" If the airlines merge, the combined carrier would be called American Airlines and be based in American's home of Fort Worth, according to Capt. Dave Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association."
Also:
""US Airways is in a position where if it doesn't merge, it's going to die,""
Do we think he has a point here that if US doesn't merge, they will go belly up?
FYI sorry if this is a re-post checked the blue button but it said everything was fine.
EricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1450 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Comments like the one Joshua Shank makes in the article stating that it US does not merge, then it will die leads me to the conclusion that many of these columnists/analysts, etc. do not fully understand the industry that they are reporting on. Does he honestly believe that in order to be a profitable, viable carrier that US has to merge?
A merger with AA definitely strengthens US, but to say it will die without a merger is way overblown. If this is the case, then all carriers outside of DL, UA, WN are doomed.
deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5512 times:
I'm glad you posted this, I was just going to ask the same. I too don't get why US would go belly up. Debt and past issues and union stuff aside, lets say they had zero debt, and took delivery of the A350s and really beefed up Int'l service from PHL to like Asia and Middle East, etc. and even joined say One World Combined w/ position and CLT and DCA how could that not be viable?OR lets say US merged w/ B6 and got solid JFK presence.
Me thinks if US went belly up it would be do to another downturn in economy and too much debt and union issues which are irrelevant to a merged industry. Its my opinion only that only DL really has strong east coast/southeast presence, any biz fliers who need to go anywhere in world could do so on an expanded US without having to transition out west.
Also, can someone explain why it would not be beneficial to say put US and B6 in OneWorld? Why is it better to have them merged as a mega carrier?
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15722 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5361 times:
Quoting EricR (Reply 2): Does he honestly believe that in order to be a profitable, viable carrier that US has to merge?
It either has to get a revenue premium, which will come from a merged network, or lower costs to match the revenue discount, due to an inferior network.
joeljack From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 872 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5214 times:
Myself and many others I know in the midwest, MCI, DSM and OMA fly US Airways as loyal Star Alliance fliers. (ie United fliers). If US buys AA and goes into Oneworld, all those fliers are going to be pushed away from US and back to UA. This will benefit UA and US will loose many passengers. My brother-in-law was very excited for a new OMA-CLT connection and has several flights booked already on them. He is loyal to Star and will go back to UA if US leaves star.
I think that US would benefit by joining AA but would benefit even more by keeping with *Alliance. This will really put the hurts on Delta too if this happens.
DLD9S From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 247 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5190 times:
Quoting joeljack (Reply 7): This will benefit UA and US will loose many passengers. My brother-in-law was very excited for a new OMA-CLT connection and has several flights booked already on them. He is loyal to Star and will go back to UA if US leaves star.
It could also be said that they will gain every single AAdvantage and oneworld member traveling in the USA. Instead of competing with UA for the Star Alliance passenger, they will have access millions of new loyal oneworld customers.
Concordski From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 79 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4988 times:
The best part is how Doug claims a merger will mean half the number of cut jobs. I really can't recall a merger where redundant departments got kept around and bases maintained the same number of employees. Large synergies from mergers happen from removing such positions. I could only imagine that a merged AA/US would result in more job losses than AA plans alone.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, RR: 14 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4798 times:
With every airline consolidation, fees, ticket costs, and pretty much everything else will go nowhere but up. Less competition in the mainline market = more room for airlines to charge more to make more profit. THIS is the very reason why this merger, along with DL/NW and UA/CO and even WN/FL have made me a very livid traveler over the last 4 or 5 years. I've seen nothing but money flow out of my pockets to cover costs that weren't originally around before, and my bi-monthly trips back to the tristate becoming more and more expensive (if fares out of CVG weren't already atrocious already.)
Ranting aside, to answer the OP question, yes. Nowhere but up will these prices go, unfortunately. We need to see another so-called "Mainline" enter the picture to control these outrageous costs.
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3661 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4550 times:
Quoting Concordski (Reply 9): The best part is how Doug claims a merger will mean half the number of cut jobs. I really can't recall a merger where redundant departments got kept around and bases maintained the same number of employees. Large synergies from mergers happen from removing such positions. I could only imagine that a merged AA/US would result in more job losses than AA plans alone.
Not if stations that AA has outsourced or plans to outsource are brought back in house.
There are a lot of stations where we might end up seeing not only a static level of staffing but a net job gain.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4511 times:
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 11):
Not if stations that AA has outsourced or plans to outsource are brought back in house.
There are a lot of stations where we might end up seeing not only a static level of staffing but a net job gain.
Except that US has been on an outsourcing/furlough spree of its own lately. Throw an RJ or two a week instead of a mainline plane seems to be all it's taking to whack staffing. PHX has only hired off the street once in the last 4 years (the rest have been filled by transfers and furloughs), and I rarely see postings for outstations (maybe 2 or 3 a year).
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3661 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4459 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 12): Except that US has been on an outsourcing/furlough spree of its own lately. Throw an RJ or two a week instead of a mainline plane seems to be all it's taking to whack staffing. PHX has only hired off the street once in the last 4 years (the rest have been filled by transfers and furloughs), and I rarely see postings for outstations (maybe 2 or 3 a year).
A merger would instantly reverse that trend. Take airport X where US and AA both operate only four or five flights daily. Probably outsourced. Combine those ops and you have a station that falls above the threshold for staffing with mainline.
