LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 968 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 6688 times:
This forum has a number of threads concerning the state of the industry as regards the legacy carriers in the U.S., the most recent post about a merger between Continental and United.
I'd like to hear people's thoughts on another merger between two legacy carriers, namely American and Delta. I hope you'll hear me out.
American Airlines has recently announced a profit, but was ready to file for Chapter 11 protection a little over a year ago. Delta Air Lines is a likely candidate to file before the year is out, or early next year.
I think the two carriers would be prime candidates for a combination because of the following reasons:
- Complimentary route structures: American has powerful hubs at both DFW and ORD, with good traffic flows east-west domestically through those hubs. They also have a strong presence in the northeast U.S., with busy operations in the three major metropolitan areas of Boston, New York and Washington D.C. - mostly with service to the west coast (California).
Delta has a powerful hub in Atlanta, and great market penetration of the southeast United States, an area that AA is fairly weak in. DL also has a strong presence in the northeast, especially from Boston and New York to Florida.
Furthermore, AA could use DL's new BOS facility, DL could move to AA's new JFK facility, and DL could boot NW out of the LGA terminal so that AA could move in (the Shuttle would stay where it's at).
Internationally, both carriers are strong to Europe, with AA flights from ORD and DFW, and the lucrative LHR service, especially from JFK. DL also has a large European operation, with flights to many destinations from ATL, CVG and JFK...but lacks service to LHR. Also, DL serves India (BOM and MAA), while AA has announced plans to start (DEL).
AA is the number one carrier between the U.S. and South America / the Caribbean, while DL has a growing presence from their hub at ATL.
Neither carrier is strong in the Pacific theater, but the combination would serve NRT from ATL / DFW / JFK / LAX / ORD.
CVG could be used as a reliever hub to ORD, which suffers from traffic congestion and delays. SLC would serve as a good connect point from smaller cities in the western third of the country, and re-enforce the presence of the combined carrier in California.
AA is strong in MIA; DL is strong everywhere else in Florida.
- Complimentary fleet: both carriers have large fleets of MD80 series aircraft; yes, they're different designations, but technically similar. Both carriers operate the 777 (with RR engines). Both carriers have the 757 (most AA birds have the RR engines, DL's the P&W). Both have the 767, including ER models. And both have the 738, with more on order.
The regional partners differ greatly, however - DL's have mostly CRJs (talking wholly-owned subsidiaries), while Eagle has the ERJs.
- Partnerships: AA has oneworld, DL has SkyTeam. Oneworld is stymied by the AA/BA combination, in my opinion, with the U.S. government reluctant to allow much codesharing as long as LHR is closed to additional U.S. carriers. AA could drop BA, and hook up with AF and KL...the hubs at CDG and especially AMS offer better and more convenient connections throughout Europe and beyond.
In the Pacific, Korean and Cathay both operate from large, modern airports, geographically suited to transferring passengers from the U.S. to points throughout Asia, and especially China.
In sum, a combination of AA and DL would offer passengers a wide variety of destinations through flights from the three largest connecting hubs in the United States: ATL, DFW and ORD, with additional service through CVG and SLC (as reliever hubs). There would be a large number of O/D service as well.
European service from all points in the United States could be provided with operations through connections in ATL, DFW, ORD and primarily JFK, with additional non-stop service from BOS and MIA.
The largest O/D market to South America is currently well served by AA from Miami, but additional service through ATL, DFW and to a lesser extent JFK would provide one-stop service from a larger selection of cities in the U.S.
Likewise, NRT would finally have a third competitive U.S. carrier, while additional flights beyond could be started from the main hubs in the U.S. (no need to use NRT as a connect hub).
So, what are your thoughts? Before anyone says "the U.S. government wouldn't allow it", consider the state of the legacy carriers, and specifically DL. Consider that there really isn't a whole lot of route overlap, with DL having closed their DFW hub, and traffic flows from the northeast in different directions. DL is still fairly weak in South America, AA has a good European presence but from their hubs in DFW, ORD and MIA mainly, while DL's is from ATL and JFK. Neither carrier is dominant in Asia, but the potential for a stronger competitive presence is there.
Thanks for reading this post; I know it was long, but it could've been longer. I look forward to your responses (I think)...
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4094 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 hours ago) and read 6604 times:
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): CVG could be used as a reliever hub to ORD, which suffers from traffic congestion and delays.
