Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier  
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9693 times:

I have just had a brain wave. (Well I think I have anyway)

Post the probable merger of US and AA (get that out the way and done and dusted etc)

Could AA, DL and UA not transfer all of their domestic traffic into a new 'tri-owned' independent carrier thus being able to totally streamline the market and benefit mutually from all kinds of synergies ?

A seperate entity from AA, DL and UA (say a holding company owned by the 3) there is no reason why this new airline would interfere with the alliances ?

Also why should it be blocked when they would still be up against the LCC's ?

Isn't that a great way to wring the most out of the U.S market whilst still tackling the dynamics the physical size of the country forces the legacies to adopt with regard to long-haul ops ?

[Edited 2012-07-17 02:52:28]

[Edited 2012-07-17 02:54:03]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
124 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBraniff747SP From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 2972 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9672 times:

Yeah, that'll get passed the DOT no problem.


The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9590 times:

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 1):
Yeah, that'll get passed the DOT no problem.

I think it's about time the LCC's got the ball back in their court ?

Let them compete.

Nothing stopping them. (as before........)



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinepicarus From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9497 times:

Hmm...interesting. An American spin on Soviet era Aeroflot. There would be many challenges to this arrangement, namely a concentration of market control in the hands of one corporate entity. The Justice Department would find SERIOUS issues with such a proposed model. And imagine the reaction of pro-consumer groups.

But hey...I suppose anything is possible depending on who's sitting in the White House and which party is in control of Congress. That said, this scenario is exceptionally improbable.

Picarus


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8324 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why would we want what is a National Monopoly ? IF service stinks now it would be like the 1980's Avianca of Colombia, they treated their passengers like dirt. For whatever faults the current system has, one mega airline is NOT the answer.

User currently offlinekordcj From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9332 times:

This is actually a good idea. It would allow the 3 carriers to focus and compete on international flying while leaving the domestic airline to operate the business they have no interest in. They could call the new carrier Trinity Airways. Not sure how the unions would feel about it though as the integration would be a nightmare. The big three would still have to compete on international ticket prices, services, etc, and the domestic legs to the main hubs would simply show "operated by Trinity Airways". Sort of how it is with the RJ flying today.

The concept is really no different than the LLCs started by companies like Boeing/Lockheed Martin. They combined their rocket operations into a single company that now bids for their business.

It's 7a and I haven't had my coffee yet so this may not make sense to me in 2 hours...



The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7539 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9263 times:

The DOT would never in a million years allow that. We learned our lessons from the days of the robber Barron.

Not even worth discussing because we will never see it in our lifetime.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 711 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8980 times:

Mikey72, based on your previous posts, especially recently, I'm getting the impression that you have little understanding of how the American airline industry works. Or maybe you're just trying to rile people up... I don't know.  

As others have said, this is a horrible idea. Not only would it never get antitrust approval, but who would actually run the airline? I've never herd of a company with three CEOs. Nor would it ever work. Can you imagine Anderson and Smisek working together???

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 2):
I think it's about time the LCC's got the ball back in their court ?

What are you even talking about here? The LCCs have the advantage already. When DL or UA has to divest slots, who do they go to? Not the other legacies, that's for sure.

Quoting picarus (Reply 3):
There would be many challenges to this arrangement, namely a concentration of market control in the hands of one corporate entity. The Justice Department would find SERIOUS issues with such a proposed model. And imagine the reaction of pro-consumer groups.

Not to mention that a work stoppage or computer failure at such an airline would be catastrophic for the US economy. This entity would be "too big to fail" - even more so than GM, Chrysler, Chase, BofA, etc.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8955 times:

Quoting kordcj (Reply 5):
The concept is really no different than the LLCs started by companies like Boeing/Lockheed Martin. They combined their rocket operations into a single company that now bids for their business.

United Launch Alliance is NOT what we want for airlines. Right now ULA is getting paid an enormous amount of money by the US Gov to exist. Without that money, which will dry up as soon as SpaceX is allowed to compete, ULA will evaporate since they don't really have a single competitive product.

And a tri-merger of AA/UA/DL domestic ops would never get past anti-trust approvals. They would have far too much market power and would be able to kill off any LCC almost overnight by geo-shifting profits.

ULA was only approved by the government as it was the only option available. Without the merger one or both of Boeing/LM's launch divisions were going to fold, which they are going to do anyways, but the merger allowed time for competitors to be viable.


