Europe you see more and more airports using the PTV's and I might add many of the US Airway's flights arriving and departing European cities are presently using the PTV's with no complaints. So I am not sure why US Air does not want to use them in Philly. Could it be competition? My guess it has a lot more to do about keeping the competition out than passenger comfort.

Rather than expand the International Passenger terminal the city could use the money for other more useful projects

This is in response to your Monday article on International gates at PHL.
First off, I feel and I believe others do also, the main concern for
travel is 'time'. The time it takes from your home to the airport, and
the time from the airport to your destination. So, for US Airways
officials to say that using buses brings to mind 'third world airports'
and would cause travelers to avoid PHL is pure BS. I certainly prefer not
to take a 2 hour ride to Newark, NJ or a 3 hour ride to JFK. So using an
airport bus to get me from the gate to the airplane or to the gate is not
a big deal. I recently traveled to Frankfurt on Us Airways and it was a
good experience (except for a last minute gate change).

I'm writing in response to your article about passenger transport vehicles from airplanes to the terminals. I've traveled quite a bit and have used the buses many times. They are certainly not limited to "third-world" countries, as I've used them in Germany, France, Italy and Greece.

Before I had children, my biggest complaint with the buses was that they were usually quite crowded, especially with so many passengers carrying their luggage onto the plane and subsequently onto the bus. Either there is a limited number of buses or airlines are charged for how many buses they use because it always seems that they cram as many people as they possibly can into these buses.

Now as a parent, its even more intolerable. Being parents of younger children, my husband and I are usually the last off the plane. When we are disembarking at a gate, its no problem, everyone goes ahead of us on their way and we can take our time gathering up our kids and stuff (car-seats, etc.), and getting the gate-checked stroller. However, with PTVs, not only are we now holding up a whole bus load of people, who have no qualms in making their displeasure known to us about how they had to wait, but again, being the last people off the plane and onto the bus, everyone is very unhappy in making room on the already crowded bus for our family, our car-seats, our strollers, etc.

I'd have no problems using the buses if there was sufficient enough room on them so that I don't feel like I'm in a sardine can, with a car seat wedged into my stomach and a crying toddler who can barely breathe. That being said, I'd still use PHL no matter what because even a short bad bus ride is better than having to drive another 2-3 hours home from Baltimore or Newark.

I'm telling you, DO NOT LET DELTA GET THOSE GATES! You are about cut off your noses to spite your faces. I work for US Airways. If the gates go to the competition (which ever airline that happens to be) international service from PHL will shrink. US Airways management will go where the airline gets support! Charlotte, NC would love to have all our international flights. If you don't believe me read the following article from today's Charlotte paper: US AIRWAYS
Charlotte may get more flights abroad
Just don't expect the destinations soon
JEFFERSON GEORGE
jgeorge@charlotteobserver.com
Without question, US Airways wants to add flights beyond U.S. borders.

In September, the airline won approval to start flying to China in 2009. Last week, it announced plans to fly from Charlotte to Colombia -- the carrier's first foray into South America.

Like other airlines, US Airways sees dollar signs in boosting international service, most likely to other cities in Europe. Charlotte's dominant carrier also just reported better-than-expected profits in the third quarter and is sitting on plenty of cash.

All of this activity could mean more international flights at Charlotte's airport.

Someday. Just not anytime soon.

Despite US Airways' expansion plans and Charlotte's robust growth -- in both population and foreign-owned firms -- the airline is more focused on how to increase international service in Philadelphia than the Carolinas.

Right now, US Airways has nonstop flights from Charlotte to London and Frankfurt, Germany, while Lufthansa flies to Munich, Germany. US Airways also flies nonstop from Charlotte to two dozen destinations in the Caribbean and Latin America.

That service hasn't changed much in the past few years, in part because US Airways went into bankruptcy twice before merging with America West Airlines in 2005.

As a result, US Airways lags behind other major airlines in international service, said Michael Derchin, an airlines analyst for FTN Midwest Securities. At most other airlines, Derchin said, international flights are 35 to 40 percent of routes. At US Airways, he said, they're about 20 percent.

"The growth and profitability in this industry," he said, "is primarily international."

In June, US Airways ordered 92 aircraft from Airbus, including 22 widebody A350 jets to bolster its international fleet.

Yet those planes likely won't land in Charlotte, as the airline has been trying to build Philadelphia into a U.S. gateway, although a battle over gates at that airport could change that.

For now, though, even announcements that signal more international options from Charlotte are somewhat deceptive.

While the China route technically starts in Charlotte, it involves a stop and change of planes in Philadelphia. From there, the flight will proceed nonstop to Beijing.

The Bogota, Colombia, flight announced Monday has no start date because the U.S. Department of Transportation -- which regulates flights to Colombia through a treaty with that country -- hasn't set a process to award those routes.

Philly connections

By comparison, US Airways executives can't talk enough about adding international flights in Philadelphia. How did an old industrial city in the Northeast -- which already has established gateways in New York and Washington -- trump a Sunbelt boomtown?Two words: more people.

"Charlotte," US Airways President Scott Kirby said, "is just not as big a city."