The concept of a reliever hub is the biggest crock known to man. AA did not end up using STL as a reliever despite all the hoopla to the contrary. That said, DL has such a lock on CVG traffic that it makes sense to keep it as a hub/focus city in its own right.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): AA could drop BA, and hook up with AF and KL...the hubs at CDG and especially AMS offer better and more convenient connections throughout Europe and beyond.
This is one area where the antitrust regulators would have a problem - the government is having some difficulties with DL/NW/KL/AF/AZ/OK as it is, and AA has a MUCH larger TATL operation than NW, including a large Heathrow presence - the US or EU might not approve a DL/AA/KL/AF/AZ/OK ATI agreement on anti-competitive grounds.
All of the above being said, AA-DL is the most logical airline pairing after UA-CO. However, I do not believe that the airlines would be able to solve the labor hurdles that would accompany such a merger, especially since DL is mostly nonunion.
First of all, DL is by no means weak in South America. DL has gone from having nearly no service in South America to being the 3rd largest carrier in just a number of years. DL has overtaken UA in South America and will continue to grow.
Now to your topic. An AA/DL merger would be absolutely horrible. It would form the world's largest carrier by far, with absolute dominance of the US domestic market. It would also control US-South and Latin America, and US-Europe. This merged airline would also have over 150,000 employees, and would operate the two largest hubs in the world at ATL and DFW. It would also merge the two airlines with the biggest FF base in the world. It would carry over 180 million passengers. It would control important US markets ATL, Dallas, NYC, BOS, MIA/FLL/PBI, MCO, Los Angeles area, and other important destinations. While an AA/DL combination would be extremely powerful, I doubt it would be profitable. The airline would simply be too big for its own good. I would imagine that DL's CVG hub would be heavily downsized, as would SLC. I envision that the airline's hubs would be in order of largest to smallest: ATL, DFW, ORD, MIA, JFK, CVG, BOS, SLC, STL with significant operations at LGA, DCA, LAX, and FLL.
While the idea of a MEGA-CARRIER like this is incredible, AA/DL wouldn't work out, just too big.
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8994 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 6541 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3): The concept of a reliever hub is the biggest crock known to man. AA did not end up using STL as a reliever despite all the hoopla to the contrary.
beat me to the punch.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): American Airlines has recently announced a profit, but was ready to file for Chapter 11 protection a little over a year ago.
i never heard anything about AA going to file chapter 11 last year.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): DL could boot NW out of the LGA terminal so that AA could move in
do you forget how big AA is at LGA?
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10224 posts, RR: 62 Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 6535 times:
It is funny that this came up, and it brought a smile to my face to see this thread, as I remember back in 2000 when the UA-US merger was announced, that AA and DL actually were, indeed, holding merger discussions. AA, however, ultimately zeroed in on NW and was reportedly fairly close to making a deal there (NW balked at the share price AA offered) and DL found a better alternative with CO. Neither merger happened, though, obviously.
I do agree that DL's ATL and SLC hubs do compliment AA's route structure nicely, and ATL would give AA unparalleled access to the southeast while SLC would give them a hub out west. However, the complimentary route structures stop there. CVG is wholly redundant thanks to ORD. AA and DL replicate many services to south Florida, and several JFK transcons as well.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): Internationally, both carriers are strong to Europe, with AA flights from ORD and DFW, and the lucrative LHR service, especially from JFK.
AA is already the largest U.S. carrier to Europe. They don't need DL's admittedly huge access to many markets to make them bigger -- their apparently about-to-be-reconfigured 757 fleet with soon do that for them. AA and DL's European networks reflect the differing transatlantic strategies and priorities of these two competitors. AA prefers to have critical mass in most European markets it serves, while DL prefers serving many, many cities with only 1 daily flight. Look at AA's European network: more than two thirds of their capacity to Europe is in just two cities, London and Paris, and 2/3 of their European markets receive at least twice daily service. DL, by contrast, serves more than half of its European cities with only a single daily flight and its largest European station receives 5 flights per day, compared to 16 at AA's largest, LHR.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): DL also has a large European operation, with flights to many destinations from ATL, CVG and JFK...but lacks service to LHR.
