Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV  
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19960 times:

Since Part III of this discussion has gone over 200 posts, here's Part IV to keep the passionate discourse freely flowing.


Live life to the fullest.
261 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 19907 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 209):
Neither will shrink more individually than they would as a combined entity. Remember one of the benefits of merging is reducing costs by cutting redundancy. Neither airline has had a problem competing up to til this point and I doubt they would moving forward. Both airlines are large enough to compete on their own as long as they dont try match the network scope of their larger rivals DL and UA, that would be stupid. Everyone doesn't have to be the largest, just do what you do best. Should DL or UA shrink or exit S. America because they don't have the size that AA has down there? Of course not! WN doesn't have any international long-haul ops but they compete very well against the much larger DL and UA because they focus on doing what they do best - no frills domestic pax travel in medium to large markets.

You seem to have a very strong anti-AA/US bias.

1. AA would not be in bk right now if they could compete. If the bk judge thought they did not belong in bk they would not have been there almost 2 years.

2. The big Wall Street analysts Bryan, Baker, and Becker all say they expect AA and US to shrink without a merger with Bryan saying AA might liquidate. That would sure be a great outcome for consumers, right? Anyway, just like I defer to the lawyers on here about questions of law, I will defer to the people who study the market on what the future might hold without a merger. I don't think they can predict the future, but I don't think you can either even though your post is full of opinions thrown out as certainties or near-certainties. I think the worst part is how how say they won't shrink too much then say they should not try to be too big. What are you trying to say and how would you know?

3. How do you know how much they would shrink and why would they be pushing so hard to merge if they were going to shrink back down to their current levels?

We are all here for our opinions, but what I mostly see from you is bias.


Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 209):
Reasonable depends on what side you looking from. The DOJ is not suppose to balance the pros of cons of the consumer with the pros and cons of the business. They are tasked simply to evaluate the pros and cons to the consumer. So what may seem reasonable to you looking at it from AA and US' perspective, they probably do see as reasonable in regards to what they think will happen to the competitive landscape and thus the consumer if the merger goes through.

I think the biggest problem some posters on here have when analyzing the DOJ case is that they are assigning the role of the judge to the DOJ. The DOJ is not suppose to be fair and balanced to the businesses. That is the judge's role. The DOJ will present biased case against the merger and AA/US will present a biased case for the merger and the judge will decided what is fair (or more appropriately what is legal).

I say in my post the judge will decide, not the DOJ. Maybe you missed that part. I also said previously the DOJ is supposed to look out for the consumer, not the businesses involved but they can consider a failing firm defense as a mitigating circumstance.

I am amazed at how many people on here think a company in bk is doing great.

While the DOJ wins most of these cases, the burden of proof does fall upon them.

I still have not seen one good argument on here on why a the duopoly that exists now is better than having a third major player (or 4th if you count Southwest.)


Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 209):
Quoting user444555 (Reply 207):
I agree the DOJ has to look at current circumstances but if you are going to look to the past or future, try to be reasonable.

Reasonable depends on what side you looking from. The DOJ is not suppose to balance the pros of cons of the consumer with the pros and cons of the business. They are tasked simply to evaluate the pros and cons to the consumer. So what may seem reasonable to you looking at it from AA and US' perspective, they probably do see as reasonable in regards to what they think will happen to the competitive landscape and thus the consumer if the merger goes through.

I don't think you understand my point. I was looking at both sides. The people who say the DOJ has to allow AA/US just because they allowed UA and DL are not being reasonable. But the people who say that allowing it will mean more legacies will merge into a huge airline twice the size of everyone else are, also, not being reasonable.

[Edited 2013-08-23 23:28:24 by SA7700]

User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1594 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19796 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 1):
1. AA would not be in bk right now if they could compete. If the bk judge thought they did not belong in bk they would not have been there almost 2 years.

Bankruptcy is not about competing. It is strictly a financial process. AA, just like any other business that enters bankruptcy is there to shed and restructure debt and expenses. If a business cannot compete it would ultimately be liquidated in ch7 and not restructured in ch11. AA has nothing in bankruptcy court to address competitive issues. However, restructuring debt, eliminating bad leases, and reducing labor expenses has turned AA's operation from a money loser to a money maker. There were also some operational issues that needed to be addressed but those did not require a bankruptcy to do and could have been done and should have been done long time ago. (i.e large fleet replacement order)

Quoting user444555 (Reply 1):
2. The big Wall Street analysts Bryan, Baker, and Becker all say they expect AA and US to shrink without a merger with Bryan saying AA might liquidate.

They might shrink. But I still firmly believe that they would not shrink nearly as much as they will as a combined entity. Neither firm forecasted shrinking before merger talks began. However, the plan for the merged carrier does involve 'right sizing' the operation. So, with a merger we know there will be some shrinkage. As solo carriers we don't know what the plan is. (one is definite the other is a guess). Personally, I could see AA shrinking some if left on its on, I believe part of their operational issues involved them having too much capacity in certain markets. I do not see US shrinking however if they are left on their own. US has strong margins and has been running a very good operation the last few years, I see no reason why they would shrink and actually would expect some very modest growth.

As for the analyst that said AA might liquidate without a merger, I would stop reading anything else he/she has to say with regards to AA because that isn't happening! It was unlikely when they entered bankruptcy (but still a slim possibility) but now that they have restructured their finances and are now operating a profitable business it is absolute lunacy to suggest they would liquidate. If a paid analyst is floating that idea, they either aren't very good at their job or are pushing their own agenda. I bet you find another (or any respected) analyst that says AA might liquidate. If the merger doesn't go through, could shareholders be wiped out? Yeah, that is a very real possibility (and maybe has something to do with why an analyst is floating liquidation talk) but the business would continue to hum along. Profitable businesses simply don't liquidate!!! Doesn't happen, has never happened!

Quoting user444555 (Reply 1):
3. How do you know how much they would shrink and why would they be pushing so hard to merge if they were going to shrink back down to their current levels?

I have no idea what shrink back down to current levels means?
But I do know that one of the big reasons they want to merge is so that they can right-size the operation and increase yields.

Quoting user444555 (Reply 2):
I am amazed at how many people on here think a company in bk is doing great.

Who said they are doing great. They are however doing well. Much, much better than when they entered bankruptcy almost two years. AA use to lose money in Q3 which is traditionally the best quarter for airlines and now they are making money in Q1 which is traditionaly the worst quarter.

Quoting user444555 (Reply 2):
I still have not seen one good argument on here on why a the duopoly that exists now is better than having a third major player (or 4th if you count Southwest.)

The problem is that what you call a duopoly is not one. Far from it. AA in its current form is not much smaller than DL and UA right now and is definitely competing head to head with DL and UA in most markets. WN certainly is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to the domestic market. US while definitely smaller than the other 4, is still fierce competitor and helps dictate the market as well. It is actually a laughable assertion that AA is not a major player right now in its current form (with the exception of Asia and Africa, AA is definitely a major player in US domestic and international air travel)

Quoting user444555 (Reply 3):
I don't think you understand my point. I was looking at both sides. The people who say the DOJ has to allow AA/US just because they allowed UA and DL are not being reasonable. But the people who say that allowing it will mean more legacies will merge into a huge airline twice the size of everyone else are, also, not being reasonable.

You missed my point. As it relates to the DOJ, they are not suppose to look at from both sides. They are supposed to be biased. You made the statement that it was reasonable to completely ignore the fact that DL and UA were allowed to merge and now DOJ wants to prevent AA from doing so. Well, that isn't and shouldn't be DOJ's concern. Now if its a matter of whether or not we (you and me) see it as reasonable - sure I see it as reasonable whether they are allowed to merge or not. I personally don't see the outcome as that pivotal one way or the other. The industry will be slightly better off with the merger and the consumer slightly better off without it.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19703 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 4):
Bankruptcy is not about competing. It is strictly a financial process. AA, just like any other business that enters bankruptcy is there to shed and restructure debt and expenses. If a business cannot compete it would ultimately be liquidated in ch7 and not restructured in ch11. AA has nothing in bankruptcy court to address competitive issues. However, restructuring debt, eliminating bad leases, and reducing labor expenses has turned AA's operation from a money loser to a money maker. There were also some operational issues that needed to be addressed but those did not require a bankruptcy to do and could have been done and should have been done long time ago. (i.e large fleet replacement order)

I am sorry you don't understand me. I assumed you could connect the dots. They are very close. A company that is able to compete is normally successful. A company that is able to compete makes money. A company that is able to compete usually does not end up in bankruptcy. I know you seem to feel you know better than Wall Street analysts who direct probably at least a billion dollars of funds between them for their clients, but again, I will defer to them. Since you don't want AA too big or too small, oh and same goes for US, why not save everyone some time and write AA's new bk exit plan?

