cjpmaestro From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 118 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19801 times:
The potential for AMR to head into bankruptcy continues to be all over the news and more prominent in each story is how a merger with US Airways would be good (like UA/CO and Delta). After talks with pilots collapsed and the AMR board is now not meeting for the rest of the year, it does appear that this line of thinking could become reality. I know that it takes two to tango and US would have to want to be involved and they are doing well right now without the problems of AMR, but what would a merged AA and US look like?
wingnutmn From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 677 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19621 times:
US still hasn't merged all labor from the US/HP merger. Imagine how disgruntled pilots would be if US attempted to buy or merge with AA. There would be absolutely zero chance of any pilot agreement.
Route structure could be ok though. Dominant up and down the east coast with hubs in JFK/LGA/DCA/CLT/MIA, Midwest is covered with DFW/ORD, west is weak with only PHX and a smaller presence in LAX.
This would be a much better merger if they could find a way to include AS in it. That would solidify a west coast operation to include a true coast to coast domination.
You could re-establish international hubs to include most Asia flying out of SEA/ORD/LAX, Europe out of JFK/ORD/CLT. Expand to africa out of CLT/MIA, and south america out of LAX/DFW/MIA. In this scenario, you would turn PHX into a mostly domestic hub, and have just your primary trunk international routes to europe and asia out of DFW. Cost wise this would make sense, but in reality it would never happen.
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8146 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19172 times:
Quoting wingnutmn (Reply 3): US still hasn't merged all labor from the US/HP merger. Imagine how disgruntled pilots would be if US attempted to buy or merge with AA. There would be absolutely zero chance of any pilot agreement.
How exactly is this hurting the current version of US, they seem to be doing fine letting the unions fight it out between themselves while the company continues on as if nothing is taking place.
I would not mention the 752 and the 762 because those are getting old and they are on the way out. By the time the merger takes place, if it ever does, the retirement of these aircraft will be near. If you mention the 752 and 762 then why not mentioning the Super 80? And I would add also the A320NEO Series to the above list.
I think also that you can mention the CRJ and E-Jets for regional routes or low capacity medium haul routes.
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3522 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19068 times:
I think an AA/US merger would be an incredible challenge for all involved. However, if the carrier were to overcome all the labor/network issues, I think a renewed and larger AA (as the merged carrier would obviously be named) would have great coverage of many major markets. Hubs at DFW, CLT, MIA, ORD, PHL, and PHX would be a solid domestic network. I think in this merger scenario the LAX and JFK hubs would be diminished and reduced to focus city status. Firstly, PHL can serve virtually the same role as AA's JFK hub does now with considerably less competition and much greater connectivity. JFK could still continue to serve the large O&D markets as is, such as LHR, CDG, GRU, and NRT. The same with LAX. LAX could continue to have service to the major O&D markets like NRT, LHR, and PVG, as well as the large domestic markets, but PHX could serve as a way to bolster AA's Western presence, which has been paltry since the failed takeovers of AirCal and Reno Air. Of course, WN's presence in PHX presents a formidable challenge as well, due to the low yields and heavy competition. The biggest issue that an AA/US merger does not overcome is the carrier's lack of a network in the Asia/Pacific region, and it provides no opportunities for growth in the region. PHX is not well located for an Asian connecting hub. Sure, a PHX-NRT could easily be done, but PHX is still too far south to effectively serve most of the region. Still, ATL is also too far south to serve as a good European connecting hub, but the bulk of connectivity that DL provides there takes care of that issue. PHX would need to become a far larger hub with ample connections to serve as a good Asian connecting point. LAX is also incapable of becoming an Asia/Pacific connecting hub in the same way UA uses SFO, simply due to the lack of connectivity and heavy competition by carriers with far better service and lower costs. Overall, it would be an interesting merger, nonetheless. How effective it would be, however, is a completely different story.
davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 18768 times:
The major problem, as pointed out above, is labor relations. US already had poisonous relations between labor/managment. I can't see AA's own situation helping.
That said, I think if the labor relations could be overcome, then they would be an incredibly strong player. They would have a massive reach into Europe, PHL could become a JFK like hub (keeping NYC for O/D and PHL as a continue on point, same as MIA).
WIth the extra aircraft that could come from the merger, a great reach in to Asia would be possible.
