DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4608 posts, RR: 31 Posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3369 times:
What would the effects of the proposed AA buyout of TWA (best article so far is today's headliner at www.washingtonpost.com, consult it before writing) on your hometown? I've written elsewhere that it's considerably less dangerous from a consumer standpoint than UA-US as proposed, and it's thus more likely to be approved. So how would things shake out at your hometown?
Here's how Rochester, New York ROC would look:
ROC today (est.):
US Airways, 30 jet flights/ 20 regionals, 44 pecent of traffic
United Airlines, 7 jet flights, 7 regionals, 13 percent of traffic
American Airlines, 5 jet flights, 16 regionals, 10 percent of traffic
Delta Air Lines, 5 jet flights, 7 regionals, 9 percent of traffic
Continental Airlines, 1 Jet flight, 22 regionals, 9 percent of traffic
JetBlue Airways, 5 jet flights, 8 percent of traffic
Northwest Airlines, 5 jet flights, 2 regionals, 5 percent of traffic
Remainder 2 percent: Midway Airlines, 3 regionals;
Air Alliance, 4 regionals.
Post AA-UA-US-TW, again estimated:
United: 33 jet flights, 27 regionals, 51 percent of traffic;
American: 5 jet flights, 16 regionals, 10 percent of traffic
Delta: 5 jets, 7 regionals, 9 percent of traffic
Continental: 1 jet, 22 regionals, 9 percent of traffic
JetBlue: 5 jets, 8 percent of traffic
Northwest: 5 jets, 2 regionals, 5 percent of traffic
DC Air: 1 jet 2 regionals, 3 percent of traffic;
Remainder 2 percent--Midway 3 regionals, Air Alliance 4 regionals.
Doesn't look any different from UA-US, but keep in mind DL-CO and AA-NW would certainly happen and concentrate their blocs together if UA-US went through as proposed.
But with the AA-Big 5 scenario, with five large carriers remaining in the US, the carriers at ROC remain largely separate entities. The low-fare carriers would still be here, unlike if a SuperBig 3 went through. JetBlue's position is in less danger, as are Southwest's and AirTran's in neighboring Buffalo, which have reduced fares some on similar routes in Rochester.
All around, AA-Big 5 wouldn't pose near the oligopoly-concentration and further fare-gouging danger to Rochester as UA-US-SuperBig 3 would. It's worth considering from the standpoint of this medium-size market. How about your market?
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Airwaysdc9 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 204 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3294 times:
Did you read the rest of that article?
AA is also purchasing 49% of DC-Air
AA is also purchasing 1/2 of the US Airways shuttle
(UAL/AA will fly them on alternating hours)
AA is also purchasing hub-to-hub routes UAL/US
AA is also purchasing roughly 20% of US Airways in the form of F100s, MD80s, and 757s
I believe that the AA/TWA merger was carefully planned to take advantage of the US Airways/UAL merger being approved and, now, virtually every one of the DOJ's concerns about US/UAL being put to rest.
Additionally, even though TWA/AA does NOT effect Rochester, I believe it would have a SIGNIFICANT effect on small cities - some the SIZE of Rochester - in the midwestern US where there would be one less competitor. I admire your loyalty to your region, but your logic is slightly flawed...If you have arguments against US/UAL in ROC...then it stands to reason that those same arguments might take place in Des Moines, IA or other small markets in the midwest that rely upon TWA as an added competitor.
Keep in mind I disagree with your argument - but I believe that you have to apply it in this situation as well if you choose to use it.
TWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3289 times:
I completely agree with you. Nobody here has really talked about the rest of the AA deal (DCAir, USAirways Shuttle), which helps paint the rest of the picture. Make no mistake about it everybody, this whole thing represents part of the biggest shake-up in the US commerical aviation industry since deregulation.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4608 posts, RR: 31
Reply 4, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3272 times:
Your recent pattern of simply attacking the persons of US-UA opponents, instead of demonstrating a coherent understanding of our arguments is kind of embarrassing, AirwaysDC9. It's probably satisfying to slash at opponents (the way, say, James Carville does) given that hostility, rather than discussion, has become your purpose in discussing UA-US. It sure isn't very convincing though, and raises questions about your interests. But we won't go there.