You seem to have a deep-seated dislike of AA or maybe US. So much is riding on this for AA employees, shareholders, and owners. I feel sorry for them because there are people, thankfully not many, but there are people out there who appear determined to watch their company wither away or cease to exist altogether. Where does that come from? I would like to know so if I feel it creeping up on me I can run away fast.


And Chapter 11 is most certainly about exiting as a company that is able to compete. No that is not the only part of Chapter 11, but that is the goal. I don't think you and I will agree about anything.

[Edited 2013-08-23 23:30:58 by SA7700]

User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19667 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 2):
As for the analyst that said AA might liquidate without a merger, I would stop reading anything else he/she has to say with regards to AA because that isn't happening! It was unlikely when they entered bankruptcy (but still a slim possibility) but now that they have restructured their finances and are now operating a profitable business it is absolute lunacy to suggest they would liquidate. If a paid analyst is floating that idea, they either aren't very good at their job or are pushing their own agenda. I bet you find another (or any respected) analyst that says AA might liquidate. If the merger doesn't go through, could shareholders be wiped out? Yeah, that is a very real possibility (and maybe has something to do with why an analyst is floating liquidation talk) but the business would continue to hum along. Profitable businesses simply don't liquidate!!! Doesn't happen, has never happened!

No I think it is you who is pushing an agenda. You have all the answers. You know better than Vicki Bryan who advises million dollar clients, but you think I should stop listening to her? Nah, I think I should stop trying to reason with you. I hope I never hate anything as much as you seem to hate AA and/or US. I don't want to violate the rules on here, so I will leave my opinions of my confidence in your predictions out of this, but in your recent posts you have claimed to know better than Judge Lane (BK), Wall Street analysts, Bryan, Becker, and Baker, Robert Mann (industry analyst), Doug Parker, Tom Horton and just about everyone except the DOJ, 6 A's G, and a slew of other columnists.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19657 times:

And what the heck? Profitable businesses don't go into bankruptcy!. Seriously, where are you coming up with this? AA has lost more than 10 bil since 2001 and had one profitable year. There is no use having a logical discussion with someone so blinded by dislike for those two companies that you are in denial of AA being in bankruptcy. Reality left the building a while ago. My turn.

User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19650 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 2):
The problem is that what you call a duopoly is not one. Far from it. AA in its current form is not much smaller than DL and UA right now and is definitely competing head to head with DL and UA in most markets. WN certainly is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to the domestic market. US while definitely smaller than the other 4, is still fierce competitor and helps dictate the market as well. It is actually a laughable assertion that AA is not a major player right now in its current form (with the exception of Asia and Africa, AA is definitely a major player in US domestic and international air travel)

Whew, if I did not know you were always right, I would think you were wrong and the analysts were right.

But you might want to look here anyway just for laughs

http://www.airlinefinancials.com/airline_data_comparisons.html

seriously,....


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 19423 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 2):
There were also some operational issues that needed to be addressed but those did not require a bankruptcy to do and could have been done and should have been done long time ago. (i.e large fleet replacement order)

They tried, but management and the unions could not come to any agreement on how to operate the a/c, in particular long haul and replacements for the mad dogs, issue was one of the reasons for chpt.11 filing.


User currently onlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3298 posts, RR: 44
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 19333 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 6):

Quick question:

Can you identify the major issues that forced AA into bankruptcy?

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 19309 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 4):
No I think it is you who is pushing an agenda.

Honestly, I haven't the slightest idea where you are getting that he has an agenda. He has presented the some of the most balanced discussion here.


User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19170 times:

Most on this website have an agenda and a bias, it is very evident in their "expert opnions". When it comes to anything involving US many members would want nothing more than for the airline to cease to exist and go belly up. You have got to take things tossed around here with a grain of salt, everyone is always an expert on the subject matter on a.net. This case personally affects me and would want nothing more than a fast resolution to this case so we can go on with our lives.


Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19161 times:

Quoting chepos (Reply 10):

us airways doesn't bring anything to the indsutry, they could go belly up and it would make the industry better as a whole.
If this merger fails, that is exactly what will happen to us airways. They are the least viable airline in America, their problem is they try and behave like a legacy but in the end they are nothing more than southwest with a few wide bodies to Europe.


User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 19121 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 11):
us airways doesn't bring anything to the indsutry, they could go belly up and it would make the industry better as a whole.
If this merger fails, that is exactly what will happen to us airways. They are the least viable airline in America, their problem is they try and behave like a legacy but in the end they are nothing more than southwest with a few wide bodies to Europe.

And over 30,000 people out of a job, great for the economy and for everyone. Hurray!!!!!



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 19100 times:

Quoting chepos (Reply 12):

didn't say it was right I just said that is the reality of the situation. None of the hubs that us air has other than dca and non of the flying us air does really benefits the industry at all. If us air shut it's doors tomorrow I doubt there would be much of an impact that couldn't be resolved in a few weeks. Unlike united or delta or even jetblue. That's what happens when you have 20 years of backward thinking leadership. And you people who think parker is such a great ceo. What has he done in the 8 years since he's been in charge? Has he grown the company at all or has it been the typical shrink shrink shrink that us air has been known for? What about the worst paid pilots in the western hemisphere. It's easy to make profits when you don't pay your employees anything. It's also easy to make money when you don't invest a cent into the company.

us airways as a profitable healthy company is an illusion. Next recession they are gone.

[Edited 2013-08-24 09:08:47]

User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4277 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 19069 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 13):

didn't say it was right I just said that is the reality of the situation. None of the hubs that us air has other than dca and non of the flying us air does really benefits the industry at all. If us air shut it's doors tomorrow I doubt there would be much of an impact that couldn't be resolved in a few weeks. Unlike united or delta or even jetblue. That's what happens when you have 20 years of backward thinking leadership. And you people who think parker is such a great ceo. What has he done in the 8 years since he's been in charge? Has he grown the company at all or has it been the typical shrink shrink shrink that us air has been known for? What about the worst paid pilots in the western hemisphere. It's easy to make profits when you don't pay your employees anything. It's also easy to make money when you don't invest a cent into the company.

I disagree with your post entirely. One....PHL may be the bastard stepchild as far as Northeast Airports go, but PHL is still a very large city with a ton of O and D demand for service. That hub is a very important hub. Then lets look at CLT. CLT is the one hub that helps keep DL in check in the south. If US didn't have the CLT hub, DL would have a near monopoly on service to many places in the south. UA has no hub in the area that can compete, and the AA hub in the area is MIA, which is much stronger as a Latin America gateway than a domestic hub. And then of course the DCA presence. If you take away US, you lose a ton of capacity on the east coast in a hurry, in some key business markets that don't have the service that WN or B6 have. Good luck trying to fill that gap in a hurry, and you would see a big economic hit as well. As far as shrinking since the merger, which Legacy carrier hasn't shrunk? The only reason DL and UA grew is because they merged. After the merger there has been shrinkage. DL has dehubbed MEM, has all but dehubbed CVG, and growth has been near stagnant. UA has shrank so much, that their domestic network these days is mostly RJ's, and has lost tons of business because of this and other bad business moves. Even WN when combined with FL is smaller than the two were separately. The only carriers that have grown significantly in recent years have been NK, and VX, and to a smaller extent B6.