LHR is the ace in the hole. With that, AA alone can derive such enormous revenue than DL can never hope to match in virtually any other European market. Again, AA doesn't need DL's European network.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): Neither carrier is strong in the Pacific theater, but the combination would serve NRT from ATL / DFW / JFK / LAX / ORD.
I doubt that adding a single daily 777 to ATL will really do too much in the way of adding critical mass to AA's presence in NRT, which already includes 6 777s to 5 U.S. gateways. AA is growing nicely in the Pacific on its own, increasing frequency there from 28 weekly flights in 2002 up to 64 by next April.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): The largest O/D market to South America is currently well served by AA from Miami, but additional service through ATL, DFW and to a lesser extent JFK would provide one-stop service from a larger selection of cities in the U.S.
Again, AA's dominance in Latin America is so paramount and so untouchable, they really don't need DL to help them out there. MIA has so much O&D, as you say, as does JFK. Those two alone make AA the clear leader. DFW is great for connections, especially out west. ATL would be totally unnecessary.
Quoting LawnDart (Thread starter): Before anyone says "the U.S. government wouldn't allow it"
Please allow me to say it -- "the U.S. government wouldn't allow it!" Considering the state of the industry, the state of legacy carriers, no route overlap, traffic flows, etc., I still highly doubt that the DOJ would ever give the green light to a merger of the #1 and #2 airlines in the world based on passengers carried. These two airlines alone would carry about 175M passengers per annum, and have about 1/3 of the entire U.S. market. Not gonna happen.
LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 968 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 2 hours ago) and read 6453 times:
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3): The concept of a reliever hub is the biggest crock known to man.
One could argue that CVG is already a reliever hub, for passengers who need relief from the congestion at ORD. Using CVG as an almost purely connecting hub (the O/D is not there), would free up seats on ORD flights for O/D passengers, a source of higher yield. And ORD has serious issues with delays due to the amount of traffic. Isn't there talk of re-instating slots (the gov't has already quasi-limited growth).
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 4): First of all, DL is by no means weak in South America. DL has gone from having nearly no service in South America to being the 3rd largest carrier in just a number of years.
Did you know there are three kinds of lies? A lie, a damned lie, and statistics. Just because they're third, doesn't mean they aren't weak...brand X has 50% of the market, brand B has 40% of the market, and in third place, brand Z has 10%...still weak. And although DL is growing their South American service, did they reach third place past UA through growth, or did UA shrink to fourth?
Quoting Avek00 (Reply 3): This is one area where the antitrust regulators would have a problem - the government is having some difficulties with DL/NW/KL/AF/AZ/OK as it is,
You forgot CO, which, when combined with NW and DL is what I believe authorities are having a problem with (actually, it's NW joing DL and CO, and rumor has it NW may be leaving the stage). AZ may be dead soon, and OK is a non-starter as far as market domination is concerned.
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 4): While the idea of a MEGA-CARRIER like this is incredible, AA/DL wouldn't work out, just too big.
Quoting Commavia (Reply 8): Please allow me to say it -- "the U.S. government wouldn't allow it!" Considering the state of the industry, the state of legacy carriers, no route overlap, traffic flows, etc., I still highly doubt that the DOJ would ever give the green light to a merger of the #1 and #2 airlines in the world based on passengers carried. These two airlines alone would carry about 175M passengers per annum, and have about 1/3 of the entire U.S. market. Not gonna happen.
How many domestic auto manufacturers are there in the U.S.? If you said three, you're wrong...just GM and Ford. If AA/DL carried 1/3 of the entire U.S. market, who would carry the other 1/3...a combined UA/CO, and combined HP/NW/US (why not?), and WN. People have often said there are too many air carriers in the U.S.
Or, watch Richard Branson cream by allowing foreign carriers rights to carry domestic U.S. passengers...Virgin America would start the day after that was allowed (those Virgin Express babies in Brussels would be over here so fast). Doubt the government would allow that? Car analogy again...what make do you drive? A Toyota made in Kentucky, a Nissan made in Tennessee, a Mercedes made in Alabama, or a Chrysler owned by Daimler? Who needs anti-foreign ownership rules of U.S. airlines?
That wasn't last year. It was over two years ago. And Carty was canned soon after. Which was the point. The claim was last year, and well, that just isn't true.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31155 posts, RR: 76 Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 6328 times:
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 6): Because AA has such small amounts of debt!
