Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA US & B6 Combined Merger Possible?  
User currently offlineMetrojet732 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10322 times:

First of all, be kind to me. I’m new here. I’ve been a A.net fan for years and finally decided to join. Sorry if this was brought up already but anywho, with all the talk about A- AA and jetBlue merging n B- AA and US merging. Take away all the problems at with unions and what not. Just for fun, what would a AA, B6 and US merger look like?? Would it be possible??

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7374 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 10288 times:

Too big. Too much Northeast service. Not going to happen. To me, route network is the most important factor in a merger and labor is probably second. On both of those counts US is inferior to AA/IAG and B6 is vastly superior. The problem is that US wants to buy and B6 wants to sell (not buy) and AA can't buy a bag of dirt.

User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10254 times:

What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging? The product offering is so different that I don't get why they would ever want to merge with each other. The B6 culture, service and differential offering (all coach with extra room seats etc.) would probably disappear overnight. AA and B6 have different business models serving different passenger profiles. I don't (and hopefully won't) see it happening...unless AA & B6 looks like B6  

User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10225 times:

   First of all, welcome to a.net!

I do not see what US offers that will help either carrier, aside from the CLT hub. They will not keep PHL if they have BOS and JFK. PHX will have to battle with DFW and LAX.

Hubs would be DFW, ORD, MIA, JFK, CLT, BOS, LAX, and SJU. Focus cities would be MCO, PHL, and PHX.



2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10125 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging?

I'm with you on this one... EXCEPT for the US/DL debacle years ago. In fact, I have a "Keep Delta My Delta!" button right next to me. THAT is why I'm certain Parker will make a bid (even if he is not successful)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9844 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging?

The fascination is that B6 and AA fit together better than AA and US. In fact, I would argue that a AA B6 merger/partnership is critical to AA regaining its NYC luster. B6's slots are far more valuable than any US assets. PHL, PHX, CLT are not needed by AA.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9801 times:

Well, I could see AA merging, but in my opinion it will be with US, not B6. The likelihood of a merger with all three is not likely. Merging just two airlines together is hard enough. Also, B6 would not be a good merger candidate with AA because AA's costs are too high to make B6 route network profitable, and I think it will still be too high after bankruptcy. Their costs will be much lower and more in-line with Delta and United, but I think they will still be much higher than Jet Blues right now. If AA mere to merge with B6, they would get a brand new terminal and many landing slots, but many of those routes would get the ax. That's not to say that AA couldn't make use of those gates, planes and slots in a more profitable way, but in my opinion, AA would be better off focusing on their current corporate contracts and utilizing their current gates and slots to focus on their O&D and their Trans-Atlantic network and then just strengthening their relationship with JetBlue. I myself see more value in a merger with US alone, as it would give AA the PHL hub, which has cheaper airport fees, less competition, US's corporate travel contracts, and with some long term investment, has room to grow as PHL the city grows. PHL is a high yield market, maybe not as much as NYC, but because of the lower fees and fewer competitors, is much more viable as a NE hub and Trans-Atlantic gateway. I think with Delta already firmly entrenched in JFK and LGA, and jetBlue serving many domestic markets that AA could not do profitably, and UAL already entrenched in EWR, PHL is the most logical choice for a NE hub. Also CLT after some right sizing, will give AA a true presence in the SE since Nashville, Memphis, Greensboro, and Raleigh-Durham are not viable hub options, IAD is taken and Jacksonville is too close to MIA, and New Orleans is too close to DFW and neither of these would make good hubs anyway. Also, AA upon leaving bankruptcy is not going to be in a position to launch a new hub anyway, they however would inherit a fully operational hub in CLT from a merger. The real question after a merger with US Airways would be what would happen to PHX. I personally believe it would be downgraded to a focus city, and AA would transfer most of the connection through LAX, and let SWA have PHX. The PHX economy is a tourist/snow-bird (retirement) destination, and doesn't have many large companies that keeps the yield higher from business travel. It does get quite a few conventions, but even that isn't enough to sustain a hub for an airline like AA.

One thing that many people don’t seem to understand or talk about much when contemplating the likelihood of a merger with US Airways is the economies of scale that AA will definitely need in order to compete long-term. Something they wouldn’t really get from a merger with B6. That is why I really think a merger with US Airways, either while in bankruptcy, or soon after leaving is inevitable. It really would solve many of their problems they are dealing with right now.