As for pilot pay, a lot of that is more on USAPA than the company, because this is a side effect of not getting the seniority list in order. And I believe the existing pay rates on the East side were negotiated by David Siegel, not Doug Parker. Yes the labor costs have given Doug Parker an incentive to stay out of the seniority debate, but to blame him for this is a little dishonest. As for not investing in the company, what the heck are you smoking? They invested a lot of money into the OCC in PIT (Which will probably be gone if the merger happens), they have added ramp gate displays in their hub airports so that the rampers have more information to help flights get out on time, they have added a number of new airplanes in recent years, they have refurbished the cabin on their entire mainline fleet, they have added first class to the regional fleet, they have added wi-fi to their airplanes, the F gates in PHL are being renovated and a new US club has been built, and the list goes on and on. There are still some things they could invest in if they end up being a standalone carrier (Gate area monitors that display standby lists for example), but they should not do so until they have some clarity on the merger.


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 19033 times:

My point is that US airways could cease operations tomorrow and very little markets would lose service. Us airways has been downgraded these days to nothing more than a "market spoiler" to drive down ticket costs in certain areas. This is why the doj doesn't want the merger to happen.

What us airways has "added" is duct tape compared to what delta and united have done and are going to do.
US has shut down dozens of "clubs" around the country, cementing my opinion that they are just an LCC and not a legacy
airline. The rest of the Phl airport is a disaster, you compare it to other airline hubs and it's almost sad. Upgraded a few measly rj gates does not improve the quality of the rest of the airport.

Delta and UA are adding new routes almost monthly to different continents. How many cities has US air added? 2?

US airways need this merger or it's finished. Us airways is not a viable airline on it's own as we have seen for the last 25 years.

[Edited 2013-08-24 09:55:05]

User currently onlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4277 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 18991 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 15):

What us airways has "added" is duct tape compared to what delta and united have done and are going to do.
US has shut down dozens of "clubs" around the country, cementing my opinion that they are just an LCC and not a legacy

Even so, their members get access to the United Clubs, so its not like their guys don't have lounge access. As for PHL, B and C need work, but A West is beautiful, and the F terminal after the renovations is going to be among the finest RJ facilities in the country.

And how do you know what United is going to do? They seem to be losing lots of money themselves. And there are plenty of markets where US is among the few options in town. Places like DAB, MLB, BGR, ISP, HVN, ART, PHF all come to mind.

I do believe that US needs this merger, but I do believe they have a viable business model to move forward with. Everyone has been predicting gloom and doom for them for years, and at one point I was included, but as we have seen, they have not only stayed around, but become a very profitable airline.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18816 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 15):
My point is that US airways could cease operations tomorrow and very little markets would lose service. Us airways has been downgraded these days to nothing more than a "market spoiler" to drive down ticket costs in certain areas. This is why the doj doesn't want the merger to happen.

Two points:

1) If WN ceased operations tomorrow, NO markets would lose service. Does that mean that WN has no value to the industry?

2) US actually serves a pretty good number of airports that have no other network service (off the top of my head, HHH, FLO, EWN, PGV, LYH, HTS, SBY, IPT, FLG).

Quoting apodino (Reply 16):
As for PHL, B and C need work, but A West is beautiful, and the F terminal after the renovations is going to be among the finest RJ facilities in the country.

The problem isn't so much that any individual terminal is bad; while B and C may "need work," they are no worse than A and B at ATL or B and C at CLT. The issue is the enormous distance and hassle involved with transferring between mainline and F and, less so, between domestic and A West. But I'd still probably pick PHL over EWR or IAD.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18768 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
1) If WN ceased operations tomorrow, NO markets would lose service. Does that mean that WN has no value to the industry?

Us Airways and Southwest Serve a different customer base and market.

Us air and Southwest don't compete for the same passengers.

Southwest is the largest no frill LCC for leisure travelers.

US air has aa, ua, dl to compete against.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 18751 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
But I'd still probably pick PHL over EWR or IAD.

Wow. Over IAD? I hate a people mover as much as the next, but that is crazy to me.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18716 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 18):
Us Airways and Southwest Serve a different customer base and market.

I guess the business passengers who fly LAX/LAS/ABQ/SAN-PHX are lower yielding than the leisure passengers (WN has a slightly higher fare than US in all of those markets most quarters). Interesting.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 19):
Wow. Over IAD? I hate a people mover as much as the next, but that is crazy to me.

A and C at IAD are not nice, and that's where you'll be be if you are connecting.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 496 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18712 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 13):
It's also easy to make money when you don't invest a cent into the company.

While I can agree with some things that you have said during the AA/US threads, I need to call you out on this one. US has invested heavily in the business and has focused on paying down debt and bringing in new, larger aircraft with lower CASM (A321's primarily) to replace 737's and the older A320's. 7 brand new A330's have/ will be delivered during 2013 which will replace the 767s slated for retirement in 2014 and there are still 50 plus new Airbus aircraft on order with another batch of 321's entering service by years end.

US has added GOGO wifi and is introducing a streaming on demand video system across the domestic fleet which is in-line with other domestic carriers. Like AAG US chose to avoid/ abandon hard wired IFE knowing that PED technology advancements would provide viable alternatives for customers to access IFE.

A330 aircraft have been completely updated front to back with new IFE and an Envoy class hard product that is competitive with many of the top tier air carriers across the globe. New A330 deliveries will arrive with these enhancements from the factory.

All US Airways Clubs in the hub locations are being re-modeled, the new clubs in CLT and PHL are outstanding.

The First Class product on the large RJ fleet is competitive with DL, UA and AA, couldn't tell the difference without apparent branding in the cabin.

Finally, performance wise, US is close to, meets or beats DL in every important operational performance metric on a regular basis including OTP, Missed Bags and Customer Complaints. US has invested in its business across the board but as always, all of us would like to do more but you can not do everything at once. Debt pay-down is important as well which DL is doing very nicely and others should take notice.

An Airline with a history like US does not become what it is today without heavy investment in the business.....especially knowing where US Airways has been in the recent past.

[Edited 2013-08-24 13:14:13]


American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18675 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 21):
The First Class product on the large RJ fleet is competitive with DL, UA and AA, couldn't tell the difference without apparent branding in the cabin.

In some ways. DL beats them in food and beverage, though (no glass on US flights, for instance), and I have found that the DL and AA exclusive carriers (MQ, CP) do a somewhat better job service-wise than PSA or YV.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 18669 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 20):
A and C at IAD are not nice, and that's where you'll be be if you are connecting.

Oh I hear you. I'm just genetically predisposed to avoid PHL even if it means taking a Greyhound bus. 


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 496 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 18600 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 22):
(no glass on US flights, for instance),

I do believe glass is back or will be shortly  



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 18850 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 13):
What about the worst paid pilots in the western hemisphere.

That falls squarely on USAPA, and the East pilot group.

Quoting apodino (Reply 14):
As for pilot pay, a lot of that is more on USAPA than the company, because this is a side effect of not getting the seniority list in order. And I believe the existing pay rates on the East side were negotiated by David Siegel, not Doug Parker. Yes the labor costs have given Doug Parker an incentive to stay out of the seniority debate, but to blame him for this is a little dishonest.

  

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 15):
US airways need this merger or it's finished.


I don't think they are finished in that case. US has come a long way in the last 3 or 4 years. But they now have to compete with two mega carriers, and the largest domestic carrier in the world.

AA and US both need this, IMHO, or they will both shrink into smaller carriers highly dependent on code share and interline.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 18719 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 9):
Honestly, I haven't the slightest idea where you are getting that he has an agenda. He has presented the some of the most balanced discussion here.

I disagree, but if you feel that strongly I will not try to convince you otherwise. I would appreciate a heads up on the lottery since he seems to know exactly what the future holds.


Quoting chepos (Reply 10):
Most on this website have an agenda and a bias, it is very evident in their "expert opnions". When it comes to anything involving US many members would want nothing more than for the airline to cease to exist and go belly up. You have got to take things tossed around here with a grain of salt, everyone is always an expert on the subject matter on a.net. This case personally affects me and would want nothing more than a fast resolution to this case so we can go on with our lives.


