Putting US Airways back into bankruptcy was a "very, very big personal disappointment" for Chief Executive Officer Bruce Lakefield, who admitted to being "emotionally stressed" after his first week as head of an insolvent air carrier.

"At another time, I might have just said, 'The hell with it,' " Lakefield said, sounding hoarse during an interview with the Post-Gazette Thursday. "But I am not a quitter. I think the airline is still worth saving and I think people deserve our best try."

Lakefield, who became the CEO in April, also wants people to know that he is not giving up on Pittsburgh, either.

Despite the airline's dismantling of its once-largest hub at Pittsburgh International Airport, Lakefield insists he is not playing favorites among cities. "I can't say I favor anybody or disfavor anybody," he said. "I am just trying to do the best job I can with the resources I have to get this airline at least to break even."

Pittsburghers, he acknowledged, "had a good thing for a long time," but a painful realignment of the airline industry "is taking that not only from Pittsburgh, but from US Airways."

The once-solid relationship between US Airways and southwestern Pennsylvania -- which started with the first scheduled passenger flight of predecessor All American Airways on March 7, 1949 -- has been tested in recent years by two bankruptcies, thousands of job losses, declining air service and a sometimes prickly relationship between airline executives and local politicians.

It can be argued that no area of the country suffered more from US Airways' recent troubles than Pittsburgh, which in three years has lost roughly 5,000 jobs and, by late this fall, will have lost 300 daily flights since the 9/11 attacks, a crippling event for the airline industry.

While smaller than it once was, US Airways' local work force of 7,600 still makes it the region's largest for-profit employer, more than U.S. Steel, PNC Financial Services Group or Mellon Financial Corp. But local employees are bracing for more losses in the months ahead, with US Airways planning to eliminate 267 jobs at commuter affiliate PSA Airlines, move 130 flight crew training jobs to Charlotte, N.C., and cut its number of local flights from 333 to 244 in November, meaning it needs less support staff near the airport.

Lakefield would not address the subject of more job losses for Pittsburgh. "If we knew some of those answers, I would be happy to give them to you."

But US Airways, in a study released a year ago, predicted that if the hub were dismantled, about 6,300 jobs would "move," leaving the region with 1,400 US Airways employees if the airline were to eliminate all connecting traffic, something the airline has yet to do. Its reduced schedule still sees connecting passengers accounting for nearly half of traffic at the airport.

The study also predicted that a total of 17,100 jobs would be lost in the area, counting people indirectly related to the airline and the tourism industry. The pain would cost the Pittsburgh economy $1.8 billion annually.

Regional economists agree those numbers may not be far from the mark.

The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy, a conservative think tank that espouses free-market policies, released a paper last week predicting the loss of a hub operation and all connecting traffic would leave US Airways with less than 1,500 employees to handle only local passengers.

US Airways employees, said Jake Haulk, a former Mellon regional economist and the institute's president, make an average of $65,000 to $70,000 a year -- fueled by the proportionately high number of higher-paid pilots and mechanics still based here.

In a worst-case scenario, under which US Airways pulls out altogether and no other carrier replaces its operations in any significant way, that means the exodus of jobs would take away with it about $500 million a year in personal income. Calculate what could be lost by local suppliers, shops, restaurants and tourism, Haulk said, and the region's economy could take a $1 billion hit.

But while it's true that a US Airways collapse would be devastating for thousands of families in the Pittsburgh area and airport suburbs that rely on property tax and related revenue generated by its workers who live here, the airline's failure would not be an "economic catastrophe" for the larger regional economy, Haulk said.

As large as it is, US Airways represents less than 1 percent of the region's 1.1 million total employment and the income losses experienced by US Airways workers, as measured by Haulk, would amount to less than 1 percent of the region's $76 billion in total personal income.

"I have had people ask me the question, 'Is [a US Airways collapse] comparable to [what happened to] the steel industry and the answer is, 'No,' " said Richard Moody, regional economist for PNC Financial Services Group. "The direct impact may not be as dire as all the headlines are sounding it to be," although "it is a terrible thing for people losing their jobs."

