WGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Just because the merger is announed does not mean it has immediately and instantly happening. Closing the transaction can take time, anywhere from a few months to a year or more.
This merger will be great for both airlines, though, I have to say. This is not one of your American Airlines style acquire-and-shred deals that took out airlines such as TWA, Reno Air, AirCal, et cetera. For that matter, this deal is infinitely better than anything US Airways ever put together in its history (let's not mention PSA and Piedmont in this conversation).
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
I am going to mention PSA. I'm glad that HP is the buyer and not the other way around. At least there's consolation in that.
I just want to hear, once and if this merger deal goes through, what their long term plan is. I've heard expansion in the midwest and to hawaii, but I want to hear about the potential rebranding, as well as fleet consolidation and whether these two are going to shift to a more point to point structure or keep it hub and spoke.
C133 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
Can anyone explain why HP wants to do this? What's in it for them but trouble? The seniority integration issues alone will be daunting. I wish them well, but they've been a successful airline just as they are. You don't see Southwest breaking the mold.....
Fine: Tax for doing wrong. Tax: Fine for doing well.
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4651 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 7 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
Quoting PhoenixX2 (Reply 10): 450m and Bronner is the President of that fund. Now you know why he is CEO of US. All Bronner and his Execs want to do is "play golf". Good luck to all.
Bronner is not the CEO of US, he is just the Chairman of the BOD. Bruce Lakefield is the golfer you speak of. Bronner has been very outspoken when it comes to the inadequate managers that have come into US. He was also responsible for asking for Dave Siegel's resignation when labor demanded.
Quoting C133 (Reply 11): Can anyone explain why HP wants to do this? What's in it for them but trouble? The seniority integration issues alone will be daunting. I wish them well, but they've been a successful airline just as they are. You don't see Southwest breaking the mold.....
HP runs into cash problems at the end of the year having something like $70 million in the bank at that time. They are facing the same issues US is now, just delayed a couple years. The seniority issues will be a bit of a headache for employees who are not represented by similar unions. ALPA and AFA has shops at both airlines so the list merger policy is already pretty well set there - DOH.
As far as Southwest...they are making money right now thanks to their fuel hedging. It should be interesting to note that Colleen at LUV has stated that the US/HP merger is good as long as they shed about 50 aircraft. Good for the industry that is. Depends how you want to read into it, but I find it interesting that it is "good for the industry" when a competitor gets rid of their planes but its okay for that airline to keep adding more capacity. AMR has made similar comments, but at least they have shown significant capacity reductions due in part to the TWA massacre but also with the grounding of the F-100s and 727s.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5784 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 1917 times:
My major problem with this merger is that this is basically combining 2 regional carriers, one eastern and one western. Looking at the route structure, there appears to be a big gap across the Midwest. If you need to get from MSY to DEN, a combined HP/US will be more time consuming than flying CO, AA, NW, or UA.
Could the combined carrier is thinking of creating a focus city at STL? That may not be the best idea. AA bailed on STL, because it doesn't have enough O&D traffic. Even WN isn't growing at STL the way it is at MDW, despite the fact that the world's largest airline cut its hub operation dramatically.
The other problem is that it looks as if HP/US plan to ferry a lot of passengers to AC's hubs for codeshare flying to Europe and Asia. This sounds like what AA tried to do with CP in the 90s, send passengers to YVR to connect to CP flights to Asia.
On the one hand, it allows the combined carrier to easy access to an international route system. But considering that most U.S. carriers are adding to their international routes, it seems that HP/US is doing the opposite, which may prove to be less profitable in the long run.
Finally, there is the seniority problem. The employees at WA Transworld Airlines (USA)">TW wound up at the bottom of AA's seniority list, and many are on furlough. Merging seniority lists is a difficult proposition. About the only merger that had little trouble was DL/WA, because there were similar in size and distribution.