And I hope you get it. That is the main reason his remarks made me so frustrated. He thinks he knows better than AMR's creditors, employees, shareholders. And he says he knows how big AA and US should be post bankruptcy for AMR. He has a let them eat cake attitude about all the people who are owed money who will be harmed without a merger. Maybe a merger is good for competition by ending the UA and DL duopoly or maybe some prices for some people will go up. Nobody knows for sure about that. He does not seem to care at all. If I ever become so callous I hope somebody speaks up. And before he starts spouting off about that not being the DOJ's concern, I know it's not. He must have missed several of my previous posts because I mentioned that several times.

Good luck to you and your coworkers. There are some people who believe in fairness and hope the trial is a speedy and fair one.

[Edited 2013-08-24 20:59:47 by SA7700]

User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 18936 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 26):
I disagree, but if you feel that strongly I will not try to convince you otherwise. I would appreciate a heads up on the lottery since he seems to know exactly what the future holds.

Umm, I don't feel that strongly? You seem to be applying the same standard to me as him. He simply has been stating nuanced opinion, whereas you are going full on black and white in this discussion.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 18876 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 18):
Us Airways and Southwest Serve a different customer base and market.

Us air and Southwest don't compete for the same passengers.

I know a fair number of people who fly WN for business, just as I know a fair number of people who fly only for leisure and won't fly WN (or Air Tran, back when you had to pay extra for a pre-reserved seat).

Yes, there are the road warriors who won't fly Southwest, becasue they want an airline club and upgrades to first class, but to say that WN doesn't compete for the same passengers is stretching it a bit. If that were the case, WN wouldn't have successfully run US out of BWI nearly 20 years ago. That was one of the old Piedmont hubs, along with CLT and DAY. Yet, within a few years of the US Air/Piedmont merger, BWI was dehubbed, along with DAY.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18817 times:

Quoting ckfred (Reply 29):
but to say that WN doesn't compete for the same passengers is stretching it a bit.

It also misses the fact that DL, UA, AA and US don't compete for a lot of passengers. A Dallas resident who flies a lot likely isn't a UA or US loyalist. A Chicago resident who flies a lot likely isn't a US or DL loyalist. That's not because UA, US AA and DL are "leisure carriers." It's geography. I imagine that most business passengers in Baltimore are pretty loyal to WN (by necessity as much as anything else), but that's no different from most business passengers in Charlotte being pretty loyal to US.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18729 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 8):
Quick question:

Can you identify the major issues that forced AA into bankruptcy?

Cheers,
Cameron

I think Par

Quoting par13del (Reply 7):

They tried, but management and the unions could not come to any agreement on how to operate the a/c, in particular long haul and replacements for the mad dogs, issue was one of the reasons for chpt.11 filing.

Par13del does a good job of explaining it. Costs were too high for AA to offer a competitive product. If you rake up billions in losses in a decade you won't last forever. AMR has made a profit some months in bk but not all, and if the creditors did not think the merger were the best plan, the vote in favor of it would not have been almost unanimous. But again while the bk judge will make that a main consideration, the judge in the DOJ case will not. And since I have brought up the failing firm defense several times I should probably say that is about the consumer also, not really the business, because the idea is that the consumer will be even worse off if the business in question liquidates instead of merges in most situations.

The only thing I would add is that if AMR paid the same price for fuel in 2011 (they filed in November 2011) as they did in 2010, they would have made a profit for 2011. That is how huge the fuel price increase was. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform Act included limits on commodity speculation including oil that I think were supposed to go into effect in January 2011. They still are not in full effect because of stalling by Wall Street, a lot of Republicans and a few Democrats. If the US government wants to help consumers, they should do something to get the excess speculation out of the price of oil. Maybe they should put the DOJ in charge of enforcement. I do not consider myself to be anti-consumer. I am not always anti-Wall Street. I try to look at each situation on its merits. But if it were not so tragic, I would find it laughable that the DOJ is trying to block this merger, while the CFTC is pretty much letting Big Oil and Wall Street rape consumers on a commodity that affects almost every aspect of our economy and affects the economy a lot more than air travel consolidation. Fuel prices killed Midway and probably had a lot to do with Aloha going out of business. Where was big brother then?

I personally think this merger will be more positive than negative. I think it will create a mostly equal competitor for UA and DL. I think consumers will be better off with three big legacies instead of two. I personally think that without a merger AA and/or US will shrink and one might go out of business and if people think consumers will suffer with a merger then consumers will really suffer with a liquidation. I won't claim to know the future or make ridiculous statements that state or imply I know exactly how big AA and US should be. I won't dismiss the opinion of the most influential Wall Street analysts just because I disagree with them. And btw, someone commented that I should ignore Vicki Bryan because she does not know what she is talking about. She was the only Wall Street analyst who said AMR was about ready to file bk just before they did. The other big analysts said no imminent filing. She also seems to have an anti-AMR bias, but I don't say she does not know what she is talking about just because I don't agree.

Longhorn you seem to be against the merger also. I am not sure if your name has anything to do with UT Austin but UT was my alma mater and I don't like disagreeing with a fellow horn, but I hope the merger goes through.


Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 21):
Finally, performance wise, US is close to, meets or beats DL in every important operational performance metric on a regular basis including OTP, Missed Bags and Customer Complaints. US has invested in its business across the board but as always, all of us would like to do more but you can not do everything at once. Debt pay-down is important as well which DL is doing very nicely and others should take notice.

US employees have been mostly friendly to me. DL have sometimes been rude especially at ATL. AA agents have been great recently. I have not flown UA in a while but I cannot recall bad experiences. WN has always been nice also if you follow the rules.

[Edited 2013-08-24 21:03:15 by SA7700]

User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18732 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 21):
Finally, performance wise, US is close to, meets or beats DL in every important operational performance metric on a regular basis including OTP, Missed Bags and Customer Complaints. US has invested in its business across the board but as always, all of us would like to do more but you can not do everything at once. Debt pay-down is important as well which DL is doing very nicely and others should take notice.

US employees have been mostly friendly to me. DL have sometimes been rude especially at ATL. AA agents have been great recently. I have not flown UA in a while but I cannot recall bad experiences. WN has always been nice also if you follow the rules.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 18584 times:

apfpilot From United States of America, joined Jun 2013, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 204, posted Fri Aug 23 2013 12:49:40 your local time (1 day 11 hours 38 minutes ago) and read 850 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 195):
He doesn't have one, at least in terms of elective office. He's 62 years old and has never held elective office. Also, though I know you're not paying attention, he did just beat Apple at trial in the e-books conspiracy case. Was that one only to further his political career?

I've given up bothering with him. He refuses to respond to good points with anything other than commenting on how he is the only one on this website that knows anything and agreeing with those say the same thing as him.


This particular part of the DOJ is as apolitical as they come. Like you pointed out they went after Apple and specifically a steve jobs negotiated deal and he was a huge donor to the democratic party/Obama.
End Quote

I think the DOJ is plenty political and I think this got personal and someone at DOJ got rubbed the wrong way. I don't claim to know for sure, but I would say it is more than coincidence that the trial date the DOJ requested is exactly one year from the date the merger was announced on February 14, 2013.

I read a Reuters article that cited sources saying there were negotiations between AA/US and the DOJ and they got heated in early August. They would not say what the DOJ was asking for, but if they were negotiating then I think that means there was a possible remedy or concessions that would allow the merger to go through. Of course, Baer says now there is no remedy and there are no concessions that would make the DOJ withdraw the suit, but if that were true why bother negotiating to begin with? Someone earlier said he is 62, and he could be making this his last big case. Too bad for AA owners and shareholders and AA/US employees.

I wonder what they asked AA and US for that was too much. I have some ideas but thought I would ask other opinions first.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 18482 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 30):
I personally think this merger will be more positive than negative. I think it will create a mostly equal competitor for UA and DL. I think consumers will be better off with three big legacies instead of two.
Quoting user444555 (Reply 30):
Finally, performance wise, US is close to, meets or beats DL in every important operational performance metric on a regular basis including OTP, Missed Bags and Customer Complaints.