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8912 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 6):

The DOT would never in a million years allow that. We learned our lessons from the days of the robber Barron.

Not even worth discussing because we will never see it in our lifetime.

NOPE! Never ever would that be allowed. Even the carriers wouldn't support it. They (rightly so)
don't trust each other, imagine how they would bicker over who got what feed from what cities.



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

What is ridiculous is that there are so many holes in the way the U.S legacy domestic airline industry is run that an airline like VX can come along and still be in business after 5 years of not making a profit.

UA, DL, AA and US can't be exactly air tight in terms of service and performance in the domestic market if VX is still able to generate interest in the form of credit/finance to continue ops.

Someone said this about VX a few days ago.....

"Virgin is a great, high-quality airline, but they're losing their shirt,"

Now if the only way the present status-quo allows UA, DL, AA and US to provide profitable domstic coverage is for them to provide it in a substandard way for the customer (service etc) then I think something needs to change.

The American flying public deserve it.

[Edited 2012-07-17 11:59:19 by srbmod]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1629 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8779 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):
What is ridiculous is that there are so many holes in the way the U.S legacy domestic airline industry is run that an airline like VX can come along and still be in business after 5 years of not making a profit.
UA, DL, AA and US can't be exactly air tight in terms of service and performance in the domestic market if VX is still able to generate interest in the form of credit/finance to continue ops.

That makes no sense. Any business in any industry can keep its doors open as long as it wants so long as it can get enough financing to do so. This is an indication of the ability to round up cash using the Virgin brand name, not an indication of weakness from the other carriers. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true - it would be more an indication of weakness if Virgin was wildly profitable after only five years because they were so easily able to defeat the weak legacies.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):

Now if the only way the present status-quo allows UA, DL, AA and US to provide profitable domstic coverage is for them to provide it in a substandard way for the customer (service etc) then I think something needs to change.

The American flying public deserve it.

Sure they do, they deserve whatever they pay for. We repeatedly vote with our wallets and will try Spirit if it's $5 less. I don't understand the sense of entitlement you present.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8776 times:

You know I've heard alot over the past week or so of what are basically 'excuses' for the continued poor performance of the American legacy airline industry both in terms of financial peroformance and service standards.

Maybe the real reason is that the country is basically flanked on both seabords by simply 'better' carriers

Isn't it time UA, DL, AA and US upped their game ?

Maybe then they could order some serious wide-body equipment like everyone else.

Seems to me the only area they seem to thrive in on any kind of scale is domestic because the four of them simply 'dwarf' the competition and can get away with sub par levels of service.

That's why UA can order 150 737's and hardly any 'if' any widebodies.

Even here the levels of return are not that high due to massive fragmentation of the network.

Suggestions of more integration in this are met with contempt.

What happened to these days....



They may have been badly managed in the end but at least they once had the guts and ambition to be the best for a while.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):
Could AA, DL and UA not transfer all of their domestic traffic into a new 'tri-owned' independent carrier thus being able to totally streamline the market and benefit mutually from all kinds of synergies ?

Why is this a good idea? You didnt say why this is needed.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):
What is ridiculous is that there are so many holes in the way the U.S legacy domestic airline industry is run that an airline like VX can come along and still be in business after 5 years of not making a profit.

That isnt the fault of UA, AA and DL. If people want to throw THEIR money at VX, it is their prerogative. Merging UA/AA and DL into one awful airline that has to streamline isnt going to stop bad idea like VX.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1629 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8729 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
Maybe then they could order some serious wide-body equipment like everyone else.

Who is "everyone else" and why do they have to operate like everyone else? The vast majority of the other airlines in the world don't have the breadth and depth of domestic network to tend to that the American carriers do. They don't need widebodies for all these missions. Additionally, the purchase of widebodies in no way impacts the service provided, they could have the same mediocre hard and soft products without any improvement over the narrowbodies today (except there would be fewer flights in order to not flood markets with capacity).

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
Seems to me the only area they seem to thrive in on any kind of scale is domestic because the four of them simply 'dwarf' the competition and can get away with sub par levels of service.

And this one giant legacy carrier by itself wouldn't even further dwarf the competition with even less need to compete?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):

Suggestions of more integration in this are met with contempt.