Well that's my two cents anyway. By the way, welcome to Anet!


User currently offlineBD338 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 718 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 5):

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging?

The fascination is that B6 and AA fit together better than AA and US. In fact, I would argue that a AA B6 merger/partnership is critical to AA regaining its NYC luster. B6's slots are far more valuable than any US assets. PHL, PHX, CLT are not needed by AA.


Ok, so it is a pure asset grab and nothing to do with B6 as an airline.

Quoting Squid (Reply 6):
The real question after a merger with US Airways would be what would happen to PHX. I personally believe it would be downgraded to a focus city, and AA would transfer most of the connection through LAX, and let SWA have PHX. The PHX economy is a tourist/snow-bird (retirement) destination, and doesn't have many large companies that keeps the yield higher from business travel. It does get quite a few conventions, but even that isn't enough to sustain a hub for an airline like AA.

I could see a large focus city serving major business centers, there is enough business traffic to serve major cities but the likes of Flagstaff and Yuma would probably lose out.


User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4076 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9684 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 3):
They will not keep PHL if they have BOS and JFK. PHX will have to battle with DFW and LAX.

The PHL market is nearly 1.5 million more people than BOS, growing slightly faster, and is leeched from by other airports less than BOS is. PHL is the #5 MSA in the country, BOS is #10. I don't think there is any benefit to serving BOS over PHL.

Quoting BD338 (Reply 7):
I could see a large focus city serving major business centers, there is enough business traffic to serve major cities but the likes of Flagstaff and Yuma would probably lose out.

Cities like Flagstaff and Yuma would most likely keep service to PHX. It would be a regional focus, so air routes in the Southwest and some of the southern Mountain states where connecting at LAX would make little sense would still connect at PHX. It would look like the western version of DCA or LGA.


User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9676 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 8):
Cities like Flagstaff and Yuma would most likely keep service to PHX. It would be a regional focus, so air routes in the Southwest and some of the southern Mountain states where connecting at LAX would make little sense would still connect at PHX. It would look like the western version of DCA or LGA.

I agree, and AA would fly 737's and A320 several times daily into LAX, DFW and ORD.


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3283 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9532 times:

Quoting Squid (Reply 6):
The PHX economy is a tourist/snow-bird (retirement) destination, and doesn't have many large companies that keeps the yield higher from business travel. It does get quite a few conventions, but even that isn't enough to sustain a hub for an airline like AA.

PHX is a popular vacation location (especially for golfers) and does indeed have a number of large corporations doing business here - Banner Health Systems, Intel, Freeport-McMoran, and Honeywell have well over 10,000 employees based in PHX, and the Apollo Group, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and American Express all have very large presences (7000+ employees) in the Valley of the Sun.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 8):
Cities like Flagstaff and Yuma would most likely keep service to PHX. It would be a regional focus, so air routes in the Southwest and some of the southern Mountain states where connecting at LAX would make little sense would still connect at PHX. It would look like the western version of DCA or LGA.

Agree completely. I'd add Tucson, El Paso, and ABQ to that regional network as well.



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlinesmoot4208 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1312 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9495 times:

Quoting Squid (Reply 6):
I myself see more value in a merger with US alone, as it would give AA the PHL hub, which has cheaper airport fees, less competition, US's corporate travel contracts, and with some long term investment, has room to grow as PHL the city grows. PHL is a high yield market, maybe not as much as NYC, but because of the lower fees and fewer competitors, is much more viable as a NE hub and Trans-Atlantic gateway. I think with Delta already firmly entrenched in JFK and LGA, and jetBlue serving many domestic markets that AA could not do profitably, and UAL already entrenched in EWR, PHL is the most logical choice for a NE hub.

That is absolutely correct. I believe long term, DL will lose out in LAX and AA will gain. In the LGA/JFK market, I think Dl will win out, and AA will lose. Everything said above is why PHL would be the logical hub. JFK, LGA, and PHX would all be reduced. And people need to stop thinking AA/B6 is feasible. AA's cost structure wouldn't work on many of the B6 routes. US President Scott Kirby repeatedly states the same thing that a US merger with say F9, B6, NK, or AS would not be effective because the other airlines are too small so synergies wouldn't be there, and cost structures are different.