Neighbourhood banks are making a come back, in a number of industires, consolidation has not proven to be the holy grail for customer service, airlines are not much different. DL and UA are large, based on the number of flights they have performed by regional carriers getting consistent service is getting harder and harder, the majority of persons using their services are pax, not shareholders and investors.
Metrics on airline performance do include financial numbers, service and fares is what the majority of users care about, and in the bigger is better mantra that is not getting better.


User currently offlineORD2PHL From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 18395 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 1):
2. The big Wall Street analysts Bryan, Baker, and Becker all say they expect AA and US to shrink without a merger with Bryan saying AA might liquidate

Yawn. The analysts want what is best for their positions and for the people that rely upon their research, the overwhelming majority (let's just say all of them) have no relevant airline management experience. My brother is the CEO of a public company here in the US and routinely describes the analyst community as a bunch of pen twurling nobody's, I couldn't agree more.

We are four threads deep here and I haven't seen any better argument FOR the merger other than it is not FAIR to the two airlines in question. The job of the DOJ is to protect the consumer, not for-profit businesses, it is to police competition such that the consumer can have adequate protection. Consumers will absolutely be subject to higher fares as a result of this merger, less competition means more pricing power, plain and simple. AMR was unable to compete in a post early 2000s BK world where not only NW/DL and UA/CO permitted to merge but also to significantly reduce costs during their respective jaunts through bankruptcy in this country.

If AA labor doesn't like the future without Parker and company then they should think long and hard about what the alternative would be if they don't think they can come to terms with AA management on contracts.

AA is one of my hometown airlines here in Chicago, in their current form I believe they do have much to offer, they have made a much better effort at getting in-flight WiFi done vs. United. They have great access to Heathrow and a compelling JV with BA across the Atlantic. The new product on the 77W is absolutely fantastic.

Last and certainly not least, I find if comical that people don't believe WN competes against the "legacies" for domestic passengers. Those who believe that WN flights are just full of 100% leisure travelers likely have never set foot on a WN flight and just like to pass ignorant judgement on what the passenger makeup must be.

ORD2PHL


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18243 times:

Quoting ORD2PHL (Reply 34):
The job of the DOJ is to protect the consumer, not for-profit businesses, it is to police competition such that the consumer can have adequate protection.

Yes almost all of us here seem to realize this. Now if we could only get the DOJ to take over the CFTC consumers could get some protection where we REALLY need it.

Quoting ORD2PHL (Reply 34):
If AA labor doesn't like the future without Parker and company then they should think long and hard about what the alternative would be if they don't think they can come to terms with AA management on contracts.

They all have new long contracts already and I don't think those change unless the merger goes through and they change for the better. If it does not then they keep what they have and they last several years. That would be AA. US is different and I am not sure what they have done or have left. I am not sure if you are trying to say that if AA shrinks or worse it would be labor's fault but I would say it is the DOJ's fault if they block the merger. But again, their job is consumer protection. I keep repeating that because even though I said it many times, if I stop someone usually brings it up. Of course, the DOJ is wrong, and I think they are, and AA or US shrinks anyway or worse, then the DOJ has made things worse.

Quoting ORD2PHL (Reply 34):
AA is one of my hometown airlines here in Chicago, in their current form I believe they do have much to offer, they have made a much better effort at getting in-flight WiFi done vs. United. They have great access to Heathrow and a compelling JV with BA across the Atlantic. The new product on the 77W is absolutely fantastic.

Last and certainly not least, I find if comical that people don't believe WN competes against the "legacies" for domestic passengers. Those who believe that WN flights are just full of 100% leisure travelers likely have never set foot on a WN flight and just like to pass ignorant judgement on what the passenger makeup must be.

I agree about WN and I hope the AA/US lawyers throw Baer under the bus here. The DOJ loses all credibility with me here. I know some people have already disagreed with me here, but what a dumb argument to try to make to win your case.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 18243 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 32):
I read a Reuters article that cited sources saying there were negotiations between AA/US and the DOJ and they got heated in early August. They would not say what the DOJ was asking for, but if they were negotiating then I think that means there was a possible remedy or concessions that would allow the merger to go through. Of course, Baer says now there is no remedy and there are no concessions that would make the DOJ withdraw the suit, but if that were true why bother negotiating to begin with? Someone earlier said he is 62, and he could be making this his last big case. Too bad for AA owners and shareholders and AA/US employees.

I wonder what they asked AA and US for that was too much. I have some ideas but thought I would ask other opinions first.

I forgot to qualify that in my original post. I meant to say what else the DOJ asked for besides DCA slots. I think almost everyone here and the execs at AA/US expected to be asked for DCA slots. But I think either the DOJ asked for a lot of DCA slots, like half or more, or there was something else they asked for also besides DCA slots.

Maybe it was a guaranty to continue the Advantage fares for a period of time. I find it hard to believe AA/US would not agree to that for a reasonable amount of time.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 18187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

IF AA and US don't merge Usairways will still leave Star and join OneWorld. The new A350 could still help US get to Japan and Asia. Philadelphia to Tokyo should be priority one, with CLT to NRT a close second. PHL to Peking would also be possible.

User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17770 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 18):
Us Airways and Southwest Serve a different customer base and market.

Us air and Southwest don't compete for the same passengers.

Southwest is the largest no frill LCC for leisure travelers.

US air has aa, ua, dl to compete against.

I hope you realize that this point, which you've now made a couple times, is an important one for DOJ to win in pushing their case AGAINST the merger. This is a very strange thing for you, a big merger supporter, to be saying.

Quoting user444555 (Reply 32):
I think the DOJ is plenty political and I think this got personal and someone at DOJ got rubbed the wrong way. I don't claim to know for sure, but I would say it is more than coincidence that the trial date the DOJ requested is exactly one year from the date the merger was announced on February 14, 2013.

I read a Reuters article that cited sources saying there were negotiations between AA/US and the DOJ and they got heated in early August.

I think there could be a grain of truth to this. I'm very much speculating here, but I can see this being a situation where the DOJ was all set to negotiate DCA divestitures as a fully remedy but then they saw all those emails from the executives praising consolidation as a means to capacity reduction and price stability, etc. There's no two ways to slice it: those emails never should have been written. I also got a hint of arrogance from the executives of the parties on this (treating the merger as if it was already done in public statements), and that wouldn't have helped either. But again, that's all speculation.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 17690 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 38):
I think there could be a grain of truth to this. I'm very much speculating here, but I can see this being a situation where the DOJ was all set to negotiate DCA divestitures as a fully remedy but then they saw all those emails from the executives praising consolidation as a means to capacity reduction and price stability, etc. There's no two ways to slice it: those emails never should have been written. I also got a hint of arrogance from the executives of the parties on this (treating the merger as if it was already done in public statements), and that wouldn't have helped either. But again, that's all speculation.

Agreed. The emails do not look good. As you pointed out AA and US have some good attorneys. Maybe they can find a way to spin it.


User currently offlinenutsaboutplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 496 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 17343 times:

I found this rather interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...gator-as-airlines-case-begins.html



American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2103 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 17243 times:

Quoting nutsaboutplanes (Reply 40):

I found this rather interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...gator-as-airlines-case-begins.html

Makes you wonder if he is getting out with his record intact.


User currently offlinejmc1975 From Israel, joined Sep 2000, 3276 posts, RR: 15
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17144 times:

Bottomline, the DOJ filed this lawsuit simply for kicks and giggles...nothing else.


.......
User currently offlineanfromme From Ireland, joined Feb 2012, 450 posts, RR: 11
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17089 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 41):

Makes you wonder if he is getting out with his record intact.

I'd be surprised if such a veteran - who's represented the "other side" many times - was to take on a case (or actually a new role, starting with a very high-profile case) in which he thinks his side has no hope of winning. (And "winning" in this case may actually be a settlement out of court that gives the DOJ significant concessions from AA/US.)

Quoting user444555 (Reply 39):
Agreed. The emails do not look good. As you pointed out AA and US have some good attorneys. Maybe they can find a way to spin it.

At least we're in agreement that a significant amount of spin is required to lessen the impact those emails are going to have in court.