What happened to these days....

Well, to be fair, PanAm existed in a time of far, far less integration - there is no logical reason that greater consolidation would result in a better product. The fewer options there are, the fewer choices the consumer has, the less any one of those competitors needs to attempt to differentiate themselves because people are forced onto one of them. If you whittle it down to only one massive national legacy carrier, why would that carrier make any attempt to provide an excellent experience when you have no choice but to fly them on the majority of routes?


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8673 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
You know I've heard alot over the past week or so of what are basically 'excuses' for the continued poor performance of the American legacy airline industry both in terms of financial peroformance and service standards.

What poor performance? As a shareholder and a frequent customer I'm satisfied. You're making blanket generalizations that aren't backed up by any facts or data other than what your assumptions are.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
Isn't it time UA, DL, AA and US upped their game ?

They have. They're lean, efficient, and have unparallelled networks.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
Maybe then they could order some serious wide-body equipment like everyone else.

Why? As if that's some indicator of success? You're demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the commercial aviation industry.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
That's why UA can order 150 737's and hardly any 'if' any widebodies.

Again, you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the commercial aviation industry.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
Suggestions of more integration in this are met with contempt.

Rightfully so.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10372 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8670 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):
What is ridiculous is that there are so many holes in the way the U.S legacy domestic airline industry is run that an airline like VX can come along and still be in business after 5 years of not making a profit.

How many more years was PA in existence after their merger with National? Indeed, they were doing poorly when that merger happened. They did all they could, i.e. selling assets, etc. that they could to stay afloat. Do we know how much infusion of money VX is getting from it's investors to keep them afloat, or did they have enough to begin with to stave off any problems?



BTW, what are these "holes" you speak of? Using your logic, there should only be one provider of any product or service in the country, removing any choice from the consumer, for the most part. One auto manufacturer, one food provider, etc. Does that REALLY make sense to you?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3590 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8655 times:

Mikey72, you need to get out more.

Try flying DL or even US in business now with their lie flat seats and IFE...much better than your home grown BA's product.

You are all hung up on the USA carriers not needing the A380, and desperately keep trying to envisions some silly scenario where it would become significantly relevant to the USA markets.

Maybe you should take a closer look at the EU markets and their recent financial results...


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8589 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 15):
And this one giant legacy carrier by itself wouldn't even further dwarf the competition with even less need to compete?
Quoting mayor (Reply 17):
BTW, what are these "holes" you speak of? Using your logic, there should only be one provider of any product or service in the country, removing any choice from the consumer, for the most part. One auto manufacturer, one food provider, etc. Does that REALLY make sense to you?

If it meant they could generate a half decent profit that would sustain continued re-investment and improving standards I'd be all for it.

The DOT would have to be a pretty retarded outfit if its aim is to prevent improvement and anyway what about the LCC's.

Quoting catiii (Reply 16):
Again, you're demonstrating a fundamental lack of understanding of the commercial aviation industry.

No i'm not i'm demonstrating that the only area they can justify any sort of investment is domestic.

Quoting catiii (Reply 16):
What poor performance? As a shareholder and a frequent customer I'm satisfied. You're making blanket generalizations that aren't backed up by any facts or data other than what your assumptions are.

They don't compare to SQ, CX, EK, QR, QF, NZ, BA, LH etc on international....everyone knows that.

Quoting steex (Reply 15):
The vast majority of the other airlines in the world don't have the breadth and depth of domestic network to tend to that the American carriers do.

That's just 'another' excuse.

Quoting steex (Reply 15):
They don't need widebodies for all these missions. Additionally, the purchase of widebodies in no way impacts the service provided, they could have the same mediocre hard and soft products without any improvement over the narrowbodies today (except there would be fewer flights in order to not flood markets with capacity).

They can't purchase widebodies because they can't generate sufficient demand over the foreign competition to 'fill them'

They would not be flooding the market with capacity if they were 'attracting' a larger share.

That would become the problem of the competition.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8563 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 18):
Mikey72, you need to get out more.

I'm interested in aviation and this is a good way to learn.

I've 'got out' enough for a life-time believe me.

Anyway, work picks up again Friday so you won't be hearing from me so much !

Hoorah I hear you cry.

[Edited 2012-07-17 08:47:56]


Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10372 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8560 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
That's why UA can order 150 737's and hardly any 'if' any widebodies.