With US Airways struggling for its very survival, local politicians have a difficult decision to make: Do they try to save the jobs that are left in the Pittsburgh area or do they start preparing for life after US Airways, chasing after low-cost air carriers they hope can replace what US Airways leaves behind?

Mike Langley, head of the business-backed public policy organization Allegheny Conference on Community Development, insists those two goals are not "mutually exclusive." But Langley and other local officials involved in an effort to attract new carriers here admit the region has undergone a transformation in how it relates to US Airways, from cozy to cautious in just a few years.

During the airline's rapid growth in the 1980s, county leaders, mindful of the carrier's regional impact and the thousands of jobs it generated, accommodated the airline as much as possible.

The airport's nearly $1 billion terminal was built to support the airline's hub-and-spoke system, a system that allowed US Airways to pick up passengers at smaller airports and feed them to larger cities via Pittsburgh. In exchange, Pittsburghers had access to an array of travel destinations they might not have had otherwise.

As the airline tightened its hold on the Pittsburgh market, county commissioners were criticized for doing too little to attract more competition that might have helped drive down the carrier's high fares. But that changed with US Airways' drastic cutbacks after 9/11. Regional leaders now appear more focused on life without the carrier.

Take what county Chief Executive Dan Onorato said last Sunday just hours after US Airways filed its second Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 25 months. While expressing concern for employees, Onorato also said the airline's plight represented a "great, great opportunity" for the region.

"I see a golden opportunity -- a second bite at the apple to redesign what we want to do with the airport. US Airways is not going to be what it was. We know that. So we are ready to move forward," he said.

Onorato and County Airport Authority Executive Director Kent George insist they are not ready to abandon the airline or its employees. Instead, they blame US Airways for changing what was a monopolistic relationship.

It was the airline's decision, Onorato said, to strip Pittsburgh of its hub, to slash daily flights -- down to 297 in October, 244 in November and 243 in December -- and to eliminate its London and Frankfurt non-stop service this fall.

"US Airways changed that arrangement and when it did, the government and the corporate community changed their response," he said.

The relationship between US Airways, the county and the airport authority became "more tense," George said, after the airline rejected its Pittsburgh International Airport leases minutes before emerging from its first bankruptcy in March 2003. Until the last-minute surprise cancellation, US Airways had assured the authority it would honor those leases.

Now, George said, "I treat US Airways like I do any other tenant. With US Airways, I can say we're a little more cautious than we were before. We don't take anything for granted from them anymore."

Former county Chief Executive Jim Roddey agreed that the relationship changed when the airline rejected its leases. "From that point on," he said, "we all took a different attitude.

"Everybody was very careful in the way we dealt with them. We made a conscious decision that whatever we did would help all airlines, not just US Airways," he said. "That was a significant shift in our policy."

Some, including local union leader Bill Gray, a US Airways flight crew training instructor, have criticized local politicians for not doing more to keep the airline's jobs in Pittsburgh or make the airport more cost effective.

But Onorato, who insists he wants US Airways to survive and prosper in Pittsburgh, said leaders have tried to accommodate US Airways by seeking ways to reduce the airport debt. Gov. Ed Rendell also put together a $263.9 million proposal for cost savings and capital improvements at the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia airports, but it was rejected by the airline. "In looking back, I think we did everything we could do," Roddey said.

But US Airways spokesman Chris Chiames said the debt reduction was not enough to make a larger presence at Pittsburgh International possible for the airline, which now has long-term leases on only 10 gates.

"We aren't questioning the fact that everyone did what they could, given the limited financial resources at the county and the state," Chiames said. "But the end result didn't allow us to do more than we committed to."

Chiames also acknowledged that local political leaders "have been put in a difficult position and haven't liked everything we have had to do." But, "as we tried to make clear, this isn't specific to Pittsburgh.

"We are having to make some very tough decisions to try to save the company, and tough decisions don't necessarily win us gold stars or a popularity contest."