This is APA Communications Director Gregg Overman with the APA Information Hotline for Friday, Nov. 9.
APA AND AMR MANAGEMENT REACH AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE: This afternoon the APA Board of Directors voted to present AMR management with a comprehensive counter-proposal. Management responded by agreeing to APA’s proposal. The APA Board of Directors will proceed in compliance with policy-manual requirements and vote to send the agreement-in-principle to the membership as a tentative agreement for a ratification vote.
APA designed our comprehensive counter-proposal to provide our pilots with an industry-standard contract while enabling American Airlines to complete a successful restructuring and compete on a level playing field with its network-carrier peers. The Board’s vote on the motion to present the comprehensive counter-proposal was 13 for, two against and one absent.
We will provide details of the new agreement-in-principle shortly.
Also today, the Board received a closed-session briefing from Jack Butler, who serves as the lead counsel for the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee. In addition, Andrew Yearley of Lazard, APA’s financial adviser, addressed the Board.
As of this recording, the Board remained in session. Thanks for checking this hotline.
lucky777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 519 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
How does this affect, if at all....the proposed merger with US Airways? Would AA management have more sway over the creditors committee if it can show how it has labor onboard a stand-alone or does none of this matter?
aluminumtubing From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 356 posts, RR: 11 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Yes, we have a TA. It looked like things were going down hill and this afternoon the APA board voted 13-2 to send APA's last best final offer to AA. AA management accepted. We hope to hear the details later this evening.
Quote: Details of the agreement weren't immediately available, but the pilots' association said the proposal, which it submitted to AMR management, "provide[s] our pilots with an industry-standard contract while enabling American Airlines to complete a successful restructuring and compete on a level playing field with its network-carrier peers."
The pilots' association said earlier this week that the main sticking points in the talks had been pay parity with other carriers, furlough protection and rules regarding regional carriers that feed American.
justplanenutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Funny how, whenever something negative happens at AA, the a.net peanut gallery lights that thread up. "Unions are thugs,,,," or "Management are Robber Barons...." But when they agree on something truly positive for both, radio silence.
flyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 977 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 8): Funny how, whenever something negative happens at AA, the a.net peanut gallery lights that thread up. "Unions are thugs,,,," or "Management are Robber Barons...." But when they agree on something truly positive for both, radio silence.
Until this passes membership vote, they havent agreed on anything. Hold your champagne until then.
JFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 476 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
Quoting lucky777 (Reply 2): How does this affect, if at all....the proposed merger with US Airways? Would AA management have more sway over the creditors committee if it can show how it has labor onboard a stand-alone or does none of this matter?
The only "sway" AMR and Horton currently have over the UCC is the hopeless notion that their POR will give the UCC more value that what US Airways ultimately has to offer. But a pilot agreement does give the UCC what it wants to see to move the merger process forward.
With a pilot agreement on the horizon, the UCC would finally get what it wants according to the merger protocol agreed upon back in May when AMR announced it was going to entertain "potential consolidation scenarios". That essentially stipulates that no other competing PORs will be considered by the UCC until AMR presents a final POR against which all other competing PORS will be compared. Once the pilot labor costs become "fixed" for AMR with a ratified TA, the AMR POR will become the baseline for comparison with the US POR.
Since the NDA, DP and team have had ample time to flesh out their POR, which the UCC has beenwaiting almost eight months to have a look at. Most important, the stark and permanent reality that none of AMR's unions currently or ever will support the current AMR management team is something a majority of UCC members have had plenty of time to take to heart, and the pilot NO vote only drove that home to them even more. The deficiencies of AMR's standalone POR have not changed. The support for the US merge in bankruptcy among the non-bondholder group has not changed -- they are largely in favor of US Airways taking over and controlling the merge in BK, mostly due the labor unions having endorsed US Airways -- not to mention what nearly every single analyst has stated over and over again concerning the overall benefit to both AA and US as far as a merge goes.