Excuse me, but doesn't UA have quite a few 787s and A350s on order?



I realize that DL doesn't but instead of doing that, they're spending a big chunk of money to refurbish their int'l. fleet of widebodies so they don't have to order any, right now. DL would rather pay down their debt, right now (good business, eh? Bet PA wish they could have done that) instead of buying "shiny new objects" in Mr. Anderson's words.


As I mentioned in another thread, most legacies are more rational in their fleet buying, now than they were when the 747 was introduced. It was nice that DL had 747s but I feel that they bought them because everyone else was. They really didn't have the network for them in the early 70s........indeed, it was another 9 years before they got their first TATL route, to LGW.

And, as someone else has mentioned, widebodies don't automatically mean better service for the customers, if indeed that is lacking. All things being equal, isn't it better to fly a full 737-900 than a half full widebody?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8425 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 21):
Excuse me, but doesn't UA have quite a few 787s and A350s on order?

Yes but they're not 'whoppers' are they. (lol)

Quoting mayor (Reply 21):
I realize that DL doesn't but instead of doing that, they're spending a big chunk of money to refurbish their int'l. fleet of widebodies so they don't have to order any, right now. DL would rather pay down their debt, right now (good business, eh?

Yeah I know I do appreciate that.

Quoting mayor (Reply 21):
And, as someone else has mentioned, widebodies don't automatically mean better service for the customers

No I appreciate that aswell but it would be nice to see a couple of VLA's knockin' about the American fleets though.

Look, I 've learnt alot about the 'current' American airline industry in the last week or so.

When I was using it alot it was all DL Tri-stars and AA DC-10's etc

To put something out there and then get pelted with a barrage of reasons 'why not' is a good way to get an understanding.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10372 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 8395 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 22):

Sorry, but considering most of your "logic", I think there's a place for you in the market strategy department at "Family Airlines"......  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8368 times:

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 20):
work picks up again Friday

Good for you. It looked like your brain was just trying too hard lately...it needs to get back to your normal "routine"...
It also may have been the rain and being indoors too long...who knows.  
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 22):
To put something out there and then get pelted with a barrage of reasons 'why not' is a good way to get an understanding.

Well, US Domestic is a whole different animal and is easily misunderstood from abroad.
Going the USFlot route, as much as the current WH would LOVE the idea, is definitely not the way to go.



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8243 times:

Quoting peanuts (Reply 24):
. It looked like your brain was just trying too hard lately...it needs to get back to your normal "routine"...
It also may have been the rain and being indoors too long...who knows

