FlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 997 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6442 times:
1 - LH investment already in JetBlue...easy access to Star
2 - Complementary fleet
3 - Route network with ZERO overlap...
4 - Cut some unprofitable east coast E190 flights, move the a/c to replace 735's west coast and ORD.
5 - low JBLU market cap.
6- instant excellent feed for a new UAL hub @ JFK
7 - brand new facility @ JFK.
KochamLOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 277 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6423 times:
cool thought but I think jetblue would stay its own and is doing good enough under the lcc idea. People think of it as a premium lcc and I think it benefits them. They have their own mentality - much different from UAL. regardless of aircraft, it would be like airtran or swa merging with AA or CO.
There are some connections but I think that so far, its just been a fun speculation game among us airliner nerds.
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3531 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6349 times:
Problem is, who would run the company?
While the addition of JFK to UAs network would be a little helpful, there is little else that makes sense.
UA is trying to sell out, but so far nobody wants to take over the mess there. I don't think that B6 management has any thoughts of managing a legacy (much less global) airline, as they struggle to manage a LCC now.
B6 just doesn't add that much in either route structure or management expertise.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1887 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6212 times:
First, let me say that I would'nt mind it so much if B6 merged with anybody, so long as they keep the B6 amenities on their flights and they kept BOS a hublet. That being said, if there is any major airline that I would like to see merge with B6 I guess it would be UA. They would have 16 gates in Terminal C and since B6 serves all five of the current UA hubs from BOS (as well as JFK) they could cut some flights to those cities and send them to others.
Second, IF they merged, the airports that will definately remain hubs are LAX, SFO, DEN, and ORD. LGB will have service to all of the hubs (the OAK flight will be moved to SFO) and retain some flights to focus cities and O&D routes, and since OAK is barely being used as a focus city anyway, it will most likely be reduced to a spoke with some flights to various focus cities. Now, on the East Coast, you have UA's hub at IAD, B6's hub at JFK, and B6's focus cities at BOS, MCO, and FLL. What happens to the non-hub point to point routes B6 flies now is a mystery.
I think it would be a better merger than many of the other possible mergers we've been hearing about, but I think B6 is happy where they are.
Ehh, DL's and NW's fleet don't have a whole lot in common, besides their 757 fleet. Even then, the only commonality is the flight deck. Even AA's and TW's 757s were very different. Fleet commonality doesn't make a merger.
I wouldn't consider BOS-ORD, BOS-DEN, BOS-LAX, IAD-FLL, IAD-MCO, JFK-SFO, JFK-LAX, and ORD-LGB to be "zero" overlap . Two of those routes compete with their PS service.
For B6 (as a UA subsidiary) to provide excellent feed, it would need a proper mouth, so to speak. As it is, UA has no international flights out of JFK to support a feeder. Most people fly UA out of LGA to other destinations within UA's already-extensive route network. Perhaps if UA tried to build an international route network (again) out of JFK, a viable feeder could be an option.
Brand new, yes. Fabulous? Arguably so. But as far as I know, it's a facility made primarily for domestic travel, i.e. no plans made for a customs/immigration area.
CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5916 times:
Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 6): First, let me say that I would'nt mind it so much if B6 merged with anybody, so long as they keep the B6 amenities on their flights and they kept BOS a hublet.
B6 & F9 would be a match if F9 makes it out of BK. Keep the B6 transcons and use DEN as the primary hub. Maybe a little help from Direct TV as they both use the system.
FruteBrute From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5869 times:
Quoting CV880 (Reply 8): B6 & F9 would be a match if F9 makes it out of BK. Keep the B6 transcons and use DEN as the primary hub. Maybe a little help from Direct TV as they both use the system.
Actually B6 doesn't need to wait until F9 is out of bankruptcy to buy them out. They can either strike a deal with management or file an offer with the US Bankruptcy Court. In fact if they are going to buy them they should do so now while they can jettison aircraft, employees, stations, assets they don't want.
DeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8590 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5869 times:
Quoting NASBWI (Reply 7): Ehh, DL's and NW's fleet don't have a whole lot in common, besides their 757 fleet. Even then, the only commonality is the flight deck. Even AA's and TW's 757s were very different. Fleet commonality doesn't make a merger.
and they both have PW engines on them. (Where the TW 75s have PW and nAAtive 75s have RRs)
Quoting NASBWI (Reply 7): Brand new, yes. Fabulous? Arguably so. But as far as I know, it's a facility made primarily for domestic travel, i.e. no plans made for a customs/immigration area.
And it only has NB gates.
"Oh look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky! Look at the sUGAr falling out of the sky!" LM 1922-2011 Go Dawgs! G.A.T.A.
Rockinflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3831 times:
Quoting VX (Reply 11): We'll see LY and EK merge before we see a B6/UA merger
Thats for sure! UA is a mess and no one wants them. Maybe just sell off routes piecemeal, and say buh-bye to UA once and for all. UA/US together can go down their messy little holes together and let the carriers that know what they're doing take over.
B6 doesn't want to get involved with UA. I really think UA is bound for an ending just like Pan Am.
If UAL were looking to expand at JFK through a merger with B6 they would have never sold their NYC-London route authorities to DL, if UAL were to buy B6 and set up a hub at JFK they would have to go out and buy NYC-London routes (again).
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
I view JFK as a major laibility for any airline.
JFK/EWR/LGA are responsible for >70% of airline delays in the U.S. Somehow B6 seems to maintain its schedule, but in general, those airports are nightmares for scheduling and delays.
Klkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 803 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2786 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 17): If UAL were looking to expand at JFK through a merger with B6 they would have never sold their NYC-London route authorities to DL, if UAL were to buy B6 and set up a hub at JFK they would have to go out and buy NYC-London routes (again).
Under the current open skies agreement I don't think that is true. UA has plenty of slots at LHR and could switch a couple over from IAD if this hypothetical situation came to be (which I don't think it will). They may even have unused slots (but I am not sure of this).
Rockinflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1926 times:
Quoting Airborne1 (Reply 16): Wall Street just reported CAL-UAL. merge is coming this week
Not now, its not and thank GOD! CO can stand alone for now. They certainly don't need UA.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7450 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
Quoting Catiii (Reply 21): Why not? It's not like the UA crowd has done such a bang up job thus far. Maybe a fresh set of eyes could do wonders.
I think he was saying that JetBlue does not have the operational and logistical know-how to run UA. Which is true. They would need to hire everybody who works for UA except like the top 5 people.
Point being, actually B6 does not have the knowledge needed to run UA. Could their fresh eyes help? Sure. But they couldn't run the actual airline until they hired everybody at UA to run it for them.
Caspritz78 From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1766 times:
This could only happen if UA did a hostile take over of JetBlue because there is nothing to gain for JetBlue. They have a working network, a good fleet and not the problems UA has with its structure. JetBlue can survive on its own easily because they have their costs under control.
Not with Open Skies they don't, UA can fly any flight that it chooses between the EU and NYC provided that they have the slots and aircraft to operate it.
CroCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (5 years 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1587 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2): UA is trying to sell out, but so far nobody wants to take over the mess there. I don't think that B6 management has any thoughts of managing a legacy (much less global) airline, as they struggle to manage a LCC now.
It isnt UA who is selling out, it is Glen Tilton. He needs to go, and the mess will soon be resolved.
The employees of UAL want to see the company succeed, not fail. Get rid of Tilton and you'll see progress.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 997 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1254 posts, 
. Two of those routes compete with their PS service.
From India, joined Apr 2008, 99 posts, 
From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 518 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
