Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/UA: Would They Ever Be Allowed To Merge?  
User currently offlineSeatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5339 times:

A previous thread talks about US primping for a possible merger with UA. This got me to thinking; when we think of airline mergers we often hear the usuals UA/CO, UA/US, DL/AS, AA/CO and on and on. However, what about a AA/UA match up?

I know that considerable divesture of ORD ops would have to happen, but I don't see that as being a huge problem (since both are so big there). AA would get the pacific and UA would get Latin America and the South. From a network perspective it would look pretty nice.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6130 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

As things stand right now probably not as the combined entity would dwarf DL even. Now just to go out into fantasyville for a moment if CO/NW & DL were to have attempted to merge UA and AA would be a logical combination, and your right from a network perspective UA/AA is on par with, if not slightly better, then UA/CO.


Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineSeatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

Network:

Hubs:
ORD
DFW
MIA
IAD
SFO
LAX
JFK
DEN

Focus:

DCA
BOS
STL
SEA
SJU

Fleet:

777
787
757
767
737-8
A320
A319
M80 (until phase out)


The new airline would have a major hub in the top tier largest US metro areas. That would be unbelievable. Not to mention NRT and LHR.

Now here's the trouble...who would run it and what would the name be? I'm thinking AA would have the name and management (if UA leaders were given enough $$ to go away.)

Happy Thanksgiving.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4884 times:

I'm All for it. It would enable the US market to reach equilibrium, a whole stack of RJ's to be dumped for more efficient mainline aircraft, lots of long haul flights to be upgaged to lower CASM aircraft and lots of medium haul aircraft to be widebody flights.

It would be a real towards improving the industry's health!


User currently offlineSeatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4840 times:

Although I think it's a stretch of the imagination, I think the industry has changed enough that it's not so implausible.

The problem is, as I stated before, these two are probably the biggest competitors in the business...since the very early days. It would be hard for one of them to give up their identities and control.


User currently offlineElmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1545 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Snowball's change in hell.

The airline would be 30% bigger than Delta with dominance (50 %+) of half of the top ten biggest air markets in the United States (Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, Miami, Dallas).

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 3):
It would be a real towards improving the industry's health!

And a nightmare for consumers, which is why the Feds would not let it happen.


User currently offlineFleet Service From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 623 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

The regulatory hassle wouldn't be worth the expense.

Never mind the fact I don't see one of the founding members of the Star Alliance simply vanishing via acquisition.

The howls of protest from every quarter would be long, loud and protracted.



Yes, I actually *do* work for an airline,how about you?
User currently offlineSeatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4800 times:

I agree with everything said. However, I think times are changing like never before. I think the entire scope of the industry will look drastically different in the years to come. Tomorrow, we very well could see AA and UA struggling to survive (more so than they are today). With that struggle, some of the hurdles could begin to dissipate (better together then dead.)

As an armchair CEO for 20 plus years, nothing would surprise me.


User currently offlineUA933 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4305 times:



Quoting Seatback (Reply 2):
Now here's the trouble...who would run it and what would the name be?

How about United American Airlines  Wink



united - It's time to fly!
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4296 times:

I don't think that in twenty years there will be more than two US based network carriers, maybe only one. Since mergers are the best way to wash share holders money into managements pockets, the merger and split again game will continue until the share holders wake up.

User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3991 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting UA933 (Reply 8):
How about United American Airlines

Would it be in One World or Star? Which alliance?
It's not that implausible if the two airlines belong to the same alliance, like DL and NW were both in Sky Team, but if the two airlines come from different alliances, which will it be? That's the problem. I don't see AA and UA merging. UA and CO, yes.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2748 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4181 times:



Quoting Seatback (Reply 2):
what would the name be?

UNICAN???  Confused
AMERITED???  Confused

I don't like either one.  no 


User currently offlineOkie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3182 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4150 times:



Quoting Seatback (Thread starter):
A previous thread talks about US primping for a possible merger with UA. This got me to thinking; when we think of airline mergers we often hear the usuals UA/CO, UA/US, DL/AS, AA/CO

US is still battling union issues, and the list goes on and on whether it be DL/NW. Geez how many years has it been and NW still has problems between the Red Bookers and the Green Bookers. I think the union issues are going to be the sticking/stopping point between any merger.

Just watch and see how pressure is put on UA or US or maybe AA and then the survivors will take up piecemeal what they want to complete their network and then no union problems at all.
The Bankrupt airline employees will just have to hire on at the bottom of the list of acquiring airline.