User currently offlineBOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9477 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 8):
The PHL market is nearly 1.5 million more people than BOS, growing slightly faster, and is leeched from by other airports less than BOS is. PHL is the #5 MSA in the country, BOS is #10. I don't think there is any benefit to serving BOS over PHL.

The MSA has a few flaws when it comes to using it for air markets. Also, their boundaries are county lines, which can be problematic. For example, PVD has its own MSA, which can include populations that are just as likely to use either airport (especially those in Bristol County, MA). CSAs are more useful with international gateways if there is only one. BOS's CSA is #5 while PHL's is #8.

But even then, it's O&D that matters in the end. Even if PHL has more O&D in domestic traffic, it certainly doesn't beat BOS in international traffic.



2013 World Series Champions!
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9407 times:

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 12):
But even then, it's O&D that matters in the end. Even if PHL has more O&D in domestic traffic, it certainly doesn't beat BOS in international traffic.

That may be true, but BOS is saturated with international service from many foreign carriers and PHL is much less so. AA would immediately inherit those flights whereas AA in BOS would have to instigate a massive affront to get those foreign carriers to retreat or scale back.

Also, BOS is not that ideally situated for a major hub. Sure it can support a big regional operation with some long-haul trans-cons, but not much more. PHL, because of its location, is much better positioned for connecting traffic, internationally, as well as domestically along the eastern sea-board. Furthermore, although JetBlue has be very successful in their JFK and BOS operations, they rely much more heavily on O&D than US Airways does with PHL which is evident alone just by the size of these operations alone. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess that US Airways in PHL is bigger than B6 in JFK and BOS combined, and they probably garner a higher yield per seat average as well.

If AA is to save ORD for the long term, they would be better off with merging with US Airways over jetBlue too. There are many smaller cities in the SE and around the DC area that AA does not serve. This is not something they would gain from a merger with jetBlue. Furthermore, it would save and possibly even grow ORD as those passengers could be routed through ORD when flying into smaller cities throughout the upper mid-west. Same thing for the PHX/LAX operation. There are many cities scattered throughout the Southwest that AA doesn't serve that would be brought into the AA network, adding even more connection possibilities. AA already serves most of the same cities that jetBlue serves, even many of the same routes. The routes that AA doesn't serve isn't because of a lack of gate space or landing slots in BOS or JFK, it's because they can't make money as most of those flights are vacation travelers into the Caribbean. BOS has room to grow if AA chose to do so, but they don't, and the only thing they would gain from jetBlue at JFK would be landing slots and the elimination of a low-cost competitor. Other than that, they would get a bunch of lights into Florida.

It looks good on paper, but in reality doesn’t add much value to AA


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33045 posts, RR: 71
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9386 times:

Quoting smoot4208 (Reply 11):
And people need to stop thinking AA/B6 is feasible. AA's cost structure wouldn't work on many of the B6 routes

Yes, it would, because when AA and B6 merge, you eliminate the reason it doesn't work: B6.

Not only that, but B6 and AA pilots for comparable equipment currently make nearly identical hourly rates, but AA pilots have far more benefits (many of which will be drastically reduced with Chapter 11) and work less monthly hours.

I've said this opinion before and stand by it: AA and B6 will merge.



a.
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9334 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 14):
Yes, it would, because when AA and B6 merge, you eliminate the reason it doesn't work: B6.

JetBlue's biggest competitor is not another airline, it is their own customers because most of them are price sensitive leisure travelers, and if their ticket prices rise too much, then they cannot fill the plane. jetBlue still has a relatively young work force, something not enjoyed at AA. There is more too it than pilot wages and benefits, you have to look at the overall operation. Even before jetBlue really blew up in size, AA was beginning to retreat from many of their NYC-Florida markets. And one could even argue that after deregulation, that was Easterns biggest problem was they were too dependent on vacation travelers that are extremely price sensitive. AA can merge with B6, and eliminate a low cost competitor, but that doesn't mean that AA can then jack up fares and expect to still fill the planes. And AA will have to raise the fairs because their costs will not be comparable with jetBlue's. The only way AA could make a merger with jetBlue viable would be to operate it as a separate subsidiary; something along the lines of Song at Delta, and Ted at United. And we all saw how well that worked out.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33045 posts, RR: 71
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9324 times:

Quoting Squid (Reply 15):
it is their own customers because most of them are price sensitive leisure travelers,

Not true. jetBlue has actually been a great case study in the business world of how to attract premium passengers with an affordable pice. Furthermore, the Caribbean holiday markets are not price sensitive outside of AUA/MBJ/PUJ/NAS. It is actually a very premium market, with high fares and high room rates.



a.
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3677 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9302 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 2):
What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging? The product offering is so different that I don't get why they would ever want to merge with each other. The B6 culture, service and differential offering (all coach with extra room seats etc.) would probably disappear overnight. AA and B6 have different business models serving different passenger profiles. I don't (and hopefully won't) see it happening...unless AA & B6 looks like B6




I have to agree. Look, we already lost one airline that gave you good comfort at a low price to WN, lets not lose another one to AA.


User currently offlinesmoot4208 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1312 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9298 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 16):
Not true. jetBlue has actually been a great case study in the business world of how to attract premium passengers with an affordable pice.

My company is based in Boston, and is not allowed to fly WN, FL, or B6 because they don't offer any business product (I would actually have to pay out of pocket if I choose to fly one of those carriers. Even though B6 offers the most destinations from BOS, US and DL are still our preferred carriers.

Quoting Squid (Reply 15):
JetBlue's biggest competitor is not another airline, it is their own customers because most of them are price sensitive leisure travelers, and if their ticket prices rise too much, then they cannot fill the plane

Exactly. Which is why B6 has often been one of the last airlines to go along with a fare increase. On top of that business travelers prefer LGA over JFK. This is why B6 doesn't really serve many business destinations from B6, unless that destination also has significant leisure travel like ORD, SFO, and LAX


User currently onlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9283 times:

Quoting BD338 (Reply 7):
Ok, so it is a pure asset grab and nothing to do with B6 as an airline.

If the two are actually merged then yes. B6's domestic ops could free up many of AA's slots for more TATL operations. If B6 were kept as a seperate carrier(which AMR could do post BK), then the B6 brand still retains value. This is why B6 is worth more to AA than US.

Quoting smoot4208 (Reply 11):
Everything said above is why PHL would be the logical hub. JFK, LGA, and PHX would all be reduced.

 

Pure nonsense!! There is nothing logical about PHL replacing JFK as a hub. JFK is OW's(AA,AB,BA,IB,JL,CX,AY) northeast hub and should be AA's priority. Other than AA and BA, no other OW member airlines fly to PHL. PHL's role would resemble LGA more than JFK. O&D TATL traffic and northeast connections that don't need to touch NYC should be PHL's role.

Quoting smoot4208 (Reply 11):
And people need to stop thinking AA/B6 is feasible. AA's cost structure wouldn't work on many of the B6 routes.

And people need to stop elevating US' importance in relation to AA.

Newsflash! AA is in BK to reduce their costs. Most likely, they will look to strip out the union contract elements that prevent AMR from operating multiple carriers with multiple agreements at different costs.

B6 is of more strategic importance to AA(and OW) than US, and a AA/B6 merger would go a long way to reversing the JFK mistakes AA made in past... plain and simple.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9262 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 16):
with an affordable pice

Right, you just said it yourself. AA needs many business passengers to pay $800 + on their flights to make them profitable, and most people going on vacation will not pay that much.

I hate to keep beating this horse but I guess the best way to explain this would be to look at the NYC market from a historical perspective. Before jetBlue, JFK was a rather sleeply place until after dinner when all the Trans-Atlantic flights departed. They had trans-con's and a few regional domestic flights, but it was not a saturated market by any stretch. EWR was growing like gang-busters after Continental acquired People Express and realized that they didn't have to actually concentrate on LGA to capture the NYC passenger. However other than Continental at EWR, the majority of NYC passengers flying domestically flew out of LGA. And much like today, LGA was a saturated airport, but back then most airlines flew much bigger planes primarily into their major hubs. It was normal to see United, AA, TWA, Northwest, Delta, and USAir DC-10s, L1011's, 767's, 757's, and 727's to ORD, SJU, MIA, DTW, MCO, PIT, CLT, and DFW. Actually seeing anything smaller than a DC-9 was rare. Back then, low fare vacation travelers on their way to the islands or to Florida flew out of LGA on a big jet into a hub and transferred flights. This allowed the major airline to keep their yields higher by weaving low fare passengers in with the high paying business passengers.