The suspicion among UCC bondholder members has long been that any US POR will provide them with greater overall value -- for all the reasons mentioned above. But as I said earlier, they won't consider the US plan until the AMR plan is "ready", mostly because they want to be sure that US is forced to give them the highest possible return. Horton will certainly try to convince those bondholders that even though his AMR standalone doesn't give them as much immediate return, they will get it once AMR successfully emerges as a standalone so he can try to turn around and buy US AIrways on his own -- which would require them to wait much longer. And Horton's credibility as a CEO who would be able to successfully lead his disenfranchised labor groups -- especially the pilots -- in any post-merger takeover of US Airways is severely handicapped by the widespread notion among all parties involved in this that nobody who works for him is behind him, nor would they ever be in the future.
At a glance, the pilot TA doesn't seem to contain any significant additional "value" for labor as far as the UCC would be concerned. It's very possible that APA finally "got wind" of the reality that they needed to make some kind of an offer that they knew AMR would accept, otherwise this would go on in circles indefinitely, and force DP to make a hostile, which he has said he prefers not to have to do.
If the pilots ratify this agreement, all the pieces will be in place for the final showdown -- AMR's POR vs the completed US POR. And with labor support, the merger synergies, the scale of the larger network, added revenue and most important the ability to finally compete on equal terms with UA and DL as a merged carrier, it's clear who the winer will be. Nothing has changed about that since the beginning of this process.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21757 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 11): not to mention what nearly every single analyst has stated over and over again concerning the overall benefit to both AA and US as far as a merge goes.
Of course, that sentiment makes certain assumptions about costs both at US and at the combined carrier. And without seeing the pilot TA, it's tough to get a complete picture of costs.
Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 11): And with labor support, the merger synergies, the scale of the larger network, added revenue and most important the ability to finally compete on equal terms with UA and DL as a merged carrier, it's clear who the winer will be.
It's not at all clear to me that AA needs US to "finally compete on equal terms with UA and DL." In what parts of the country is AA weak that US will help? US doesn't help on the west coast, for instance. CLT and DCA are nice to have, but at what cost? US operates at a pretty significant RASM disadvantage to AA, and for anyone who spends time flying both carriers and looking at the route maps, it's easy to see why.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
“AMR has a network disadvantage today, which has resulted in a substantial revenue disadvantage. A combined AMR-LCC eliminates the weaknesses present in each standalone airline and we project revenue synergies of $1.5 billion annually.”
– William Greene, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (6/10/12)
“US Airways still has a strong presence on the East Coast via its Charlotte (CLT) and Philadelphia (PHL) hubs, which together represent 67% of the company's traffic…Interestingly, US Airways, although mostly a domestic carrier, flies to more European destinations out of PHL than AMR does out of JFK, further indicating AMR's weak East Coast footprint. Thus, we think combining the carriers will expand revenue since AMR will benefit from US Airways' east coast presence and US Airways will benefit from AMR's Latin American exposure in Miami and Dallas. We believe the increased East Coast presence will enable AMR to shrink its revenue gap and lower its salary costs.”
– Basili Alukos, Equity Analyst, Morningstar (6/7/12)
“LCC and AMR together would be stronger than AMR alone, we believe. We view LCC’s route structure as being very complementary to AMR’s. LCC’s substantial eastern U.S. market presence, which it efficiently manages through its Philadelphia and Charlotte hubs, have much greater connectivity than AMR’s hub at JFK. AMR has struggled to generate this kind of connecting traffic in order to compete with Delta and United out of New York. The combined company could capitalize on LCC’s strong Eastern presence and combine both companies’ sizeable international presence to compete more effectively with United and Delta.”
– Bob McAdoo, Analyst, Imperial Capital (5/29/12)
“In terms of network overlap, LCC’s network would be very complimentary [sic] to AMR’s network, in our
opinion, as a combined airline would attain greater scale and be much better suited to compete against DAL
– Hunter Keay, Senior Airline Analyst, Wolfe Trahan &Co. (4/25/12)
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21757 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 13): Read the full analysis via this link and pay attention to pp. 44-50 -- it's only one of many detailed analyses of the benefits of the US/AA merge for the overall network:
I have read the analyses. The trouble as I see it is revenue. CLT gives network coverage, but at what revenue costs. Many of these analyses seem to assume US costs and AA revenue to make the numbers work, and that's simply unrealistic.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
JFKPurser From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 476 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1590 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14): I have read the analyses. The trouble as I see it is revenue. CLT gives network coverage, but at what revenue costs. Many of these analyses seem to assume US costs and AA revenue to make the numbers work, and that's simply unrealistic.