For all of Charlotte's population growth -- 19 percent from 2000 to 2006 -- the metro area has only about 1.6 million residents, compared with roughly 5.8 million in Philadelphia, according to U.S. Census estimates. While Philly has grown only 2.5 percent since 2000, it's still the nation's fifth-largest metro area. Charlotte is 36th.

Charlotte is US Airways' busiest hub, serving more passengers than Philadelphia. But in general, Kirby said, 60 percent of international passengers don't connect through hubs. Instead, he said, they fly nonstop to another country.

Because of that, he said, it makes more sense to grow international service in the market with the largest population.

And there's no question that more people start flights in Philly than Charlotte. On the first day of summer this year, June 21, nearly 50,000 people passed through security in Philadelphia -- more than double the roughly 23,000 in Charlotte.

Numbers such as those make US Airways executives think Philadelphia can compete with John F. Kennedy International in New York and Dulles International near Washington, as major U.S. gateways.

"Philadelphia can be and is a better choice" than Charlotte, said Andrew Nocella, the airline's senior vice president in charge of schedule planning and alliances.

Good news for Charlotte?

A dark cloud in Philadelphia, however, could provide a silver lining for Charlotte.

For several months, US Airways fought a move in Philadelphia to convert a few gates now used by the airline for international flights into domestic gates for Delta Air Lines. US Airways executives say the current number of gates already limits service and efficiency, and that fewer gates could mean cutting flights.

As it is, executives say, US Airways over the summer regularly parked widebody jets away from gates between some flights to Europe -- a practice called "nesting" that costs more than leaving planes at the gate.

"We're not going to do that again," said Doug Parker, US Airways' chairman and CEO.

But US Airways recently learned that Delta will get the gates, said Morgan Durrant, a US Airways spokesman. Philadelphia airport officials have suggested that US Airways use airport shuttle buses to transport passengers when gates aren't available, Durrant said, but US Airways executives have repeatedly opposed using buses.

Durrant said US Airways plans to keep working with the Philadelphia airport on getting more gates. "We're not going to give up hope," he said.

As for how the situation will affect Charlotte, Kirby said during a recent conference call with analysts and reporters that US Airways may explore adding flights to Europe in Charlotte. That likely wouldn't happen anytime soon, but it could be sooner than the four or five years executives originally expected.

"It probably would accelerate the timing," Kirby said, "... if we're not able to fly from Philadelphia."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading your Monday morning column it is quite clear we continue to try and put bandaids on a flowing artery. The Phildadelphia Airport is poorly designed and does not allow the easy flow of travels between gates. Since 911 the problem got worse. In order to go from or two E terminal it requires a double security check. From International to anywhere is a absolute mess. Yes using buses to unload people would make sense if they are dropped off in a convient location for the passagers on International flights only - as it would create a nightmare on connections. Loading using buses would only create other problems. Again with the bandaid approach. Why not move Southwest to E and the other airlines out of there. This way they can stand alone like there pricing and flight model. Here to there and that is all. Maybe we should move it to the old international terminal. They can then control it themselves. However until the airport can handle the increase level of traffic and provide a better travel experience for everyone the problems will just continue no matter how may bandaids are applied. Lets look for some long term solution. Seems that they can build new stadiums every decade or so why not a new airport?

Tom: After reading the Inquirer this morning, I finally found someone to bitch to about the airlines and their generally shabby treatment of the public. Southwest had a non-stop to Oakland and in a recent article about their service, they announced the cancellation of this flight, why?, I don't know. I hate hubs and the entire concept is deplorable. Unless it's Butte Montana, I like direct flights. US Airways aka "Useless Air", unfortunatly is the only game in town for flights to Europe. The 757 and the food served rates with worst of the worst. This is what happens when a city sells out to one airline.

The answer is obvious: Use busses in the meantime and build more gates longterm.

US Air is clearly ploying to delay competition from Southwest but they can't hold them off forever.

All parties can be satisfied here with some leadership. The sooner more gates are built, the better.

US Airways needs to get over it. The construction is almost completed and Delta will move into their new gates by December if not sooner.

US Airways has enough gates at PHL to operate flights to China. They are using that as an excuse to attempt to block Delta from moving into those gates. Southwest will grow in PHL just like they have grown in all of the other US Airways airports.

Tom, In the last year I've made several trips abroad to both Europe, Hong Kong and the Philippines. In Frankfurt Germany, Munich Germany, Cebu Philippines I've had the "pleasure" not of a bus arriving at plane level as proposed at PNE, but in descending the steps and getting on a bus (in the rain in at least one instance). This is also common in Barcelona and Valencia and in Paris Charles de Gaulle. These are hardly "third world" airports. Granted that it is not as convenient as direct access via jetway, but the high level bus is a serious improvement on the movable steps and not really such a big inconvenience particularly when you say that the long walk to Customs would be alleviated. Why are they making this into a problem. I can't even remember which airports or when I experienced this most recently, just that I have, so I can't imagine people "avoiding PNE" because many won't remember it and it may very well occur on the other end of their flight as well.