Worldwide From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 35 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
I know this is a complete WHAT IF question, but nobody ever thought Pan Am would go under either! So just to start conversation, here goes.....
I think AA would cut off it's right arm for the Pacific Division, minus the B747, and that would give it SFO and LAX as hubs. Therefore, AA would dominate the top 4 cities in the United States - JFK, LAX, ORD, SFO. Now, they may also build up IAD to allow them to dominate the top five.
I think CO and DL would battle it out for LHR access. In addition, CO would dump Cleveland and add the lucrative Chicago O'Hare as a hub. Finally, CO or NW would take over DEN (probably CO because they have been there before).
Last, but not least, with ORD, DEN, and LHR under the belt, CO would can the SkyTeam deal and jump in bed with Lufthansa, Singapore, Virgin, and the whole Star group.
Tcfc424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
It's hypothetical, but still interesting to consider...
I think (and I am still new to all this) that if UA did liquidate, it would happen nearly overnight...none of their plans are geared towards that, and I assume (dirty word that is) that they would run it until they couldn't run it anymore, and essentially would cease operations, almost immediately (read: Stranded by belly-up airlines).
As the #2 air carrier in the US (according to the Gov't regarding PAX) this would leave gaping holes in the US air structure and abroad as well, though to a lesser extent (I think?). Would US air carriers be able to handle the additional capacity right away? Specifically, DEN...I'm sure Frontier would not have the capacity, how long would it take other carriers to be authorized to fly revenue flights to/from DEN? Also, wouldn't AA go for the throat in ORD? I think they would jump at the chance to create another fortress hub?
All-in-all, I have to0 many questions to post, these are just the first few...it seems, as I think about it, that this would be a very, very bad thing...even though I don't fly UA (unless the price is real cheap) because I hate flying a CRJ-200 to DEN from AUS...prefer CO to IAH connecting.
Worldwide From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Tcfc424 - I think you are right in saying that AA would try to create another fortress hub at ORD (just like DFW) and may even consider moving to T1. However, unlike DFW, the city of Chicago is a much more attractive city in which to operate a hub and without United, I am certain that another carrier would want to set up shop. The reason I chose CO is because NW already has huge operations at MSP and DTW (both very close), DL is too slow to give up CVG, and US does not have the resources to move in quickly. CO would drop Cleveland in a heartbeat, if Chicago were up for grabs! Imagine CO having hubs in EWR, IAH, ORD, and DEN. They would have great coverage of the country and would be able to do it very profitably.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31766 posts, RR: 73 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2636 times:
JFK, LAX, ORD, SFO. Now, they may also build up IAD to allow them to dominate the top five.
Philadelphia and Dallas are 4 and 5, respectively, not DC and San Francisco, under the new MSA definitions of metropolitan areas. Miami is six, followed by Washington, Houston, Atlanta, and Detroit. The CMSA rankings, which I do not have handy, do change the rankings around and put San Francisco back in the top ten.
Worldwide From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2564 times:
MAH4546 - Using the metropolitan rankings according to the Census 2000, I am wrong on one thing: Washington is 4th and San Francisco is 5th. Now, I would be totally wrong if I were just using city population. The following link shows what I am talking about.
PHXMKEflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 290 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2562 times:
Worldwide: you state "the top 4 cities in the United States - JFK, LAX, ORD, SFO" and continue to say "build up IAD to allow them to dominate the top five." in refering to AA's ability to take over UA's hubs.
Have you completely forgotten about ATL which is consistently in the top two busiest airports in the WORLD in terms of pax. Also, last I heard EWR is busier than JFK.
First off AA does NOT have the resources to take over all of those airports and even if they attempted to i'm sure other competition from other carriers would eat them alive. AA is having their own financial troubles right now and find what you think they may do a dream, and nothing more. Also why in the world do you think AA would want the Asia market??? AA has never really had any interest in that market...EVER, besides that there OneWorld partners Qantas and Cathy Pacific already provide coverage in Asia. If anyone were to ever take over UA's Asia routes it would be NW, simply put NOT AA.
Another question I have for you is why in the world would CO dump SkyTeam and join Star when they already have committed themselves fully to SkyTeam, especially with NW and DL.....makes absolutely NO SENSE
Another point you forgot to mention is that if UA were to liquidate...and that's a big IF, don't you think LCC's like jetBlue, airtran, or maybe even WN would set-up shop in DEN, IAD, ORD?!?!?!?
c'mon man think about what your posting before you post it
Tcfc424 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 517 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2537 times:
What about the capacity to add flights/destinations?
How many aircraft do these other airlines have available to press into service quickly in order to gain market share in what would be defunct UA strongholds? I see the pictures of aircraft in the desert, and I am sure that a few (AA & DL mainly, I think) would be able to press a good number in service, but how long would that take?
WN has a few aircraft being delivered, but that takes time and I am not sure they operate with a large reserve fleet...B6 also doesn't have a lot of available aircraft, nor does F9, at least I don't think...how would they get these aircraft and how long would it take to have them integrated into the fleet? With B6, F9 and WN, they are very specific about their fleets, as it reduces cost...I don't think they would be quick to diversify in that manner...am I wrong?
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2544 times:
The usual responders have stayed away from this particular topic, and I'm venturing in against my better judgement.
Three quick doses of reality before I light up my crack pipe:
1. First question, and this is based on a much more realistic scenario, is what if USAir liquidated?
2. I have serious doubts that either a.) the DOT and/or b.) the antitrust division of the Treasury Dept. (or is it Commerce?) would allow a major airline like AA to dominate 5 major markets.