Well the analysts must all be wrong, then. I guess from where you sit, you have a better understanding of it. I'm not a number cruncher, so I have to put my trust into those who are -- and those who advise their investment partners on the best options which create the most value, and they all seem to agree that combining the two airlines makes the most sense for all parties involved. But that's just me. You must know something they don't. Anyway, we'll all just have to wait to see how the UCC feels about it. We should know in about six weeks.
And no matter how you feel about the numbers, Horton and AMR must agree with them as well, because they all know a merger is the only real way forward for AMR. They just want to be the ones in control of it, which would mean waiting until after they emerge. So one way or another, this will become a reality.
Like I said, I don't know. I do know that the airline industry - despite lots of help from "analysts" who allegedly know a lot - has hemorrhaged money for decades. I can think of no industry with a more consistent historical record of destroying shareholder value than the airline industry. That is one of the reasons it fascinates me so.
Edited to add: in particular, I don't buy the assumptions about how well two groups of militant pilots (US/East and AA) will integrate. A couple of years of gridlock could destroy the whole enterprise regardless of how it looks on paper.
[Edited 2012-11-10 11:07:59]
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11885 posts, RR: 100 Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Wow. Kudos to both sides. Now maybe AA can improve their on time performance!
Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 4): US hasn't even made an offer (that we know of) yet.
I suspect they will.
Quoting justplanenutz (Reply 8): But when they agree on something truly positive for both, radio silence.
Silence is typical after shock. Seriously, the two have been feuding publicly and in ways that have scared off customers. So the bar fight is over. While the pilots think of it as management picking up the tab for all the broken furniture, the reality is they will suffer due to customers being scared off. This was the wrong economy for a bar fight. Now its over. Yea. But they still trashed the place.
I avoided AA for a few months. When things settle down and are proven in the operating numbers, I'll return. The question is, what fraction of the total customers will return?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 7):
So does this finally clear the way for AA to confirm their 787 order or not?
In theory, it should.
One hopes so.
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14): Many of these analyses seem to assume US costs and AA revenue to make the numbers work, and that's simply unrealistic.
Agreed. I am not for the merger as I do not see the ROI. Most of the analysis is from banks who would make a profit facilitating the merger... not exactly neutral sources. Alas, the data otherwise is poor.
You're quoting some of the same analysts who for months spoke of the structural disadvantage that AMR would permanently be at because its network wasn't as large as Delta's or United's. And yet, lo and behold, AA's revenue performance for much of this year has been meeting or exceeding that of Delta and United, and AA has essentially come quite close to closing the unit revenue gap, and that's before the new union contracts have even really been implemented yet. So clearly - as Ms Glading continually harps on - the "revenue problem" that AA needed to address is now very forcefully being addressed.
As for your repeated assertion that "stark and permanent reality that none of AMR's unions currently or ever will support the current AMR management team," and that somehow undermines AA's plan, I think that's fairly irrelevant. First, AMR's unions have hated and been adversarial to essentially every single management team at AMR since Crandall, whether rational and deserved or not. Nothing changed here. I suspect the vast majority of union members, while perhaps not liking Horton, will work for whoever is at the top as long as they get paid, and if they really viscerally hate that person that much, they'll leave. And, I suspect that won't change one bit even if Parker is in charge - within a few years, the unions will hate him, too. Beyond that, I doubt the UCC could really care much about the sentiments of the unions. When it comes to labor - which the UCC views as a number, nothing more, nothing less - the UCC cares about people showing up for work and doing their jobs well. I have yet to see any evidence that AA's union employees will stop doing that. The pilot slowdown was one thing, but with a contract in place, and the justification of "uncertainty" and "lack of protection" gone, I suspect they'll show up for work, too.