Compared to everybody else, yes. In fact, they have more money in the bank than any US airline, including Southwest.
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 10): How many domestic auto manufacturers are there in the U.S.? If you said three, you're wrong...just GM and Ford.
That is a worthless comparison. US automakers compete against everybody in the domestic marketplace. US airlines don't compete against foreign entrants in the domestic market.
And despite being owned by a German company, the Chrysler Group is still a domestic auto manufacturer. So is Toyota Motor Manufacturing America, New United Motor Manufacturing (GM/Toyota), Flat Rock Automotive (Ford/Mazda), etc., etc. They are just owned by foreign companies.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4094 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 6306 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 8): I still highly doubt that the DOJ would ever give the green light to a merger of the #1 and #2 airlines in the world based on passengers carried.
The DOT and DOJ have never blocked a merger based on the size of the airlines involved - the government is MUCH more concerned about monopolies on specific city pairs and overall market shares in specific cities than how many RPMs the airline flew last year.
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 10): One could argue that CVG is already a reliever hub, for passengers who need relief from the congestion at ORD.
Not at all - CVG is a hub in its own right.
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 10): You forgot CO, which, when combined with NW and DL is what I believe authorities are having a problem with
No, I did not forget CO - Continental Airlines is NOT seeking to join the SkyTeam ATI agreement, the NW/KLM ATI agreement, or the AF/DL ATI agreement for that matter. Therefore, Continental is irrelevant to the discussion.
LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 968 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 6278 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14): That is a worthless comparison. US automakers compete against everybody in the domestic marketplace. US airlines don't compete against foreign entrants in the domestic market.
Which is why I followed with the "allow foreign carriers to carry domestic U.S. passengers" paragraph. Not so worthless if you structure the commercial aviation market in the U.S. as the auto market is structured. What kind of choices would be available then? What additional costs could be saved (or lost...)?
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 12): That wasn't last year. It was over two years ago. And Carty was canned soon after.
Last year, the year before. The point is "in the recent past", AA was on the verge of filing...and they still suffer from the general problems all legacy carriers are facing. One profitable quarter does not a recovery make.
And Carty was canned because pensions were revealed right after labor concessions were signed, and the masses demanded his head.
Ikramerica, you're usually pretty vocal...care to share any substantive thoughts on an AA/DL merger?
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31155 posts, RR: 76 Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 1 hour ago) and read 6253 times:
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 16):
Last year, the year before. The point is "in the recent past", AA was on the verge of filing...and they still suffer from the general problems all legacy carriers are facing. One profitable quarter does not a recovery make.
AA wasn't as close as the media made people think. It was more a "threat" to make the unions agree to what they want. And you are right that one profitable quarter does not make a recovery, but AA has been on a major recovery path for the past 18 months or so. Delta, Northwest, and United would love to be in the situation AA is in right now. They would absolutley love it.
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 16):
Which is why I followed with the "allow foreign carriers to carry domestic U.S. passengers" paragraph. Not so worthless if you structure the commercial aviation market in the U.S. as the auto market is structured.
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3385 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 6180 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 8):
AA is already the largest U.S. carrier to Europe. They don't need DL's admittedly huge access to many markets to make them bigger -- their apparently about-to-be-reconfigured 757 fleet with soon do that for them. AA and DL's European networks reflect the differing transatlantic strategies and priorities of these two competitors. AA prefers to have critical mass in most European markets it serves, while DL prefers serving many, many cities with only 1 daily flight. Look at AA's European network: more than two thirds of their capacity to Europe is in just two cities, London and Paris, and 2/3 of their European markets receive at least twice daily service. DL, by contrast, serves more than half of its European cities with only a single daily flight and its largest European station receives 5 flights per day, compared to 16 at AA's largest, LHR.
Blah, blah, blah. AA is the largest by passengers carried and by revenue. But they by no means dominate. DL carries almost as many passengers and serves many more destinations in Europe than AA, depends on what you consider bigger.
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 10): Did you know there are three kinds of lies? A lie, a damned lie, and statistics. Just because they're third, doesn't mean they aren't weak...brand X has 50% of the market, brand B has 40% of the market, and in third place, brand Z has 10%...still weak. And although DL is growing their South American service, did they reach third place past UA through growth, or did UA shrink to fourth?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. DL has established itself as solid airline in Latin and South America. You comparing AA and its MIA hub to South America with DL's is like comparing AA's network to Asia with UA's and their SFO and LAX hubs, it's not a fair comparison. Sure DL will likely never be the size of AA is in South America without MIA, but that doesn't mean they can't make themselves a substantial carrier there.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14): Compared to everybody else, yes. In fact, they have more money in the bank than any US airline, including Southwest.