3. It won't be an overnight, sudden event...there will be too many signs pointing to the end, and it would be a gradual auctioning off, like was the case with Pan Am.
Ok everyone...my crack pipe is lit up and running at full throttle, so now it's time to go to fantasyland...or drug-induced haze land...or is it the Neverland ranch? (Sorry...couldn't pass that one up )
- DL is somewhat better positioned, and would have the cash to pick up the Pacific routes. SFO and LAX would become HUGE for them.
- CO will mortgage everything to the hilt to get LHR access. (Gordon Bethune would get something big, or the board would park his ass on the curb) If it were an auction, NW could be the dark horse on these routes. CO would most likely to take the 744's...what a sad sight that would be, CO flying UA's 747's...an insult if you ask me...
- F9 would buy aircraft and hire a lot of ex-UA employees in DEN and would rule that roost very quickly.
- B6 would also pick up a lot of transcon routes, and might speed up a merger with F9.
- AA would be able to pick up some more ORD authority, but very little, given anti-trust/anti competitive concerns. Same holds true for MIA.
- NW would pick up all of UA's operations in SEA, and possibly start a mini-hub in IAD.
- WN and AS will pick up most of the north/south routes on the west coast. AS would probably get some transcon. routes, and will hire some employees.
- USAir (if they don't liquidate before) will pick up a lot of UA customers, and
in turn will be merger/takover bait.
- A DL/CO/NW merger in some form would probably take place, depending on who got what.
Well...I'm nearly overdosed, so I had to put the pipe down..cough, cough. Gee, now I'm depressed all of a sudden. On to popping Prozac....
Copaair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2539 times:
I think that either NW or AA would take over SFO. AA could hub its tranpacs out of SFO, and use QF as a codeshare for the Australia runs. Also, more OW feed may bring IB or LA in. If NW did, they would almost certainly close MEM and they would probably have quite a bit of transpacs out (AA), Japan">NRT, ICN, etc.) and Skyteam members would probably come in like AZ.
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2566 posts, RR: 20 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2494 times:
From the Pacifics point of view it would be interesting if UAL was liquidated. I wouldn't of thought NW would be interested in UAL's pacific division given there own coverage and their hub in Tokyo. I can see them building more of a domestic presence at LAX or SFO because, as I understand it, they dont have a domestic hub out west. That would give them additional feed for their existing flights. But I think NW's focus would be on Transatlantic flights and on securing access to LHR.
I would have thought CO would be the obvious candidate for UAL's Pacific Division. They already have Continental Micronesia there and the flights out of SFO, ORD and the like would provide them a huge growth opportunity on the international side with the ability to build a major hub out west and move Cleveland to ORD. Plus dont they still own part of Frontier??? (Or do I have my wires crossed) If this went ahead I could see CO reconsidering their position in Skyteam. I'm sure Star would make a pretty good offer to entice them away plus they would be competing with NW.
Worldwide From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 35 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2485 times:
PHXMKEflyer - The reason I did not include ATL is because UA does not have a great presence there and I was talking about the size of cities, not airports. I know ATL is the busiest airport in the world (thanks to all the DL connections), but Atlanta does not have the O&D traffic that the other cities generate. In addition, I was only using the airport codes to identify the cities, my bad! And you are correct in your assessment of EWR, however the presence of AA in the New York area is very big. As far as B6 or FL moving in to ORD or IAD, that is a huge possibility (probably bigger than I know). Finally, AA would love to have a slice of the Asian market. They fought hard to get the rights to China and it is very well known (at least I have read) that Pan Am did not approach AA about buying the Pacific Division because Bob Crandall was such a hard-nose negotiator. AA has tried (and failed) to break into the Asian market and if UA liquidated, then the possibilities of success (after a purchase) would greatly increase.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2274 times:
Thousands would lose their jobs, thousands would be stranded all over the world, millions would lose a lot of money, very few would make lots and lots of money out of the liquidation, AA would go absolutely nuts and try to expand as rapidly as possible - thereby getting right back into a cash-critical situation and being the next airline in Ch11, Continental and Delta would benefit because - while AA is desperately downsizing to regain cash - it would sell off it's European routes giving CO and DL Heathrow access, even more people would lose jobs and absolutely huge amounts of money (not to mention being stranded somewhere) and a very few would get filthy stinking rich...
Sound unlikely? I'd say that the chances of this happening are about as high as the chances of UA liquidating.
By the way - someone asked what would happen if USAir liquidated, and the easy answer is: nothing - USAir hasn't existed for a few years! It's been US AIRWAYS for quite a while now...
Uadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2197 times:
i didnt know that ual was in that bad of shape. even though we have met the d.i.p. requirements since the filing last year, i was under the impression(press releases, so called airline analysts)that usair was under the gun and ual was starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel,,,,some one in here ought to start something about dl and leo leaving, he might have bailed on the sinking ship....
RiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2074 times:
Looking at the big picture, a UA liquidation would leave alot of people out of work, alot of passengers stranded and alot of destinations with much less competition in air travel. It would also make it increasingly hard to believe the economy is as good as the data from Washington and the stock market has been suggesting. Of course, the ivory tower economists would interpret this as being good for the economy, because it would rationalize the air transport system and provide opportunities for more financially sound competitors to step in, but then economists never lose their jobs do they?