Flown on: A300B4, A310-200/-300, A319, A320-100/-200, A321-200, A330-200, A340-500/-600, A380-800, An-24, An-26, ATR42,
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17069 times:

Quoting ORD2PHL (Reply 34):
Last and certainly not least, I find if comical that people don't believe WN competes against the "legacies" for domestic passengers. Those who believe that WN flights are just full of 100% leisure travelers likely have never set foot on a WN flight and just like to pass ignorant judgement on what the passenger makeup must be.

For a large percentage of the biz market they do not compete. Over 15+ years at three separate companies (all large multi-nationals), WN came up exactly 0 (as in none) times on the corporate booking tool. This is true for many businesses, as the corporate booking tools used between those 3 multi-nationals represent the overwhelming majority of corporate and business travel. In order to book WN, you have to use their website which prevents the majority of the market from even seeing their fares.

So realistically for many travelers, WN doesn't compete with the majority of airlines on domestic travel.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17020 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 39):
Maybe they can find a way to spin it.

Why, if the e-mails were accurate in what they were hoping to accomplish thats reality not spin.
Defend their position is the best logic.

Quoting spink (Reply 44):
So realistically for many travelers, WN doesn't compete with the majority of airlines on domestic travel.

Except WN is the largest carrier on the domestic market operating by themselves and not with any Regionals with convoluted contracts for staff, planes and routes, DL and UA had to merge to compete on the domestic front.
So based on the millions of pax who use WN allowing them to be profitable all these years, how large exactly is the domestic market, that they receive no business from your companies for 15+ years but they continue to grow and turn a profit?


User currently offlineodysseus9001 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 16949 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 30):
Costs were too high for AA to offer a competitive product.

In unrelated news, AA -monthly- profit soared to $292M.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...r-profits-20130827,0,5992430.story

Seems like a merger isn't necessary to solve the problem. A change in the industry business model and previous industry consolidation already did it for them. The pattern from previous mergers and executive e-mails do show that further consolidation will increase prices for passengers.

J


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 16821 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 44):
Over 15+ years at three separate companies (all large multi-nationals), WN came up exactly 0 (as in none) times on the corporate booking tool. This is true for many businesses, as the corporate booking tools used between those 3 multi-nationals represent the overwhelming majority of corporate and business travel. In order to book WN, you have to use their website which prevents the majority of the market from even seeing their fares.

I can't speak for your employers, of course, but my employer--and all of my clients, who pay for most of my travel--would prefer that I fly nonstop on WN over sitting in ATL or DFW for a couple of hours. I don't know what rational travel buyer wouldn't, at least for higher value workers. The fact that WN can be hundreds of dollars cheaper is just the icing on the cake.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16710 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 45):
Except WN is the largest carrier on the domestic market operating by themselves and not with any Regionals with convoluted contracts for staff, planes and routes, DL and UA had to merge to compete on the domestic front.
So based on the millions of pax who use WN allowing them to be profitable all these years, how large exactly is the domestic market, that they receive no business from your companies for 15+ years but they continue to grow and turn a profit?

The vast majority of the Fortune 1000.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16658 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 48):
The vast majority of the Fortune 1000.

Evidence?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16669 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 47):
I can't speak for your employers, of course, but my employer--and all of my clients, who pay for most of my travel--would prefer that I fly nonstop on WN over sitting in ATL or DFW for a couple of hours. I don't know what rational travel buyer wouldn't, at least for higher value workers. The fact that WN can be hundreds of dollars cheaper is just the icing on the cake.

For the record, WN is not in our corporate travel booking engine either, and we're a fortune 100 company.
Of course, if someone WANTS to fly WN, they can use their corporate credit card to purchase the flight outside the system.
WN at least in my flght searches, is NOT the cheapest unless I'm going to fun areas like Orlando, Vegas, or South CA.
Most of my travel involves Chicago and FL or Puerto Rico, for which I've cross-checked WN and they're pretty much the same price as the legacies, or often more!


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16548 times:

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 50):
For the record, WN is not in our corporate travel booking engine either, and we're a fortune 100 company.

Why do corporations want their travelers buying less convenient tickets? I can understand a preference for one carrier or another when schedules are comparable, but at least in smaller markets, WN is often better.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16552 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 51):
Why do corporations want their travelers buying less convenient tickets? I can understand a preference for one carrier or another when schedules are comparable, but at least in smaller markets, WN is often better.

Corporate booking tools are often integrated with one of the GDSs. Depending on which GDS, WN might not be in at all, or it might have only a few fare buckets loaded.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16517 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 52):
Corporate booking tools are often integrated with one of the GDSs. Depending on which GDS, WN might not be in at all, or it might have only a few fare buckets loaded.

Maybe we're talking past each other. I understand why WN might not be integrated in GDSs (and thus corporate booking tools), although companies that use agents for travel certainly can and do book WN. My question is why any rational company would categorically discourage travel on WN (or any other carrier).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16483 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53):
My question is why any rational company would categorically discourage travel on WN (or any other carrier).

Who said that? I just see a bunch of people saying it doesn't show in their booking engine.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 16469 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53):
My question is why any rational company would categorically discourage travel on WN (or any other carrier).

The answer I got was that our GDS did not show the actual cost of the airlines we had bulk purchase deals with, since that would be giving out info the airlines did not allow us to give out. This meant that searching our corporate travel site could often say that the legacy was more expensive when it really was not. Of course it's a case of garbage in / garbage out, so I quite often just chose whatever flight got me there with the least hassle and did not cost an unreasonable amount of money. In my case, JetBlue was not in our travel portal but quite often had the best itineraries and the best pitch and the best comfort and the best IFE at a reasonable cost, so I punched out of the corporate site and booked JetBlue.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinempdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16428 times:

All this talk of WN...

AA is smaller than UA and DL, by the same amount that UA and DL are smaller than WN. Look at the numbers below. AA and US would create quite the powerhouse in the domestic market...

ASM:

US/AA:143B
WN: 126B
UA: 110B
DL: 108B
AA: 89B
US: 54B



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16394 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53):
Maybe we're talking past each other. I understand why WN might not be integrated in GDSs (and thus corporate booking tools), although companies that use agents for travel certainly can and do book WN. My question is why any rational company would categorically discourage travel on WN (or any other carrier).

Taking your premise as a given, then I have no idea. I think the issue is typically them not being in the CBT, not any overt discouragement, but you might be seeing different situations.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 16354 times:

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 56):
AA is smaller than UA and DL, by the same amount that UA and DL are smaller than WN.

Yeah, but WN is not a legacy so they do not count, I could not resist  

Wonder how those numbers would look if CO and NW were still around, hhmmmmmmmmm


User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16280 times:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WN wants WN in any other booking engine but WN's own website.
I think that's the issue.
It's not that our company is discouraging us to use WN.
If an employee wants to, they need to do it manually with their corporate card and go via the WN website.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 53):

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WN wants WN in any other booking engine but WN's own website.
I think that's the issue.
It's not that our company is discouraging us to use WN.
If an employee wants to, they need to do it manually with their corporate card and go via the WN website.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 16224 times:

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 59):
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think WN wants WN in any other booking engine but WN's own website.
I think that's the issue.

From what I know, it's more accurate to say WN doesn't want to pay the fees that the traditional CRS vendors charge.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 59):
It's not that our company is discouraging us to use WN.

My employer does, see above.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 635 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 16130 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 51):
Why do corporations want their travelers buying less convenient tickets? I can understand a preference for one carrier or another when schedules are comparable, but at least in smaller markets, WN is often better.

I think a part of it is that corporations largely don't care about routings etc as long as they have control over costs...If WN is not in the GDS and cost controls are practiced through such, then that's all the corporations care about.

And larger corporations often have very loose policies. I have overheard employees bragging to each other at the gate on pmCO and COdbaUA how they put off booking a trip until a day or two before departure just so they could lock in an upgrade at booking...that is probably where the most waste occurs.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 16023 times:

DOJ put in a filing today asking for a March 3 trial date. Haven't read the filing itself, but here's an article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-see...r-trial-until-march-201128969.html

User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 15863 times:

Federal judges usually don't like cases to stretch out...especially when there is another Federal judge stalled in the process.