Then jetBlue came along a saw an opportunity in NYC. They realized that they could utilize the underserved JFK, and together with their much lower costs due to being a brand new airline, they could actually capture many of those vacation travelers and they wouldn’t mind driving out to JFK to save a few bucks and to avoid a transfer. It didn't take long to see what happened. Today, the biggest plane one see's at LGA is a 757, but it's more likely to be a 737, A320, or a regional jet. jetBlue changed the game in NYC, and although they do attract business passengers, they don't garner the higher yields that are necessary to sustain the major airline at the same capacity. With time, jetBlue's costs will rise, just like they did at Southwest, and if they are still in business in 30 years, I have a hunch that they will not offer many of the same flights unless somehow Orlando or Tampa becomes a major business destination or they are able to grow fast enough and bring in new hires fast enough to spread their costs out.

Would eliminating jetBlue help AA out? Absolutely, it would help all of the airlines out, but I don't believe that United or Delta would be rushing in with larger AC or more frequencies to fill the vacuum created to Orlando. More seats would be offered, but not many in order to drive their yields up, thus many people would either be driving to Florida or not going.


User currently offlineSquid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9216 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 19):
Pure nonsense!! There is nothing logical about PHL replacing JFK as a hub. JFK is OW's(AA,AB,BA,IB,JL,CX,AY) northeast hub and should be AA's priority. Other than AA and BA, no other OW member airlines fly to PHL. PHL's role would resemble LGA more than JFK. O&D TATL traffic and northeast connections that don't need to touch NYC should be PHL's role.

Right, and no one is advocating that AA dismantle what they have in JFK. But bringing US into AA would greatly benefit AA over B6 as it would allow AA to continue a partnership with B6, leaving B6 to serve the lower yielding markets, give AA US Airways corporate contracts out of PHL, and extend their reach into the South East where they lack a real presence. If someone flew trans-Atlantic on AA to Columbia South Carolina, they would have to back track all the way to Dallas, or fly another airline. And even if AA were to merge with B6, I cannot see them adding many of those smaller cities out of JFK just to feed a few OW partner's flights. But a passenger could fly into CLT or PHL and make one connection, or they may have to make two a go through London then CLT or PHL. But at least they aren't back tracking all the way to Dallas to get there. Using B6 as a stand-alone airline frees AA up from having to serve many lower yielding market's themselves.


User currently offlineslvrblt From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 147 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 14):
Yes, it would, because when AA and B6 merge, you eliminate the reason it doesn't work: B6.

Not only that, but B6 and AA pilots for comparable equipment currently make nearly identical hourly rates, but AA pilots have far more benefits (many of which will be drastically reduced with Chapter 11) and work less monthly hours.

I've said this opinion before and stand by it: AA and B6 will merge.

Interesting. Personally, I think the merger bug at AA was somewhat tempered after the outbreaks of fever we had with Reno Air and TWA. Those were mostly geared toward getting our size bulked up. I understand that - but to go thru that again? Even due to the BK? I don't see it.
BUT - you have been right on a lot of things before, MAH4546, so I will also say this: From my own observation, I've also long suspected there is some internal connection there at B6 with AA going on that's far more than what we see on the surface. They're a good, solid, quality carrier for the niche that they have, too. NK they're not, thank god. Merger? or, more a Oneworld joint-business venture like AA/BA/IB/JL? Time will tell...............



..everything works out in the end.
User currently offlineDelta777Jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1278 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

What do you guys always think a merger between B6 and AA would be good ! The fantastic B6 product and culture would disappear within a minute! See QQ (Reno Air) and TWA. Both good airline, nice product and good culture gone with the wind and totally wasted by AA.

AA needs to get new planes, a decent service level and they have to get rid of the always moaning flight attendants which I have expirienced lots of times in Business Class from Europe to the USA.

They need:

A fresh new product with some frills to be distinguished to other legacy carriers
Motivated crew (at least they have to show they are motivated)
New fresh planes (even though I like the Mad Dog's who wants to fly with them also they take to much fuel)
New young and fresh managment

... they they will be top noch again !  