mmmm......well let's just hope that one day the U.S.A has an international airline befitting of such a great country.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
25 Post contains images aeroblogger : Nah, I think Baltia is a better bet - after all, they currently have a VLA [Edited 2012-07-17 10:36:02]
26 SkyTeamTriStar : Welcome to FREE ENTERPRISE. Socialism doesn't work.
27 catiii : "Everyone" does? I'd rather take DL, UA, or even AA over BA, LH, AF, et al. No, you're not justifying anything. You complain about the domestic netwo
28 ikramerica : So Branson and other foreign investors come in and set up a proxy domestic carrier for cabotage, then funnel money into it to disrupt the profitable
29 mikey72 : Skytrax isn't perfect but below is what they are publishing about 'all 4' American legacies. One or even two not so good airlines you could deal with
30 Viscount724 : Pan Am was never "the best". They had weak management for most of their history, not just at the end. They made many very poor decisions and their se
31 aeroblogger : You are utterly missing the point. Combining the carriers into 1 would result in lower ratings, because the lack of competition would cause fares to
32 mayor : Unless I'm mistaken, Skytrax has shown a non-U.S. carrier bias in the past......seems like that still remains Anyway, that's 10 flights out of how man
33 flyguy89 : The markets those airlines serve are much different than the markets served by US legacies. SQ: One hub, no domestic market located smack-dab in the
34 rwy04lga : Yeah, cheapos should pay more. Needed to be repeated....UNPARALLELED NETWORKS My choices...Burger King...Coca Cola...Boeing...Exxon...General Motors.
35 steex : In defense of mikey72, the reviews of the American carriers he was posting were not his experiences, they were pulled from SkyTrax. Whether or not th
36 mikey72 : Delta Airlines is currently losing money and United-Continental has a profit margin of 0.86% The stocks are now on a 'sell rating' We all know about
37 mayor : I'd be willing to bet that DL turns in another profit, this year. Care to take that bet?
38 Blueman87 : you mentioned there losing money you mad it relavant by making this comment
39 mayor : BA had the luxury of being at least partially government owned, correct?
40 Burkhard : What I expect to happen, slightly in the same direction, as it is with the bulk of the regional jets already now, is that the airline brand that sells
41 AADC10 : It is the DOJ (Justice Department) not Transportation that would have an issue. In the late 1920s, Bill Boeing tried to build a vertically integrated
42 brilondon : I think they call it a stroke. I agree. BA for me was not a great experience nor was UA, but it depends more what airline will suit my needs at the t
43 col : Mikey, read your previous posts, when you are backed into a corner, you pull the Airline system across the globe card. You have done it with EK/BA po
44 SkyTeamTriStar : I second that! DL has been on the right path with their employees' morale, which in turn will become better customer service results. UA has a new CE
45 catiii : Not to get off topic, but that's such a blanket generalization that you should retract it.
46 mayor : And those self same contracts and the scope clauses, within, are the reasons this won't happen.
47 Post contains images ghifty : No. I saw a lovely chart posted by a blogger showing the "rise" in airfare compared to the rise in gas, Big Macs, and the CPI. Here it is (don't know
48 DeltaMD90 : Mikey72... The US Airlines DON'T need A380s, sorry. That seems to be the focus or objective of all your strange scenarios. DL is strong and healthy no
49 jfk777 : 10 years, the merger in 1981 and closed down in 1991. It depends on what the "best" was. PA was often "first" to many things with 707 and 747 and 747
50 DeltaB717 : I'm gonna say this since noone else seems to have. How do you deduce that DL, AA and UA have no interest in domestic when: * DL has just finished cha
51 Post contains images TWA772LR : We kind of have the reverse with WN doing the domestic flying and owning everyone else who is doing intl. In a round about way you can say WN owns EVE
52 mayor : Except that WN no longer has the cheapest fares to many destinations. At one time they did, so people still think they do. WN has enough of their own
53 TWA772LR : Titles like these come and go in the US airline industry. With the way Spirit is growing, it seems like they will become the "new WN". But with the w
54 planesdude : I think that would backfire almost instantly. With one big major airline, they could charge what ever they wanted because there would be no competitio
55 hOmsaR : Well, to be technical, they couldn't charge "whatever they want" because they're still bound by the laws of economics. People would still have the li
56 Max Q : With equivalent levels of service if it was approved I guarantee you.
57 mikey72 : You know it doesn't bode very well for the future when some of you so harshly criticize and fail to recognize such wonderful companies of the past. We
58 aeroblogger : These "wonderful companies of the past" aren't so wonderful when you actually look at facts instead of fuzzy feelings.
59 mikey72 : Ummm....no...I won't go there.....
