TWA85 From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 125 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2749 times:
If AA and US merge, would it make sense to have a side alliance with B6 to help compete with low cost carriers while the new AA (or US) focus on competing for premium passengers similar to QF/JQ? The deal could be structured as follows. AA and US would primarily target corporate and premium passengers while B6 would target small business and leisure passengers. AA and US could handle all long haul flights and most domestic flights from DFW, CLT, ORD, PHL, PHX, MIA, JFK, LAX, DCA and LGA while B6 could handle short haul international flights to the Caribbean and most domestic flights from BOS, MCO, FLL, and LGB. As for JFK, AA and US could handle transcontinental flight to destinations like LAX and SFO etc. and the Eagle feeder flights while B6 handles flights to secondary destinations like LGB and OAK. What are everybody's thoughts?
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2450 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
I can't see more than two. It would be way too complicated. Can you imagine trying to get three airlines employees to all agree on the same terms at the same time, it sounds like a nightmare/impossible to all agree at once. The merger would be maybe the most complicated in history of three airlines at once. Southwest seems to be making the airtran merger alone take forever can you imagine three at the same time. Zero percent chance of happening I think based purely on reality.
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2140 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2392 times:
First of all, a simultaneous three way merger is insane.
Once AA exits bankruptcy, its first priority should be to secure a strong B6 partnership via a merger or a sizable ownership (45% AA, 6% BA).
JFK should be on top of AA's strategic priority list, thus making B6 and its JFK slots more of a priority than anything US has to offer. Hopefully, Horton will study and present a AA-B6 merger to the UCC as opposed to one between AA and US.
Quoting Acey559 (Reply 1): All the union (and non-union, in B6's case) infighting would be a mess. The four-way brawls in the terminal would be pretty darn funny.
Union issues wouldn't be a problem, if AA merged with one airline at a time. B6's tiny unions would be quickly absorbed by AA's, and a subsequent AA/B6 - US merger would dwarf US's even further.
If things worked out perfectly the natural order of things would go as follows
- AA emerges from bankruptcy independently.
- AA convinces US to move over from *A and begin the process of aligning with OW. This will make integration easier.
- AA merges with B6, thus securing slots and freeing up AA's domestic slots for more intl flights.
- Upon full union integration with B6, AA and US begin plans to merge.
- Once the mergers are complete AA would be number 1 in LAX, JFK, MIA, DFW, BOS, PHL, and CLT
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
Metrojet732 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 27 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1735 times:
Since other airlines are being added to the US/B6/AA merger talk..... Add Virgin America to the mix. From day one the word was that V.A. was created to be the west coast B6 n eventually join forces. So we have to add them to the mix here!!! Ha!!
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 358 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
If, as you suggested in the title, you mean a true merger between the three (and not an just an alliance between a merged AA/US and B6), then I say no way. I can't see a carrier like JetBlue merging with much bigger carriers that have a different business model (like US and AA). B6 is an LCC, like WN. I highly doubt they would be willing to merge with a legacy carrier. Also, B6 offers a very different in-flight experience than US and AA, so that would cause a huge problem (the "culture collision" that catiii mentioned).
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2140 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 11): B6 is an LCC, like WN. I highly doubt they would be willing to merge with a legacy carrier. Also, B6 offers a very different in-flight experience than US and AA, so that would cause a huge problem (the "culture collision" that catiii mentioned).
All that is irrelevant to the shareholders of B6. The question to them is does their investment potential increase with a merger/buyout.
Given B6's far smaller size, inflight experience and corporate culture(collision) all gets absorbed into the bigger carrier. Maybe you wouldn't like a AA-B6 merger, but nothing you described can be called a barrier to integrating B6 into AA.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
bobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1354 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Why in the world does anyone think AA will merge with B6???? B6 has a buch of traffic that has been stimated with low fares. Fares too low for AA to ever make money on. Raise fares to levels AA can be profitable with and presto no passengers.
slcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2450 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1290 times:
All in one world is probably more likely or AA-us merge and b6 as a stronger partner. I think Jetblue is gonna need a partner to tango with for miles reasons but I think as people said they are a unique carrier and wouldn't perform at aa price levels. B6 is a great product it would be sad to reduce it to AA or us levels and no free luggage. If all b6 flights earned aa miles and vice versa it would be awesome for me personally