Keep the AA livery, Oneworld Alliance, and upgrade of US aircraft.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 8494 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 18665 times:
I see it happening, although I see it as less optimal compared to UA/CO and DL/NW. Neither AA or US have a large Asia network, which isn't required but preferable. I think in the NE they'd be a little too cluttered with PHL JFK LGA and DCA. Some say they'd ditch NYC for PHL but with the sheer number of corporate contacts AA has I don't see it happening. And I won't even mention labor. Again, I see it happening, but IMO, UA and DL would definitely be ahead of AA/US
jmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3334 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18421 times:
Under such a scenario, CLT would probably suffer the most. Yes, it could still continue to be a hub, but on a much smaller scale. The current level of 600+ flights/day would be counter-productive and unsustainable under such a merger. Look for CLT to be scaled back to 250-300 flights/day and its status as an international hub to go away in favor of PHL/DFW/MIA.
PHX would probably suffer some as well, but not at the drastic level that CLT would. The focus would be on getting more local O&D traffic than connecting traffic.
As mentioned earlier, JFK could focus on its valuable O&D base, while PHL could serve as the primary international East Coast hub with less competition and far better connectivity.
etops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1137 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 18247 times:
A merged USAirways will have these hubs . ORD,PHL,MIA,DFW, and CLT. JFK,LAX,PHX, and STL will go away as hub status . Doug Parker will become CEO and Scott Kirby will be president . The name will remain American . The livery will remain the current AA livery. The rolling hub thingy being done in DFW will go away . MD80's will also go away . I am sure some challenges will arise but they can be taken care of .This is something that WILL be done wether we like it or not if it has robe done . Wall street actually in my opiñion wants this truncation to occur . I also believe that AA and US are in talks with each other about a transaction . It's just a matter of time . This is clearly all my opiñion .
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 8049 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18077 times:
What I feel pretty certain about is if these two pair up, the HQ will be in DFW and Doug Parker will be running the show.
For the grey area, DFW, MIA, CLT, and ORD would be hubs and I think PHX would shrink some. PHL would probably have an international focus, but may not be as much of a domestic connector. International routes at LAX and JFK would be kept.
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2698 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 17997 times:
Its quite amusing how everyone thinks US will just swoop in and buy AA on the cheap. You all seem to forget that AA has some powerful allies to counter any US bid. I could see a bid by TPG, in cooperation with Citi, IAG, GE, and Boeing. Boeing definitely wouldn't want the pro-Airbus management at US taking over AA.
Airbus would be caught in the middle. Do they support their present customer US, and risk some alienation by AA if US is is outbid? Alternatively they could play it safe by supporting AA and offer US some consolation deal.
Then there's govt issue. Since AA has a big presence in all the big states in the US (CA,TX,FL,NY,IL) you can bet management and labor will be pressing their congressional reps to oppose this merger. Both will probably state how this merger reduces choice for consumers, but AA labor won't want to have to compete with two(HP,US) additional labor groups, and management just wants to retain control.
The US brand is worth far less than AA's and is less known worldwide, especially in Latin America. Almost everything regarding US' branding will disappear in such a merger. It would cost far less to change from US' branding than AA's.
Quoting davescj (Reply 12): PHL could become a JFK like hub (keeping NYC for O/D and PHL as a continue on point,
Any drawdown of JFK would be stupid on AA's part as partners rely n AA's presence in JFK for ongoing transfers. If anything PHL will be redeuced to a domestic hub, but retain any O/D that can be supported.
Mainliner From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 17977 times:
So where would they stand with regional feed? Merge the US wholly-owned carriers into Eagle? What about contract carriers? AA's scope clause prohibits CR9's and the 170's/175's from being operated anyone other than mainline, right? Plus a HUGE glut of 50 seat (and smaller) RJ's...
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 8049 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 17835 times:
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 18): Then there's govt issue. Since AA has a big presence in all the big states in the US (CA,TX,FL,NY,IL) you can bet management and labor will be pressing their congressional reps to oppose this merger. Both will probably state how this merger reduces choice for consumers, but AA labor won't want to have to compete with two(HP,US) additional labor groups, and management just wants to retain control.
Im sure labor would. I dont think we can know how management will react just yet. We cant truly know until US makes a move. I feel quite certain US will make a move of some sort. How AA will recieve it is anyones guess.
Frankly, if (and this is a huge if) they can get the labor situation sorted out, as long as the HQ remains in DFW and DFW sees no drastic cuts, I dont care if AA and US do merge. Doug Parker and US team managed to turn US from the laughing stock of the airline industy into a marginally profitable organization. As a loyal AA flyer, I would be willing to give him a chance if things go that way.