Who's comparing, debt is debt, which AA has a lot of. Multi-billions in debt is not a good thing, regardless of who has less. Let's deal with the facts.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10224 posts, RR: 62 Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months ago) and read 6140 times:
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 18): Blah, blah, blah. AA is the largest by passengers carried and by revenue. But they by no means dominate.
I don't recall ever using the word "dominate." However, it is accurate and fair to say that AA is a larger presence across the Atlantic than DL.
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 18): DL carries almost as many passengers and serves many more destinations in Europe than AA, depends on what you consider bigger.
Well, AA is "bigger" in every metric except cities served. They have more flights, more seats, and more ASMs than DL to Europe.
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3385 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6124 times:
"I don't recall ever using the word "dominate." However, it is accurate and fair to say that AA is a larger presence across the Atlantic than DL."
I completely disagree with you. AA has a larger presence in the UK, other than that AA's European network doesn't hold a candle to DL's.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31155 posts, RR: 76 Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6113 times:
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 21):
I completely disagree with you. AA has a larger presence in the UK, other than that AA's European network doesn't hold a candle to DL's.
AA is also the largest US airline between the United States and Paris, despite the AF/DL relationship.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10224 posts, RR: 62 Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6103 times:
Quoting SESGDL (Reply 21): I completely disagree with you. AA has a larger presence in the UK, other than that AA's European network doesn't hold a candle to DL's.
Well, I guess it is pretty open to interpretation that.
When I say "larger presence across the Atlantic than DL," I am referring to the fact that AA has more flights, more seats, and more ASMs than DL. Despite the fact that DL flies to more cities -- 21 -- than AA -- with 11 -- AA is still "larger" across the Atlantic by all of those measurements. Now, perhaps AA's presence in Europe is far more concentrated in a few markets (particularly London and Paris, where AA is the largest U.S. carrier) than DL, which has chosen to fly once a day to more than half of its European destinations, but I still stand by my original statement -- AA has a larger presence across the Atlantic than DL.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4684 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 6083 times:
Here are some points to ponder:
Merging the two MD-80 fleets would be a real pain, since AA has 2-3 seating, and DL has 3-2 seating. Swapping out aircraft would become very problematic.
DL's 767 fleet has P&W engines, while AA's has GE engines. AA was lucky that TW had a small number of 767s, so it basically replaced them.
DL's 757s also have P&W engines, while AA's has RR. The TW fleet has been a problem for AA, and increasing the problem for both the 757 and adding the same situation to the 767 fleet would become a maintenance, training, and crew scheduling headache.
AA has not had the best of luck dealing with integrating pilots and F/As from merged carriers into its workforce. Adding more employees and figuring what to do with seniority lists, crew bases, etc. would only make the AA employees mad, again.
While SLC would work for AA far better than SJC ever did, CVG would be a problem. AA would wind up with 2 hubs less than 1 hour flying time from ORD. STL made sense before September 11th, because the summer of 2000 was miserable for ORD. Between a very stormy summer and UA's pilots, ORD was basically late almost every day. Having STL would have allowed passengers to bypass ORD, if need be, without going as far south as DFW.
September 11th exposed the weakness of STL: lack of O&D traffic.
Now, apparently, CVG has more O&D traffic, but it serves a somewhat similar purpose for ORD and STL, connecting east-west traffic, and acting as a connecting point for traffic going in and out of the Midwest. Whereas STL can handle some traffic that would otherwise go to DFW, CVG handles some traffic that might otherwise go to ATL for connections.
But it is another Midwest hub, which AA doesn't need.
In addition, AA doesn't need another hub to handle traffic going to Latin America. AA already has a primary hub at MIA, with service out of JFK, DFW, LAX, and service to Mexico out of ORD. ATL just muddies up the strategy for Latin America.
While buying DL would give AA tremendous opportunities for service to Europe, expand service in the Southeast and West, and get the BOS-LGA-DCA Shuttle, it is spending way too much money for too many headaches and taking on too much debt.