Good Luck AA



Fly easyJet
User currently offlineoneskyjet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 85 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9006 times:

"What is the fascination on a.net with AA and B6 merging? The product offering is so different that I don't get why they would ever want to merge with each other. The B6 culture, service and differential offering (all coach with extra room seats etc.) would probably disappear overnight. AA and B6 have different business models serving different passenger profiles. I don't (and hopefully won't) see it happening...unless AA & B6 looks like B6"

=JFK


25 LAXtoATL : Food for thought... I just read an article (sorry don't have a link - but I'm sure its in any number of public records) that mentioned that AA's new C
26 STT757 : One has to consider what they would have to give up in order to get an AA+B6 merger approved. CO/UA had to give up every single UA slot at EWR, and 3
27 jfk777 : AA has their own New JFK terminal 8 which soon could have British Airways after BA's terminal 7 lease ends in 2015. IF US/AA were to merge, Philadelp
28 staralliance85 : AA cannot buy anyone right now! If they merge with B6 it will be at least two more years. I selfishly do not want AA to merge with B6 because B6 is to
29 commavia : I am not convinced of that. I'm not sure how you figure. Delta is now the largest airline at JFK and LaGuardia - any hypothetically divested AA/JetBl
30 flyby519 : US needs AA AA doesnt need US Doug Parker has been desperate for any legacy merger so they can gain some international presence, but nobody wants to b
31 richierich : Sure! And why not have Wendy's, Burger King and Hardees/Carl's merge too! The simple answer is anything is possible in this industry, and there are a
32 MasseyBrown : While you're buying and selling JetBlue, keep in mind Lufthansa's 20% stockholding. LH could easily acquire another 5% and be in a good position to bl
33 STT757 : There's nothing solid regarding that, they've only mentioned that is a goal. However if they were to bring BA and IB into T-8 they would need to comp
34 Post contains links elmothehobo : I would wager the other way around, Lufthansa is considering selling their stake in JetBlue. http://www.airlinenewseurope.com/201...-lufthansa-ceo-no
35 Post contains images MasseyBrown : They probably began those considerations the day they bought the shares. LH can afford to wait for a better offer than today's market price. If, howe
36 mogandoCI : Exactly. Only BOS is meaningful. MCO is tourism, FLL overlaps MIA, B6 JFK + AA JFK would be forced to divest a lot of slots, a LGB overlaps LAX. B6 i
37 Post contains images HPRamper : Three hubs in one state is way too redundant. MCO would not be a hub, FLL probably would not be any more than a focus if not reduced entirely to a sp
38 seatback : AA doesn't want BOS. They should want PHL with a huge local market and established hub and customer base, PHL would compliment JFK nicely. Completely
39 LAXtoATL : I am convinced. Any AA/B6 would certainly see not-insignificant divestiture of slots. They might not be forced to give up gates - but I doubt they wo
40 ripcordd : They are in BK court to reduce their costs prob around B6 levels. And everyone here is saying that AA will ruin B6 I hardly think so I think they want
41 DLPMMM : In the next 2 years, B6 will not be merging with AA because B6 does not want to buy AA out of Chapter 11. AA does not have the money to buy anything.
42 seatback : Completely agree. However, speaking of uniforms, AA's F/A could use updated uniforms. The different shades of navy blue is equivalent of wearing blac
43 staralliance85 : In the next 2 years, B6 will not be merging with AA because B6 does not want to buy AA out of Chapter 11. AA does not have the money to buy anything.
44 ozark1 : I wish the company realized that this would be a TREMENDOUS morale booster for the FA's right now. Ditch that awful, scratchy, dated blue and let us
45 DeltaMD90 : Wow, what a mistake on my part! I'm surprised no one commented on it. I was talking about a US+AA merger instead of a B6+AA merger! Fail on my part..
46 seatback : This brings up a good point. Other than an increase in pay/benefits etc... what would boost the morale of employees?
47 slvrblt : True. Horton was our CFO, left the company in 2006 to go to AT&T. By most reviewers, he did a pretty good job over there.