And yes - I fully agree with your sentiments that we will soon, hopefully, get to see the specifics of Parker's plan. I got it that he says there are billions in revenue synergies to be had by make a combined "new AA" larger. It does beg the question: if AA is already essentially producing peer-competitive (and by "peer" I mean Delta and United) unit revenue now, how does he plan to actually leap-frog what his two largest competitors are now producing, years into their mergers? I, like everyone, will also look forward to seeing how he plans to create a company generated essentially the same revenue as Delta and United, but with thousands more on the payroll. If he does plan huge layoffs, how he plans to implement them - and, critically, which side will bear the brunt of them - will also be interesting to learn. My guess: there will be massive layoffs, mostly in the maintenance and non-union areas, and weighted most heavily towards the USAirways work groups (and I think the USAirways work groups know it, too).
To be clear: I'm not saying that the UCC has or hasn't been sold on this Parker-union P.R. show, nor am I saying that Parker's plan isn't the best one. But what I am saying is that - given what we have witnessed, in this industry and really in this country in general, in the last decade - I wouldn't be holding up the endorsement of Wall Street bankers and analysts as some great badge of honor. They will support whatever they think makes them the most money, but I think it is certainly debatable whether they really know which option that actually is. What I think is absolutely not debatable is that the Wall Street crowd whose "analysis" the unions are wrapping themselves in now couldn't possibly care any less about labor beyond needing warm bodies to actually do the work. These are the same people who mere months ago were singing from Gerard Arpey's sheet of music that AA's labor costs were too high and their unions had to accept concessions.
What many analysts fail to realize, is that the US network is low yielding abd only profitable with the US cost structure. If AA and US merge, the US cost structure will come up to AA's cost structure which will still be than the current US structure and render much of the US network unprofitable. AA could obtain the same additional revenue by codesharing with B6 and AS that they could by merging with US and not deal with the headache of a merger. Also since AA has been leading the industry in RASM over the last several months, why does AA even need to merge with another airline, let alone an airline that does not have a very high yielding network. The argument of US and many analysts in favor of a merger is that AA needs to merge with US to obtain the revenue necessary to be competitive with UA and DL, however AA's problem has been lack of revenue, the problem has always been its cost structure of which US does not help address.
As for the AIP with the APA, AA management choosing to accept the APA counter proposal just may be a sign that AA management has realized it will be easier to compete with a happier labor force even though they won't have the lowest cost structure in the industry. A less restrictive scope clause will allow AA to utilize the right sized aircraft throughout its network which will result in higher RASM, and AA will be able to codeshare with B6 in NYC which will also result in higher RASM. Also this AIP will provide the AA pilots the industry standard contract they deserve. Win-Win for all parties involved.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10617 posts, RR: 62 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1586 times:
Quoting TWA85 (Reply 20): What many analysts fail to realize, is that the US network is low yielding abd only profitable with the US cost structure. If AA and US merge, the US cost structure will come up to AA's cost structure which will still be than the current US structure and render much of the US network unprofitable.
I'm not sure if it's that people don't "realize it," but they have bought into Parker's P.R. - and perhaps his actual plan, too - that the higher costs can be covered by the higher revenue synergies.
Now, certainly, I think the example of United might give pause to some banking their investment on Parker's projections of revenue synergies. United, the last big U.S. legacy carrier to consummate a merger, also predicated massive revenue synergies, and yet today AA has now essentially reached parity with United in terms of unit revenue and has generally been beating United in unit revenue growth for months.
Personally, I have no doubt that a combined "new AA" would be able to incrementally drive some higher unit revenues given the overall expanded scope of the combined network and the relative bulking up of the carrier in many markets where today AA and USAirways are each, on their own, not as big but where they would be a much larger force combined. That being said - will this revenue boost be enough to cover the added cost to both airline's networks - particularly in the area of labor, where both airlines are now or soon will be operating largely under bankruptcy contracts? I'm not so sure. Again - I look forward to seeing Parker's plan. I think realistically the only way AA would be able to manage capacity at the macro-level and drive unit revenues anywhere close to high enough to support higher labor costs would be to simultaneously reduce capacity substantially (by substantially paring down the PHX hub and "right-sizing" ORD and CLT) and by becoming far more labor-efficient in terms of revenue-per-FTE. Either way, I think that would lead to a combined workforce that is perhaps higher paid, but substantially smaller, than the two work forces independently are today.