AA is better off keeping its $3.9 billion and trying to find new opportunities, as well as preparing to modernize its fleet.
25 SESGDL: "AA is also the largest US airline between the United States and Paris, despite the AF/DL relationship." Thank you for listing one additional airport
26 MAH4546: AA is the largest US airline in Brussels. I was doing nothing more than correcting a statement that said that AA was the largest US airline only in t
27 SESGDL: "AA is the largest US airline in Brussels. I was doing nothing more than correcting a statement that said that AA was the largest US airline only in t
28 MAH4546: Delta is larger in France as a whole, because they also serve France-India. American is largest, although just barely, between the US and France. The
29 Commavia: First off -- MAH is correct, AA is larger to BRU than DL, and is also larger in ZRH than DL. But, with your comments, you have completely proven my p
30 Padcrasher: Let see AA bos/mia/dfw/ord/jfk/jfk tonight 767s DL cvg/jfk/jfk/atl/atl/ and jfk nce tonight 4 767s 2 777s Did I forget an AA flight?
31 LawnDart: Ouch...what did I ever do to you? My statement was: I was trying to point out that statistics can be twisted in a number of ways to prove a point. Th
32 Commavia: DL is slightly larger to the country of France, while AA is larger to Paris alone: AA: Paris 1x BOS 1x ORD 1x MIA 1x DFW 2x JFK AA PARIS/FRANCE TOTAL:
33 SESGDL: "But, again, this just further goes to prove the point -- DL has chosen to spread out their operations in Europe among 21 airports, more than half of
34 LawnDart: Most res systems can distinguish seating arrangements...you code one the M8A, the other the M8D. Also, most of DL's 767s have GE. How true...they've
36 Xkorpyoh: it seems that the biggest benefit for AA on such a merger would be getting the ATL hub. In that case, it would be easier to merge with AirTran instead
37 PHLBOS: That is, of course, unless another terrorist-related air disaster strikes or should oil prices shoot up to $150/barrel. Need I remind you that your q
38 Adria: probably many of the US airlines would have had problems if any foreign airline would start a domestic US service. For the travelers this would be a
39 SESGDL: DL's ATL hub is nothing like RNO and STL were. ATL is a much bigger O&D city, bigger than AA's DFW hub in fact, with connection opportunities to Euro
40 RIPCORDD: Think this it will never happen its only a pipe dream of someones they have the same fleets thats about it.
41 HikesWithEyes: That would be akin to a Hatfield marrying a McCoy.
42 Jetdeltamsy: When AA bought TWA, the pilot seniority rosters were integrated by simply placing the TWA pilot at the bottom of the list. TWA's most senior pilot was
43 AirTranTUS: I would personally like to see the DL, CO, NW partnership grow.
44 DeltaGuy767: I would love to see DL merge with AA and keep the DL brand and paint scheme, but however one word for you all to conisder anti-trust! If this were eve
45 HunUtazo: AMR 'will' merge with Northwest after the CAL/UAL merge, it's in the works... Sadly, Delta offers nothing, even Atlanta, with LCCs all over their mark
46 LMP737: This is all academic folks. With the issues that AA had with the Reno and TWA mergers I don't think the management of AA would really be interested in
47 OzarkD9S: All this speculation leads to an odd-man out scenario. Since US is being HP-ed, there will still be a "Big 6" legacy structure but the new US will be
48 HunUtazo: AA will be forced to merge after the CAL/UAL merger, times are in the EXTREME, different from previous attempts or times relating to merging airlines.
49 Commavia: I think the whole "odd man out" motivation is pretty much gone away. No doubt, this was AA's initial -- and primary -- motivation for buying TWA. The
50 B707Stu: I agree, would never pass anti-trust laws. Too much of a reduction of competition. Now, CO/NW, I see that one within 5 yrs, or CO/DL.
51 Airlinerfreak: I am just going to pretend that I never heard of any of this. This is totally ludacris as you have two airlines with two of the biggest hubs in the wo
52 Mariner: Those are the smartest, truest words anyone has written in this thread. cheers mariner
53 Rhuertas70: If DeltaAA ever becomes a reality I see the following issues: 1) What is going to happen to regional carriers like Comair, American Connection and Atl
54 HunUtazo: Delta and American will NEVER happen, EVER... American and Northwest will, since NWA has defensible hubs and huge Pacific holdings, in fact they'll h
55 Avek00: Care to expound on why you believe this? I agree that it is unlikely, but certainly not within the realm of impossibility by any means...