60 col : Those were the wonderful companies you bad mouthed on the EK topic last week, or did you dream it? Oh yes, the wonderful EK topic. Like a school boy
61 mikey72 : Well it wasn't that so much as it was realizing that in the airline industry the combination of both financial and geographical superiority are a pre
62 Post contains links KGRB : How do you keep on making these outlandish statements with so many on here correcting you over-and-over again? Maybe you think that airlines are in a
63 mikey72 : My home carrier posted an 80% rise, almost double DL's 44% rise. It's all relative. It's positive but for a company fresh out of bankruptcy $800M on
64 catiii : You keep saying this, and it isn't rooted in reality. So rather than make absolute statements like this, why don't you go root out some data that bac
65 Burkhard : One round in Chapter 11 and they are only used paper.
66 catiii : Huh? DL's pilots got no scope expansions after Chapter 11.
67 peanuts : What are you talking about??? I get treated way better on DL as compared to AF, KL, BA. You do need to get out more...
68 mayor : It's nationalism, pure and simple. BTW, have you done a scientific survey to back up these statements or do you have data to back them up? An airline
69 mikey72 : AF and KL maybe. (no flat beds, 10 abreast on a 777)........ No thanks. (why oh why LH have put those awful angled things on their A380's is a myster
70 peanuts : LOL. Now THAT, considering the tone of this thread you started, including all the factual data you "provided" to back up your assertions, made my day
71 mikey72 : Seeing as I havn't flown on an UA, DL or AA for over a year I'll make you a deal. If you can 'honestly' say to me that AA are on a par with BA to LHR
72 mikey72 : You're easily pleased...and you say I need to get out more....?
73 aeroblogger : I disagree. If you ask most people (and they answer honestly), they will prefer to fly on the carrier which is 1)cheapest and 2)has the best schedule
74 mayor : Yes, you have......but you don't seem to be able to answer to any of it......at least in a reasonable manner. You keep spouting these absolute statem
75 mikey72 : I doubt that non-stop.
76 mikey72 : I said to you... You have not replied yet..........?
77 mayor : You're confusing what I said about who the people on your side of the pond and the other side of the Pacific would rather fly on, with an argument ab
78 aeroblogger : The American carriers may not be on par with BA, CX, QF, NH, or whatever other carrier you want to name, but at the end of the day, I don't really ca
79 mikey72 : No I don't but there is a reason why they have the reputation that they do. Why is that ? What environment ? Let's get the AA/US thing out the way an
80 aeroblogger : They are thinking about the future...That's why they've cut costs, built some of the most robust networks in the world, and are aiming for some of th
81 mikey72 : With respect passengers that are price sensitive (and therefore not frequent premium travellers with more to gain by being in loyalty schemes etc) do
82 aeroblogger : I am Star Alliance Gold and Air India Silver, the latter earned through segments. I spend plenty of cash on air travel. I may not be buying full fare
83 mikey72 : Don't you mean....'that's why they've gone through Chapter 11' ? Well anything less would be rather worrying post Chapter 11 wouldn't it ? A positive
84 aeroblogger : Yes, they've gone through Chapter 11, and yes, that has helped cut costs. Which illustrates my point perfectly - by going through Chapter 11, they are
85 mikey72 : Well in that case you must be flying a hell of a lot in economy (?) and if you are in a higher class then i'm wondering why you would be saying.... ?
86 aeroblogger : Yes, I fly a lot, in economy. Everyone is price sensitive, it's just the degree which varies. I would never pay $300 extra to fly in Business class o
87 catiii : Still waiting on your reply too:
88 mikey72 :
89 mikey72 : see reply 88 I will add that this looks like I'm bashing these carriers which is not my aim.
90 aeroblogger : Yes, we read that post the first time you posted it... What's your point?
91 DeltaMD90 : Drive and ambition to make money and be a stable carrier unlike the reckless Pan Am? Source!? And don't nit pick for sources, you can't pick one bad
92 mikey72 : I'm not saying they're doing terribly...in fact I have said many times I have every respect for them. I would just like to see them doing 'better'. T
93 phxa340 : Dude , your points make absolutely no sense , what is your point behind all of this ? US carriers are doing fine right now , the airline industry is
94 mikey72 : For sustainable growth and re-investment they should be clearing $3.5B on $35B revenue. Just because they are not alone in not achieving this margin
95 mayor : Completely different aviation environment, different domestic system, different regulatory environment, etc. What else do you need? Even in the years
96 phxa340 : Securing a future .... AA with new 77Ws and fleet coming UA with new lie flat business DL with new refurbs on 747 and lie flat US with new envoy 3.5B
97 Post contains images KGRB : I don't see your point here. What exactly did you expect them to accomplish in Chapter 11 that they didn't??? Filing for bankruptcy doesn't yield you