Quoting TWA85 (Reply 20): As for the AIP with the APA, AA management choosing to accept the APA counter proposal just may be a sign that AA management has realized it will be easier to compete with a happier labor force even though they won't have the lowest cost structure in the industry. A less restrictive scope clause will allow AA to utilize the right sized aircraft throughout its network
Word elsewhere on the internet is that the APA's comprehensive proposal that AA agreed to is essentially Delta's scope clause, meaning AA came off their 79-seat demand and have agreed to the APA's 76-seat limit. Not sure what that means in terms of number of 76-seaters permitted. The company did, also, apparently get the ability to greatly expand codeshares, which was inevitable given the relatively less lax provisions Delta and United already had.
FURUREFA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 784 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1584 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17): Agreed. I am not for the merger as I do not see the ROI. Most of the analysis is from banks who would make a profit facilitating the merger... not exactly neutral sources. Alas, the data otherwise is poor.
To be fair, the Chinese wall at the various banks are very effective at avoiding conflict of interest issues when it comes to the research versus investment banking parts of a bank.
I haven't made my mind up as to whether I think the merger is the best way forward. I do believe, however, that the analysts are absolutely correct in stating that AA's network disadvantage will negatively impact future revenue growth. AA is not competing against the DL or UA of ten years ago; DL and UA today are both strong in the Pacific and in Europe, and, while certainly not as strong as AA in South America, have some sort of a South American presence.
BarryH From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 71 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
Quoting JFKPurser (Reply 15): Well the analysts must all be wrong, then. I guess from where you sit, you have a better understanding of it. I'm not a number cruncher, so I have to put my trust into those who are -- and those who advise their investment partners on the best options which create the most value, and they all seem to agree that combining the two airlines makes the most sense for all parties involved.
Your assumption is that analysts are objective. If US hired DB the results of their analysis wil skew to the pre-conceived outcome US is looking for. If AA hired DB their analysis would support AA's leanings. Same thing with specific groups of bondholders, secured creditors, and unsecured creditors. In this particular situation the only hope of an objective analysis would be if it were comissioned by the Judge. There will probably be a dozen sets of analysis presented in this case from various stakeholders all with their own biases. None of them will be wrong. A single set of numbers and variables can tell an infinite number of stories. The "winner" will be the one the Judge finds most plausible.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10617 posts, RR: 62 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
Quoting FURUREFA (Reply 22): I do believe, however, that the analysts are absolutely correct in stating that AA's network disadvantage will negatively impact future revenue growth.
Fair point, but it does beg the question: if AA has already now closed a substantial portion of the PRASM gap vs Delta and United, without even yet having completed the full restructuring, then why does AA need USAirways?
If the entire argument is that AA is incapable of being competitive with Delta and United because it is smaller, than does that argument get undermined somewhat by the fact that AA is, today, already generating similar PRASM numbers even despite its smaller network?
Quoting FURUREFA (Reply 22): AA is not competing against the DL or UA of ten years ago; DL and UA today are both strong in the Pacific and in Europe, and, while certainly not as strong as AA in South America, have some sort of a South American presence.
Perhaps, although it again begs the question: why bother with USAirways then? USAirways only helps with Europe - and even then only brings a net of six new destinations, of which at least 2 (LGW and MUC) would almost certainly be cut as a result of network optimization and alliance realignment post-merger (and I could also see possibly ZRH and some of the FRA flying being cut for the same reasons). Beyond that, USAirways brings zero presence in Asia, and essentially zero presence in South America, and an added presence in the Caribbean that is tiny compared to AA.
However, that being said, I think the argument of USAirways helping fill out AA's network is far more compelling from a domestic perspective, where USAirways brings a substantially stronger presence along the east coast in several key areas (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Atlantic Southeast) where AA has little or no presence, and 2.5 hubs that are either excellent or as-good-as-anything-competitors-have in the region (PHL, DCA and CLT). That I do totally buy - the fusion of that to AA's existing domestic network, plus AA's existing global network, is certainly intriguing.