48 ckfred : Does US have something that would make AA a better carrier? Yes, CLT. If you want to get to cities in northern Florida or the Southeast, ORD, DFW, and
49 mogandoCI : Align senior management interests with the long term well-being of a company. Do what Steve Jobs does by having a minimal salary and the bulk of comp
50 flyby519 : Why would you have to throw away the FLL and LGB hubs? Wouldnt there still be demand for those flights and could be operated as a co-base with LAX/MI
51 LAXtoATL : Not even the most optimistic outcome would see AA's costs reduced to B6 levels!
52 HPRamper : It costs a LOT of money to operate a hub, enough to cancel out any kind of airport cost savings.
53 ripcordd : Horton was asked if he wanted to lower his costs to UA/DL costs and he said he wanted to be competitve which means below their costs....Watch the cost
54 Squid : What I really cannot understand is how so many people here seem to think that jetBlue would add value to AA if they were to merge. But other than more
55 Squid : That may be their "goal" just like it was at NWA, but it will not happen. Just from the simple fact that AA operates clubs, and has a first class cab
56 LAXtoATL : So you think AA will emerge a LCC? AA will look to get their costs in line with DL/UA/US. There is no way AA will reduce their costs to B6 levels and
57 cloudboy : Conventional "wisdom" on Airliners.net is that any merger means one airline taking over the other, and just swallowing up hubs, aircraft and routes, a
58 delta2ual : Although a worthwhile goal-seldom the reality. One of the problems is that each CEO comes in with much fanfare-only to disappoint. I saw 4 CEO's in m
59 BOStonsox : I can agree with you there, but remember that AA has their JVs with IB, BA, and JL, plus they have their own token service to LHR and CDG. And there
60 STT757 : They really don't , B6 is a predominantly leisure airline. They don't bring lucrative business or international routes to AA. US on the other hand ha
61 Post contains images Byrdluvs747 : Sorry, but that would be a big FAIL!! The "Kinkos Employee" look that WN FA's have does not convey professionalism. You do realize that AA has all th
62 Metrojet732 : First of all, Thanks for the welcome from those who welcomed me!! Thanks for the warning, n lucky for me, where I work, u have to have a “thick skin
63 Squid : You know Metrojet732, you really started a good thread for your first post, good job! I agree with a lot of what you said, except about SWA merging wi
64 ckfred : BOS did very well for AA, before B6 moved in. It flew a number of mainline routes, and the Eagle operation (the former BEX hub) provided a lot of fee
65 HPRamper : And who ever said that layovers would take longer in PHL than BOS? That doesn't make any sense. Everything else being equal, the reality of the fact
66 BOStonsox : I didn't say that, I was giving a hypothetical example. I'm not doubting geography, but plenty of people fly out of their way, even regardless of tra
67 HPRamper : I've flown on bizarre routings too. The point, though, is that the airlines themselves prefer not to burn more fuel than is necessary and they do tak
68 slcdeltarumd11 : No airline merging with US would eliminate PHL its way too valuable an asset. If they cant make PHL coexist it would be a disaster waste of money merg
69 Post contains images crAAzy : Something that has not really been discussed would be the impact on the S. FL markets with a US/AA (with or without B6). I would imaging AA would want
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...
PHL Hub For A Combined AA/US...could Work? posted Tue Jun 1 2010 19:31:10 by Seatback
OAG Changes 5/20/2010:AA/AS/B6/DL/F9/UA/US posted Tue May 18 2010 20:48:46 by enilria
OAG Changes 11/19/09:AA/AS/B6/DL/F9/NW/PD/UA/US/YX posted Thu Nov 19 2009 18:30:09 by Enilria
Merger: AA, US Outcome If DL/NW, UA/CO Merge? posted Sun Apr 13 2008 17:54:32 by IliriBDL
BA & AA: Full Blown Merger Possible? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 08:26:36 by Scotron11
AA/US Airways Merger? posted Thu Jul 15 1999 13:40:37 by Douglas Racer
OAG Changes 12/10/2010: AA/AM/B6/CO/DL/F9/G4/MP posted Wed Dec 8 2010 08:40:30 by enilria
OAG Changes 7/23/2010: AA/AC/B6/DL/F9/FL/LW/UA/ZK posted Wed Jul 21 2010 07:32:56 by enilria
United And US Airways In Merger Talks Part II posted Fri Apr 9 2010 15:52:40 by LipeGIG
United And US Airways In Merger Talks posted Wed Apr 7 2010 14:17:28 by bioyuki