56 Commavia: Oh, I'd say that if it isn't in that "realm," it is pretty darn close, because, among other things: 1) AA is a carrier on the up right now, slowly bu
57 Rhuertas70: Would you consider the DTW hub "defensible" with the presence of ORD literally one hop across Lake Michigan away in case of a merger? Either DTW or O
58 Fewsolarge: I'm soft on Delta, so I'd really be sad if they became AA's bitch. But from a strictly geographical point of view, the hubs line up nicely. I've long
59 HunUtazo: Delta is a great airline, but their route system is shot with all the LCCs all over there primary hub, Atlanta, all other hubs have very low O/D and m
60 HunUtazo: The fleet types are minor problems especially since consolidation is being pushed by the major creditors that own the majority of the US Industry, try
61 PHLBOS: Side question: Why did DL opt for 3-2 seating rather than the standard 2-3?
62 LawnDart: That was good! Again, why does everyone think AA would be the surviving carrier? Plenty of mergers (not just in the airline industry) involve the tak
63 HunUtazo: The NEW Continental will be a Rapacious Mega MonoLithic Destroyer of LCCs and others...of Course and except, AMR/NWAC and Southwest. I like Delta, but
64 AeroWesty: The way I understood it, there was a fence of sorts placed around the St. Louis hub for seniority issues. I don't know if that still exists, or for h
65 B4real: OK - this thread is out of control. But I like it AA-DL will never happen. As said, too big too expensive. You'd probably see WN or FL buy DL before A
66 777Purser: How do people even come up with this sort of non-sense? Neither AA or Delta have any plans other than their own restructuring. American has made a lot
67 Ckfred: I just don't see AA merging with anyone for the forseeable future. It has $3.9 billion in cash, and it isn't going to waste money by buying another ai
68 B4real: You know, I may fast forward 2 years from now - AA may pick up DL for a "Ch. 11 bargain" - If the HP/US marriage via BK works, AA may try the same - E
69 Commavia: I doubt it. AA is not going to want to deal with all of DL's internal and external market problems while they are already on the road to recovery, ev
70 Jdaniel001: Never happened! I glad this thread is all opinion. Here's mine. AA in typical AA style will pick it's next big threat that is in financial turmoil. D
71 Commavia: It did, and it's not my opinion: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TRAVEL/NEWS/06/07/airline.talks/ http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2000/06/05/
72 B4real: My thought is AA (or anyone) could benefit from the lead in ATL ops. AA could + from some International routes [ATH/IST/SVO/MXP/NCE/AMS/TXL/MUC/STR/B
73 777Purser: Listen loud and clear: AA is not merging or adquiring anything anytime soon. They have enough work trying to restructure; exploring new more profitabl
74 LawnDart: Good Lord...an MBA in the making...throw any more business-speak words into one sentence, and the Phoenix School will send you an honorary degree! So
75 Avek00: To the contrary - according to the WSJ, AA and DL executives *briefly* discussed a merger as a competitive response to the UA/US merger.
76 777Purser: LOL!! When they figure out how to pay their bills, maybe they can start thinking about acquiring stuff...say...the largest airline in the world, for
77 Ckfred: If DL or NW go into bankruptcy and decide to sell assests, AA will certainly look. There are aircraft in DL's fleet that are compatable with AA's. If
78 777Purser: Ckfred: It is my understanding that the only reason why we did not see more Eagle doin American Flying was imposed by a ratio negotiated by the AA Pil
79 HunUtazo: With the coming UAL management change, the entire playing field changes, virtually overnight... AA & NWAC will merge, they'll have to.
80 777Purser: WHO is comming to manage UAL??? GOD???
81 Commavia: No doubt, just as they surely did when UA and US filed, but I don't think we'll see any startling competitive acquisitions coming out of Fort Worth.
82 Avek00: No they do not. Among other things, neither airline could reasonably afford such a venture, and the integration costs would cause any potential inves
83 Contrails: My thoughts: It would kill AA and DL, which would probably wreck the economy even more than it's already wrecked. It would put commercial aviation int
84 MattRB: They'd quickly price themselves out of a customer in me, I'm afraid.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 968 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22868 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31155 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