Those aren't exact numbers, just an example. I do think the synergy thing will be real between AA and US - moreso than was the case with US/HP who didn't overlap nearly as much.
deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4290 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10): With every airline consolidation, fees, ticket costs, and pretty much everything else will go nowhere but up. Less competition in the mainline market = more room for airlines to charge more to make more profit. THIS is the very reason why this merger, along with DL/NW and UA/CO and even WN/FL have made me a very livid traveler over the last 4 or 5 years.
You're joking right? You may not have a solid perspective on the industry like others do so let me inform you. You say make more profit, are you aware that for most part none of the airlines except WN ever make profit? This past year has been decent despite high oil prices do to some consolidation and capacity withdraw. But even then, that profit, i.e. Delta's, whatever WN had in 2011 and US' is considered nothing by Wall Street compared to other Fortune 500 peers in other industries.
The past 30 something years more often than not has seen rock bottom fares (most fares never even adjusted for inflation) major loses (tens of billions) by all the major carriers so that you can fly cheap-all at the expense of laid off workers, furloughed pilots and CSRs who are paid peanuts. You are right, fares will go up, but remember too you are buying a ticket to fly almost speed of sound at 40,000 feet, a feat unimaginable just 100 to 90 years ago, to do it right and turn even a basic profit (that again isn't even that signficant) fares and capacity can't go on like it has. If people can't afford it, they won't afford it, but those who will, in turn will support the growing health of the industry.
MSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 699 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4059 times:
Quoting HPRamper (Reply 14): A merger would instantly reverse that trend. Take airport X where US and AA both operate only four or five flights daily. Probably outsourced. Combine those ops and you have a station that falls above the threshold for staffing with mainline.
Those aren't exact numbers, just an example. I do think the synergy thing will be real between AA and US - moreso than was the case with US/HP who didn't overlap nearly as much.
Just recently MSY was contracted out due to the number of RJ flown into MSY. Now several months later the RJ's are not nearly as many and more mainline flying is back. Should the AA merger happen then there will be many who were displaced/furloughed would in turn get their jobs back. This would happen even if the same number of RJ were still in the market. I can see where there would be fewer layoffs, and some ability to expand the network.
This merger I believe is a win win for both US and AA. Both bring things to the merger that the other lacks. It is not a oneway street. If the merger fails to happen US will be fine, not to say things wont be difficult. If AA is successful during BK they should be OK also, but I happen to believe both are better off together than not.
ghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 754 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 weeks ago) and read 3900 times:
Quoting fxramper (Reply 16): Would love to see AS merge with AA and destroy your thread.
And leave US to "die"? Say it ain't so! I love AS and hate US!
Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): " If the airlines merge, the combined carrier would be called American Airlines and be based in American's home of Fort Worth, according to Capt. Dave Bates, president of the Allied Pilots Association."
Does Capt. Bates actually have control over that.. or can he only lobby?
Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter): US Airways is in a position where if it doesn't merge, it's going to die,
I've been assuming that US has been in a decent, if not good, position for the past few years..
mop357 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 10): With every airline consolidation, fees, ticket costs, and pretty much everything else will go nowhere but up. Less competition in the mainline market = more room for airlines to charge more to make more profit. THIS is the very reason why this merger, along with DL/NW and UA/CO and even WN/FL have made me a very livid traveler over the last 4 or 5 years. I've seen nothing but money flow out of my pockets to cover costs that weren't originally around before, and my bi-monthly trips back to the tristate becoming more and more expensive (if fares out of CVG weren't already atrocious already.)
About 10 years ago (2002) the average price of gas was $1.25. Here in NYC its $4.15. That's more than triple. I am just glad the price of tickets haven't tripled as well. The cost of that gas has to come from somewhere. I have seen NYC to LAX as low as $280 during certain times of the year. I think that is incredible to get a round trip flight across the country for that price. Not to mention the pilots and flight attendants have to be paid and fuel cost.
Av8rDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Quoting mop357 (Reply 19): About 10 years ago (2002) the average price of gas was $1.25. Here in NYC its $4.15. That's more than triple. I am just glad the price of tickets haven't tripled as well. The cost of that gas has to come from somewhere. I have seen NYC to LAX as low as $280 during certain times of the year. I think that is incredible to get a round trip flight across the country for that price. Not to mention the pilots and flight attendants have to be paid and fuel cost.
In the domestic market with influence from LCC's like WN, F9, FL, G4, etc... yes, you can expect to find some bargains.
But 10 years ago I went to Europe (ATL-FRA on Delta) and the ticket cost for early June was $480 roundtrip. I booked 2 weeks in advance. I even flew CLT to MUC for less than $300 in 2004 on LH. Right now, I see early June transatlantic from ATL going for ~$1500 roundtrip.
There is no doubt that costs have increased in the last 10 years. But with the mergers and bankruptcies removing players from the market, carriers can be better stewards to their shareholders and actually be profitable.
A newly merged, reinvented, and more profitable airline is a more expensive way to travel for the consumer. But, using DL as an example, at least we see the return of free alcohol in TATL economy class, the introduction of premium economy, really nice IFE throughout the plane, inflight WiFI, etc.
Investment in new products make the experience a bit nicer for all customers in return...
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 85 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