First, you're well aware that I post on discussions of this topic. Since rebutting me rather forcefully is a big concern of yours, it would make sense to check other threads first for pensee's by yours truly that would answer questions this post didn't (and wasn't intended to). But since you obviously didn't, preferring as usual to come out fangs bared without relavant facts, I'll need to sum up again.
UA-US was dead in the water as is, for antitrust reasons. But as you and I both know the US industry has been itching to consolidate again for some time, and UA-US were simply the first to jump. Goodwin needed to cover his fanny re his incompetent management of United. Steve Wolf, ever intolerant of anything but the fattest margins, decided to fold US after losing against the F/A's last spring, instead of continuing to try to reduce costs. So UA and US went first.
American and the rest floated balloons (eg the discussions w/ NW) but otherwise watched. Neither UA-US nor the other US majors expected the political opposition to UA-US to be nearly as intense or bipartisan as it has been. Meanwhile, Bob Johnson smartly recognized DC Air for the sham it is and went shopping for a partner, as we disussed. Your short-term memory is fading, I think--didn't we discuss the planned 49 percent acquisition of DC Air by AA just a week ago?
UA and US realized by mid December that DOJ was going to crush their merger with conditions and begged for time. Now we know why, as Flashmeister noted on another thread--they were in discussions with American that led to the current AA-TW-US-UA square dance proposal. DOJ wasn't going to let Big Air shrink to SuperBig 3 that could certainly destroy WN and other low-fare carriers. But they might let Big 6 shrink to Big 5 which would not be nearly as big an antitrust problem. We'll see if they actually do.
Enter TWA which enters the real new millennium bleeding red and much closer to bankruptcy than most realized. TW unlike US was in imminent danger of shutdown (would the courts approve a third operating trip thru Chapter 11 with Karabu still in force? unlikely). Don Carty sees a chance to grow AA--and rescue that delicious round of consolidation he as much as any other Big Air exec wants.
Des Moines was going to be without TWA whether or not AA came buying, as the data show. ROC wasn't going to be without US for another ten years (unless Wolf-Man wasn't happy w the margins and decided to go elsewhere) so the comparison doesn't fly. TW is in imminent danger, US is not. Apples and oranges.
Given this situation, another point comes to mind: Aren't you the one always arguing that US should be held together at all costs, so employees don't lose their seniority? You've worried so much on the forum about the impact of the merger on US families. How about TW families? AA's buyout could save *them* from the disruption you're always calling unacceptable for US employees? Is there a reason you're willing to see TW employees go through brief suffering (STL would be up in someone's colors quickly) but not US's? Your compassion is very selective Airways DC9.
I've applied consistent logic all the way through a) my opposition to UA-US as it was proposed last May; and b) my willingness to consider--but not yet endorse--AA-UA-US-TW as it has been proposed. You need to do the same, and check your facts first, before hurling charges of ignorance and inconsistency at others.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3260 times:
I don't see much effect at CLE. TW only has a few flights in/out each day, all to STL. AA has flights to DFW, ORD, RDU, and Eagle flights to ORD, JFK, and LGA. WN covers flights to STL, and CO has flights to STL as well. I don't think there will be a major impact outside the CLE-STL market.
Chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6338 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3246 times:
For SJU- Puerto Rico were I live it means we are in deep trouble. Twa was trying to make San Juan a focus city and AA hubs in San Juan so that means we would hardly have competition ,Fares would go up .I feel so bad for TWA they were such a proud name, I hope too see TWA in the future.
Tan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1966 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3237 times:
At FAT(Fresno) there should be no change that I can see. The current MD-80 R/T to DFW should stay(I sure hope). Although, I could see that flight being re-assigned to STL if the connecting traffic is such that it would make better sense to put it there.All in all I think it will stay at DFW.
Other than that, No other known effects.