98 mikey72 : Where are you getting these words from ? I have not used either. I accept that. Maybe soon they will be in a position to order some new aircraft then
99 catiii : So you're relying on SkyTrax as the definitive resource on service and financial performance? You're kidding, right?
100 mikey72 : Long term overall financial performance is in black and white and it's not good reading is it ? I think Skytrax sucks but the overall trend of review
101 phxa340 : But combining all carriers into one mega US carrier and ordering A380s and 747s will help them trend better ? I am baffled by your logic ... extremel
102 mayor : Have you read ANY of the many posts on here that tell of how many a/c are on order??? UA just ordered, what, 150 narrowbodies, AA has how many AB and
103 Beardown91737 : As far as PanAm being the best, I wouldn't know. If they were better than TWA or pre-Lorenzo CO, then I am impressed, but PanAm was irrelevant to most
104 DeltaMD90 : They're making money. Being prestigious or whatever you want them to do might be "cool" or "awesome" but ask Pan Am how that went Yeah, how many airl
105 col : And Mikey, you are the holder of all the answers!! Dear oh dear. Let's start closer to home, as you are spreading yourself too thin and taking on too
106 Post contains images peanuts : I'm calling SkyTrax. Maybe they can weigh in and rank this the most incoherent, banal thread of the year. On second thought, they really stink as well
107 DeltaB717 : You just proved your own point to be completely incorrect... DL couldn't have reported a 44% rise in profit if it had not, in fact, reported a profit
108 mikey72 : You do realize of course that LH, AF, UA, DL to name a few all have presence in the region of 60%-80% of slots at their respective bases compared to
109 spink : UA and the rest of the international flying US airlines have competitive first and biz service with the vast majority of the rest of the world. Yes,
110 mikey72 : That is why there should be regulation. Not looking too favourable for many then is it ?
111 col : Poor BA, they only have 51% of the worst slot constrained airport in the world. The nearest other slot user is VS? What about 3%? There are no slots
112 mikey72 : Remove all carriers that are either state owned or have previously been bankrupt from daily proceedings at any of the worlds airports and I think you
113 aeroblogger : It's not ridiculous. LHR definitely gives BA unique advantages.
114 mikey72 : Highest tax in the world, congestion, lack of capacity. Even geographically for all the U.S traffic it provides it also enables airlines like EK to o
115 aeroblogger : There are disadvantages of being based at LHR too to be sure, but the advantages far outweigh. Exactly. This "ton of traffic" is one of the major adv
116 mikey72 : aeroblogger......BA did not just decide last week to set up shop at LHR. Imperial Airways then BEA and BOAC and then British Airways built up and inv
117 aeroblogger : Whether or not BA is based at LHR due to a recent choice, it reaps many advantages of an LHR base. Well, yeah...
118 mikey72 : What are they and how are they so unique ? I suppose what I am really asking you is do BA's unique advantages at LHR outweigh EK's unique advantages
119 Post contains images mayor : Lets not forget to add in BA's partner AA in to that slot mix......makes them almost interchangeable, doesn't it? And yet, they're working on 80+ yea
120 catiii : No, it is good reading. And while we don't have a long look back of the restructured and consolidated U.S. carriers since 2005, what we do have is pr
121 mikey72 : Still a comparatively smaller percentage i'm afraid. And 'even' if it wasn't.... the moment anti-trust was granted for LH, AF and KL with DL and UA t
122 DLPMMM : What does all of this have to do with the original topic of a single domestic "supercarrier" in the USA...which I think that even you have now admitte
123 mikey72 : I don't know I'm just going with the flow in between watching the golf. Don't tell me tell 'col' who in reply 105 brought BA into the equation. We ar
124 SA7700 : This thread has run its course and will be locked for further contributions. All posts added after the thread lock will be removed for housekeeping pu
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...
OAG Changes 4/9/2010: AA/DL/US posted Thu Apr 8 2010 12:56:11 by enilria
OAG Changes 7/13/2012: AA/DL/UA/US posted Tue Jul 10 2012 06:34:20 by enilria
How Many JFK & LGA Slots To AA, B6, DL & US Have? posted Thu Jul 5 2012 16:59:29 by TWA85
OAG Changes 3/30/2012: AA/DL/F9/UA/US posted Tue Mar 27 2012 09:58:59 by enilria
OAG Changes 3/23/2012: AA/DL/FL/NK/US/ZK posted Wed Mar 21 2012 14:59:46 by enilria
OAG Changes 10/7/2011: AA/DL/UA/US posted Tue Oct 4 2011 15:35:54 by enilria
OAG Changes 9/23/2011: AA/B6/CO/DL/US posted Wed Sep 21 2011 06:29:20 by enilria
OAG Changes 7/30/2010: AA/DL/FL/MX/TOM/US/YX posted Tue Jul 27 2010 12:11:44 by enilria
OAG Changes 3/19/2010: AA/B6/FL/DL/US posted Sat Mar 20 2010 14:21:25 by enilria
OAG Changes 6/19/09: AA/DL/NW/US posted Thu Jun 18 2009 06:47:05 by Enilria
AA VS DL & UA In BK Contracts posted Wed Feb 1 2012 19:44:16 by ripcordd