Okie


User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

Getting an AA-UA merger past Antitrust Division wouldn't be easy - Chicago would be the biggest sticking point I actually think the union problems would kill the whole idea off long before DOJ ever got to consider it, though, unless both airlines were so badly off that the unions went along with it out of sheer desperation. But if things were that bad, that'd put us in "tying two rocks together to see if they can float" territory.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 10):

Would it be in One World or Star? Which alliance?

I'd imagine OneWorld - there's no way a combined AA-UA would be able to get any antitrust exemptions in Star with CO and US there too, unless CO flipped to OneWorld immediately.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

It will never happen. AA and UA have considerable overlap at two of their most valuable airports, ORD and LHR. The landing slots at LHR are far to valuable to be forced to divest. The only part of UA that AA wants and would possibly be allowed to take are the Pacific routes and the NRT slots. There are other merger candidates that do not have the LHR slots or large numbers of gates at ORD.

User currently offlineATA L1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1392 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Like AADC10 said they have to much overlap at 2 of there most valuable ports ORD and LHR, I just don't see a major benefit in that combination. They have 3 major hubs (1 for both) within a few hundred miles of each other etc etc. IMO I still think to this day that DL and Co would have made good pair, in patic. that they have/had similiar fleet types.


Treat others as you expect to be treated!
User currently offlineSeatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3790 times:



Quoting AADC10 (Reply 14):
It will never happen. AA and UA have considerable overlap at two of their most valuable airports, ORD and LHR. The landing slots at LHR are far to valuable to be forced to divest. The only part of UA that AA wants and would possibly be allowed to take are the Pacific routes and the NRT slots. There are other merger candidates that do not have the LHR slots or large numbers of gates at ORD.

My entire point is that stranger things have happened. We're looking at a different landscape that may well shake things up a bit. As far as ORD, AA already has 400 plus flights. Couldn't they keep, say 200 United slots and give the rest back? They would still be a solid powerhouse in the market. LHR could be figured out. LHR isn't as valuable as it was two years ago.

I still think from a route planning perspective, major hubs in major cities, strong coverage in the Pacific, Atlantic and Latin Am. would be an unbelievable match up.

BTW, I don't see a combo of names. But I vote for CanTed Air Lines  Big grin


User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3788 times:



Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
I don't think that in twenty years there will be more than two US based network carriers, maybe only one.

I couldn't agree more with that statement. It is a shame to watch the US legacy carriers struggle to survive.



RUSH
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3991 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3785 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR



Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 13):
unless CO flipped to OneWorld immediately.

They just moved to Star, so I doubt they would even think of moving to One World in the near future. I don't see AA and UA getting married, CO and UA are now engaged. Oct 24th was their engagement party in EWR.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3684 times:



Quoting American 767 (Reply 18):
They just moved to Star, so I doubt they would even think of moving to One World in the near future.

I'm presuming that if AA and UA decided to merge, they could only move to Star if CO moved to OneWorld, presumably receiving some sort of incentive payment from AA/UA to do so, as a combined AA/UA would have a very hard time getting ATI sign-off with other Star Alliance members if CO was still part of Star.

I actually think a combined AA/UA would stay in OneWorld.

Of course, I think any hypothetical merger between AA and UA is about as likely as my being elected President in 2012.  Silly

Quoting American 767 (Reply 18):
CO and UA are now engaged. Oct 24th was their engagement party in EWR.

Nah, they're not engaged, they've just agreed to give each other apartment keys. If CO hadn't been the red-headed stepchild of SkyTeam, I don't think they would have switched alliances.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Canadian Airline Be Allowed To Operate US-LHR? posted Sat Sep 29 2007 00:21:15 by Lrgt
UA Flights Stopping In ORD - Allowed To Get Off? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 01:07:20 by Aviationwiz
Would They Ferry A JAL Plane To Avoid Conflict? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 04:14:14 by Clickhappy
Should The Mentally Ill Be Allowed To Fly? posted Fri Dec 9 2005 00:51:18 by Hmmmm...
Will Advertising Ever Be Allowed Inside A Plane? posted Sat Apr 9 2005 20:34:10 by Bigpappa
Should Branson Be Allowed To Start Virgin America? posted Fri Feb 13 2004 07:04:46 by Rjpieces
Should Bankrupt Carriers Be Allowed To Operate? posted Sat Jan 10 2004 20:22:25 by Matt D
Would US Airways Be Wise To Eliminate Domestic F/C posted Sun Nov 30 2003 16:00:32 by John
How Can An Aircraft Like This Be Allowed To Fly? posted Wed Jul 3 2002 07:44:51 by TR
BA Must Not Be Allowed To Block Liberalisation... posted Sun Feb 3 2002 00:44:23 by ILS