I will be interested in how the judge rules in the scheduling conference....I think AA/US have the upper hand on the scheduling, but we will see.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 15761 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 38):
the DOJ was all set to negotiate DCA divestitures as a fully remedy but then they saw all those emails from the executives praising consolidation as a means to capacity reduction and price stability, etc.

That's likely how they got the AGs on board, too -- at least the TX AG. He's running for governor, so it was probably a no-brainer for him once DOJ showed him the emails.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15586 times:

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 61):
I think a part of it is that corporations largely don't care about routings etc as long as they have control over costs...If WN is not in the GDS and cost controls are practiced through such, then that's all the corporations care about.

I don't think most corporations have as much control over costs as they think. Your second paragraph proves the point.

I find that most corporations don't think about their employees' time as valuable. As a vendor getting paid by the hour, I have a lot more flexibility because most companies don't make me use their corporate travel portals, but I also have the expectation that I will be efficient about things, an expectation that seems to be absent for a lot of corporate employees.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 63):
Federal judges usually don't like cases to stretch out...especially when there is another Federal judge stalled in the process.

It's pretty judge dependent. A lot of federal judges also want a trial date that has some hope of happening (allowing, of course, for the date to be bumped by criminal trials). I don't know how the court will view US/AA's proposed date in that regard.

In this case, I expect it'll depend on how much discovery the court thinks really needs to take place. AA and US say, in substance, that the government already has what it needs. The government says more investigation is necessary.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4384 posts, RR: 19
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 15505 times:

My gut feeling opinon is that the judge will coax (and if necessary, compel) the parties into an early December trial that will allow for a judgment to be entered by the end of the year. AMR and US, after much hemming and hawing, will agree to that timeframe and issue a modification to the merger agreement extending the validity period through the end of the year (Dec. 13th vs. 31st as the walk-away date makes not one iota of difference in the bigger picture).


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15288 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 51):
Why do corporations want their travelers buying less convenient tickets? I can understand a preference for one carrier or another when schedules are comparable, but at least in smaller markets, WN is often better.

Several reasons. Most medium to large sized corporations (aka the Fortune 1000) had negotiated travel contracts both with the booking agent and the airlines, and these contracts often include various forms of travel insurance, etc. This has several impact...

While the booking service will report the publicly available price, the price actually paid by the company is often reduced and in some cases reduced significantly. At one point I was flying 7 day advance SFO-BOS travel for costs well below any scheduled fare for any advance purchase. It also means that the airline will guarantee availability on some routes. And these discounts carry over to international travel as well. Usually these discounts are based on volume. If your company is buying say 12,000 tickets a quarter at Airline X, then Airline X is going to give pretty significant levels of discounts. AKA, the corporations purchasing power is much greater than your own.

It also allows direct billing and booking through the corporate account which has a lot of advantages for both expense visibility and refund/cancellation reuse. Any money from cancelled tickets goes directly back to the company and is completely automated. It also means that if the person traveling needs to be swapped it is simple and easy. If there is a service interruption or delay, it is handled extremely fast and efficient. There were times that flights of mine got cancelled and the airline and corp travel had new e-tickets and routes for me before the cancellation was even announced.

And for the employee, direct billing is the most convenient and easiest way to pay for the travel as you don't ever actually pay for it. Need anything changed on the trip? The employee has 1 number to call and they handle everything with no wait, doesn't matter what the airline is, who the hotel is, or which rental car agency you are using. Its all there, call the number, give them you employee ID, and its all handled.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 57):
Taking your premise as a given, then I have no idea. I think the issue is typically them not being in the CBT, not any overt discouragement, but you might be seeing different situations.

Actually in many cases, it is overt discouragement. The company wants to know your itinerary and wants to be able to swiftly and easily make changes if they are required. It also gives significantly more forward visibility to expenses. We're talking about companies that on any given day could have up to 1K employees traveling, those costs can add up real fast. Doing travel by outside vendors and contractors significantly increases the time from purchase to the time the company can account for it. We're talking upwards of 3-4 month differences in some cases. It also allows for POS enforcement of travel policies and escalation.


User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15225 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 65):
I don't think most corporations have as much control over costs as they think. Your second paragraph proves the point.

I find that most corporations don't think about their employees' time as valuable. As a vendor getting paid by the hour, I have a lot more flexibility because most companies don't make me use their corporate travel portals, but I also have the expectation that I will be efficient about things, an expectation that seems to be absent for a lot of corporate employees.

You're probably right about that.
Our company used to allow Business class booking on any International trip over 6hrs.
With that, it wasn't uncommon for people to take redeyes, sleep on the way to France or Spain, and go to the office site the morning they land.
Now...."to cut costs" Business class is only allowed on International flights longer than 12hrs.
It's pretty crappy to sit in coach all the way to France overnight and have to go to the office now.
So people are booking their trips 1-2 days in advance for recoup time before going to the overseas office.
Does that really save money?


User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 635 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 15200 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 65):
I don't think most corporations have as much control over costs as they think. Your second paragraph proves the point.

I find that most corporations don't think about their employees' time as valuable. As a vendor getting paid by the hour, I have a lot more flexibility because most companies don't make me use their corporate travel portals, but I also have the expectation that I will be efficient about things, an expectation that seems to be absent for a lot of corporate employees.

I agree with you on both counts. I think I may not have worded my post correctly...I meant to say that the corporations THINK they have control over costs or that they can appear to. Not that they actually do. Employees will definitely game this.


User currently onlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3298 posts, RR: 44
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15183 times:

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 69):
Employees will definitely game this.

Say what?! I've never done something like that!   

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11629 posts, RR: 61
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15175 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 66):
My gut feeling opinon is that the judge will coax (and if necessary, compel) the parties into an early December trial that will allow for a judgment to be entered by the end of the year. AMR and US, after much hemming and hawing, will agree to that timeframe and issue a modification to the merger agreement extending the validity period through the end of the year (Dec. 13th vs. 31st as the walk-away date makes not one iota of difference in the bigger picture).

Yep - I agree. The two carriers extending the validity of the merger agreement by a few weeks is meaningless in the scheme of things for multi-billion-dollar merger. I also think your logic seems right that the judge may well want to get this done and over by the end of the year, both for the sake of her docket, and for the parties involved. The court brief by the AA/US unions expressing their concerns about a protracted schedule and its impact on thousands of employees may well be compelling for the judge.

Quoting aaexecplat (Reply 69):
I meant to say that the corporations THINK they have control over costs or that they can appear to. Not that they actually do. Employees will definitely game this.

  


User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 635 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15140 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 70):
Say what?! I've never done something like that!

I personally think there are legit and harmless ways to "game" the system. Taking a flight that gets one to the destination an hour later to earn more EQMs if the ticket doesn't cost any more than the non-stop? I think that is perfectly fine. And it can actually benefit the employer if the higher status you get may waive certain fees etc...

Knowing for a month that one has to go on a trip and waiting until a day or two before the trip to ticket it so one can directly book into F via YB fares (in UA's case)...that is outright theft in my opinion. If I had an employee who did that, I would terminate them on the spot.

Some employees are playing a risky game...like my father always said...the easiest way to fire an employee is to simply take a hard look at their expense account...


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15071 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 67):
We're talking about companies that on any given day could have up to 1K employees traveling,
those costs can add up real fast.

Sure, but the costs of inefficient travel can add up too. If the average employee's time is worth, say, $200 per hour (not an unreasonable amount for the traveling populations of most large companies), if half of those employees waste an hour per trip, that's $100,000 of lost productivity.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5236 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15080 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 44):
For a large percentage of the biz market they do not compete. Over 15+ years at three separate companies (all large multi-nationals), WN came up exactly 0 (as in none) times on the corporate booking tool. This is true for many businesses, as the corporate booking tools used between those 3 multi-nationals represent the overwhelming majority of corporate and business travel. In order to book WN, you have to use their website which prevents the majority of the market from even seeing their fares.

So realistically for many travelers, WN doesn't compete with the majority of airlines on domestic travel.