25 Cubsrule: I tend to agree with you that PHX, ORD and CLT would see cuts in a combined network and, from a revenue perspective, that that's probably a good thin
26 RyanairGuru: I've been thinking about CLT, and the fact that it is a low CASM, low RASM hub. The consensus on this thread is that AA's costs would make a lot of th
27 aluminumtubing: We are still waiting for the details. My personal opinion in all of this, is that both AA and the APA received briefings from the UCC and that both si
28 Drmlnr1: With this deal almost done, what is the next step for AA? Will they finally be able to emerge from bankruptcy and start making money? I hope that soon
29 aztrainer: I would hope so and I really hope that AA becomes a stronger company without US acquiring them. My question about the potential profitability of AA p
30 Cubsrule: I think that's absolutely right, and I'd suggest that a similar argument might be made at DCA; PHL and CLT are great hubs for, more or less, cities w
31 lightsaber: Agreed, but in the words of Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding
32 DocLightning: You make it sound as if Mr. Parker is being deceptive here. I don't understand why he would want this deal if he thought it would bankrupt his airlin
33 flyby519: US is obsolete and headed for extinction unless they merge with someone bigger. If he doesnt make this deal happen he will be out of a job.
34 apodino: How do you figure? They have been posting record profits in recent quarters? I don't see how an airline is heading for extinction if they are posting
35 RyanairGuru: A bit drastic, no? US is good a what they do: shift people up and down the East Coast. Between the shuttle and DCA, plus two fortress hubs, there is
36 commavia: Well if I do that is not my intent. My intent is to make it sound as if he's selling something, which he is (as are all of us). He (with the willing
37 flyby519: I feel that Parker has been extremely fortunate for the labor situation that has fallen into his lap and is allowing US to have super low CASM, there
38 lightsaber: I'm also curious about A319 wage rates as well as pilot productivity. There are many interesting bits to discuss (e.g., furlough protection and pilot
39 BarryH: US brings nothing to the party that a post-bankruptcy AA with a new lower cost structure and increased flexibility couldn't replicate themselves eith
40 flyby519: Said perfectly! I couldn't agree more
41 aluminumtubing: Below is part of an email sent to us by our DFW APA board members. I guess it may be up to a week before we find out the specifics of the AIP. [/[We a
42 WA707atMSP: When AA bought Air Cal and Reno Air, their rationale was that the additional traffic generated by AA having a bigger presence on the West Coast, espe
43 Revelation: It gets rid of a competitor, one that may end up merging with others and making AA's life rougher.
44 flyby519: Which other airline would US merge with? DL and UA fought fiercely to avoid a US merger.
45 commavia: Well based on what was released last week, the A319 pay rate had already been agreed upon and was not one of the open items holding things up. Appare
46 flyby519: It would definitely turn into the ultimate heavyweight bout between AA and DL for JFK, but if AA wants to be a heavyweight player then this is a figh
47 WA707atMSP: I agree 100%. I think it's really interesting that the USAirways fans on ANet are strongly in favor of a US/AA merger. The AA fans are generally anti
48 lightsaber: Everyone: If you want to discuss the possible US/AA merger, please start a new thread. Is it the same pay band or is it the pay by MTOW that AMR used
49 commavia: My understanding is no. If this latest TA is like the earlier TA, and the April term sheet, there will be no more determination of pay for each indiv
50 lightsaber: Interesting. Quite an increase in pay for A319 pilots. It looks like the union did well for their members this negotiation. Lightsaber
51 norcal: Pilot costs won't make or break this aircraft. The A319 is going to burn 850 gallons of gas an hour, that's over $2,600 every hour. Paying the pilots
52 ckfred: For those of you in the APA who can't wait to merge with US, ask yourself these questions: 1. Do you want to deal with the problems of merging two car
53 Cubsrule: I am not a fan of the US/AA potential merger and I agree with much of what you wrote, but this point is revisionist history. Compared to UA/CO or eve
54 apodino: I will buy the wage argument, but the no competition argument, aside from CLT, holds very little water with me. WN is the second largest carrier in P
55 incitatus: A319s have poor cost per ASM and are often unsuitable to very competitive markets, like most domestic USA. Moving the pilot hourly rate up just makes
56 aacun: I think the 19 A319's AA will be getting have a special purpoise. i think they will fly very thin international routes out of Miami where no other pla