Chepos, as far as SJU is concerned, I would think that after the dust settles others would see the potential that SJU has, particularly to MIA. Checking the the OAG I see that DL has 4 daily plus weekend flights to ATL and a daily to CVG. NW has a smattering of service to DTW & MSP. Co has a IAH, CLE and a few to EWR...Perhaps UA and the others might beef it up a bit.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
At SAN, I think the only problems that may arise are ones concerned with terminal congestion. TWA currently has 4 arrivals a day from STL and 5 departures a day to STL and ONT, all operating from the east concourse of Terminal 1. AA operates from the east concourse of Terminal 2, along with NW, British Airways, and soon Aeromexico when they relocate from T1 East. In the morning TWA operates 2 departures out of T1, but I don't think those can be moved to t2 East as it is totally full each morning. So if anything happened as far as service goes as a part of this deal it would probably be AA dropping a morning flight to ORD and DFW each and using larger equipment for another morning flight.
USAirways and United both already share gates at the same terminal, so there won't be any problems there.
FlyCMH From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 2315 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3200 times:
At Port Columbus, operations will not change very much with the Trans World/American Airlines merger.
Currently American/American Eagle has become a major player in Columbus, opening up a regional jet maintenance facility and starting service to several new cities nearly doubling their total of daily nonstop flights to 26. On the other hand, TWA offers 6 daily nonstops. If all flights were to remain the same, the combined airline would have 32 daily nonstops to 6 destinations: STL, ORD, DFW, LGA, BOS, and DCA, with seasonal service to JFK and MIA. With 32 daily flights, the combined AA/TW would have as many daily flights as USAirways, Columbus' second largest carrier. If the whole USAirways/United Airlines/DCAir/American Airlines/etc,etc deal goes through, things will drastically change.
However, this is extremely sad news for Columbus at a more historical and emotional perspective. TWA can trace it's roots all the way back to when TAT operated the first transcontinental flights from Port Columbus. TWA has always been a special part of Port Columbus, and it is exceedingly sad to see them go.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6968 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
For Pensacola, there isn't really much of a change. Currently, we are not served by either AA or TWA. However, TWA was scheduled to launch service between PNS and STL with ERJ145's on Feb. 10. I don't know if AA will pick up this service or not. I hope they do because I would really like to see some increased competition in PNS.
Raddog2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3188 times:
SJC is going to see some significant changes. TWA's 3 daily flights to STL will probably be moved to Terminal A with the rest of AA ops, and they will give up their sad little gate in Terminal C which no doubt will be snapped up like red meat by all the cramped airlines over there. AA will start the reported SJC-PHL flight. United is supposed to start up both SJC-PHL and SJC-PIT, and will provide some competition for AA with SJC-BOS flights (which I am heartily looking forward to, so long as fares don't become exorbitantly high).
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7876 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Jim, TWA hasn't flown to Tucson in at least 5 years... And the same goes for USAirways. The impact up at Sky Harbor is minimal too... TWA has 5 flights to STL, and US operates about a dozen flights. The only impact I see, and this is a big one, is there is one less choice for me as a consumer wanting to go somewhere. In places like the midwest, many small towns only have service from TWA/TWE and AA/Eagle... talk about not having any choice.
On a sidenote, this merger business is scary. After AA/TWA and if UA/US goes through United and American will control 51% of all passenger air travel in the US...
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
N757tw From United States of America, joined May 2000, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3154 times:
Well so much for TWA's 3 gates in terminal B, those I would guess will be taken by UA, which is next to them, and the USAir gates down the hall will be returned to the airport. That would give UA (& US) 7 gates to operate from.
Airnondo From Moldova, joined May 2000, 241 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (14 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3140 times:
TWA runs one of their few non-hub to non-hub flights out of PDX heading to ANC. I'm really curious how this route would play in the merger.
I assume the merged AA would keep it around considering they have already let their SEA-ANC flight go and the pure size of the new AA would warrant at least one ANC flight out of the Pacific Northwest.
Hmm...this route's future (whether expanded, cut, or maintained) really may lie in the future of AA/TWA codesharing agreements with the likes of AS. Another interesting subject.
(Flights to ANC out of PDX/SEA are great for a national airline because they can use the whole country as a feeding area without forcing anyone too much out of their way.)