First, a lot of business travelers aren't traveling on corporate contracts. My father-in-law was an elite flyer with DL, and he had his own consulting firm with no employees but himself.

Second, I know a lot of people in Chicago who, because they live much closer to MDW, fly WN, despite contracts with UA, DL, and AA. All they have to do is get an agent at their travel agent on the phone and quote the WN fare versus the preferred carrier's fare, in order to get an override.

My wife worked for a company that had a contract with DL. She just checked AA.com until AA had a fare lower than the negotiated price with DL, then called the travel agent (I think it was Carlson Wagon-Lits) to book. She did the same at another company, when its preferred carrier was UA.

Years ago, a friend of mine worked for Abbott Labs. He lived about the same distance from MKE and ORD. Even though Abbott had contracts with AA and UA, he and a lot of co-workers were flying Midwest, because it was cheaper than the negotiated fares out of ORD.


User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 635 posts, RR: 4
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15071 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
Sure, but the costs of inefficient travel can add up too. If the average employee's time is worth, say, $200 per hour (not an unreasonable amount for the traveling populations of most large companies), if half of those employees waste an hour per trip, that's $100,000 of lost productivity.

Very few employees cost $200/hour and since they are usually paid a salary and not by the hour, employers don't care all that much...


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15064 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
Sure, but the costs of inefficient travel can add up too. If the average employee's time is worth, say, $200 per hour (not an unreasonable amount for the traveling populations of most large companies), if half of those employees waste an hour per trip, that's $100,000 of lost productivity.

That's very oversimplified. An employee's hourly value is only counted for time they would otherwise be productive. We have done plenty of valuation calcs for our company using various methodology, and there are wildly variable results.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15129 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 76):
That's very oversimplified. An employee's hourly value is only counted for time they would otherwise be productive

I agree. But whatever values you want to put in the equation, you get a positive number when folks are not traveling as efficiently as they could.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15093 times:

Oh yes, I certainly concur.

User currently offlineaaexecplat From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 635 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 14880 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 77):
I agree. But whatever values you want to put in the equation, you get a positive number when folks are not traveling as efficiently as they could.

Unless the inefficiency is being conducted on the employees clock (aka the weekend or afterhours and nights).


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14655 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 63):
Federal judges usually don't like cases to stretch out...especially when there is another Federal judge stalled in the process.

I will be interested in how the judge rules in the scheduling conference....I think AA/US have the upper hand on the scheduling, but we will see.

I agree as well. What the doj is requesting is one of the largest delays to a trial since before 9/11. The DOJ is acting very arrogant in this whole process. They know full well any delay will endanger this merger and I think that is their strategy.

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is known to be a judge who doesn't like to drag things out and wants nothing but that the current facts. The real shocking thing in all this is how the doj said they need to time to gather more evidence. They should have gathered that before they filed suit. I think if the airlines get their trial date or at least one in December the DOJ will move to settle.

I think that would be fair for all parties involved. They can't delay the futures of two billion dollar companies for 7 or 8 moths especially during a time of grave economic uncertainty with the upcoming war in syria. The airlines need to move to adjust their business model otherwise they both may shut their doors before they have a chance to act. The doj is giving UA and DAL an unfair competitive edge by basically tying the hands of the managers at both airlines. The doj loves to talk about AT&T and tmobile. The fact is that the company that it would have formed would have been 5 times the size and scope of this new combined airline and neither company were in chpt 11 and unable to act on any kind of business plan.

I'm fairly certain that with the Judge Kollar on bench there will be a trial before the end of the year.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14650 times:

It will ultimately come down to this .
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-gove...t-two-airlines-open-225308660.html


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14650 times:

Quoting etops1 (Reply 81):

It will ultimately come down to this .
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-gove...t-two-airlines-open-225308660.html

You wonder what the doj wants and what Parker is willing to give up.
I think if it were about a couple dozen DCA slots this would already be over.

I heard a rumor, I don't know how true it is but a big thing in the complaint was about the dca slots but not the slot really themselves. Apparently they wanted US air to give up all of AA's slots in DCA but mandate that US air continue to serve the cities they are serving now with the rj's. Apparently Parker didn't say no but HELL NO.

I don't see the big deal about it honestly. If the doj wants to give more slots to jeblue and swa so they can add a few more orlando flights go right ahead.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14636 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 82):

We shall see what they come up with . And can you do me a favor ? Can you please stop bashing USAirways so much ? It gets really old .. Take care !


User currently offlineDTW2HYD From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 1953 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14591 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 82):
mandate that US air continue to serve the cities they are serving now with the rj's.

Its probably not just continue serving RJs, serving without EAS/SCASDP funding.

Guessed it almost two weeks back. See post 254 of Part II

U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part II (by LipeGIG Aug 13 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 14552 times:

Is this just bad journalism or am I not reading correctly, one paragraph appears to contradict the other.
I think we all agree that the companies did not agree to the DOJ demands, so they pulled out the big stick and went to court. Now we will see how badly both sides AA and US want this merger, the DOJ is most likely asking for what I will call cosmetic changes - probably DC and maybe a couple LHR slots - versus draconian concessions that will render the merger economically null and void.
My thinking, if the combined has to go to 40% of DC traffic does that make the combined carrier unable to compete in the rest of the USA with DL and UA, note I am not saying that the DOJ is demanding such a drop, just wondering how any concessions to the DOJ would render the merger moot.

"The two airlines said in the joint filing with the district court in Washington, D.C., that they had tried to settle the case before the complaint was filed "and continue to believe there ought to be a realistic possibility of settlement."

Two sources told Reuters earlier this week that there had been little or nothing in the way of settlement discussions before the complaint was filed. A person familiar with the matter said that the companies had offered concessions to the Justice Department but declined to describe them."


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14615 times:

Government Signals Of Possible Settlement In American Airlines-US Air Merger

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/merge...-air-american-2013-8#ixzz2dJPGZidR


Starting to look like this won't even make it to court. Is it really fair for these idiots in charge to play with peoples lives and emotions while punching their chests and stroking their egos?


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14581 times:

They meet with judge lane tomorrow to approve the por. Then on friday they meed with the other judge to set a trial date.
I'm thinking that depending on what trial date they get and if lane will approve the por then this might determine how much AA has to give up.

Either way I'm thinking that the people on here that claimed this merger was doa are far off the mark. The question isn't if the merger will happen but when and what cost to aa. Either way I still think it's not fair that ua and dal didn't have to give up anything and us/aa are being told they need to give massive conesssions.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 14467 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 80):
The real shocking thing in all this is how the doj said they need to time to gather more evidence. They should have gathered that before they filed suit. I think if the airlines get their trial date or at least one in December the DOJ will move to settle.

The US system does not--in competition law or anywhere else--demand that a plaintiff gather all of his evidence before filing suit. From where do you get a contrary idea?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3061 posts, RR: 19
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14310 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 88):
The US system does not--in competition law or anywhere else--demand that a plaintiff gather all of his evidence before filing suit. From where do you get a contrary idea?

I don't think he does. However given the nature of this merger and the length of time between its announcement and now, I think it's fair to say that the DOJ should not need significantly more time to gather its evidence because, frankly, it should have been done by now. Especially in relation to modelling the effects of prices and the like from the other mergers and given the amount of publicly available information there is.

So while the DOJ should definitely need time to complete its case, given the length of time this merger has been going for and that the DOJ and US/AA have probably been engaging for, they should be significantly advanced in their case preparation to not need another 6 months to gather evidence.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23011 posts, RR: 20
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14317 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 89):
So while the DOJ should definitely need time to complete its case,

If you start here, how does the information that is in the public domain take you here?

Quoting sydscott (Reply 89):
they should be significantly advanced in their case preparation to not need another 6 months to gather evidence.

That may be true, but I don't know that we can prove it with what we all know today.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3061 posts, RR: 19
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14252 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 90):
If you start here, how does the information that is in the public domain take you here?

Because they would want to update their numbers as new traffic stats etc come to hand. That is to say they should already have statistical analysis to support what they're saying and they would be updating what they have to keep the numbers current. They would also want to take into account profit announcements and bankruptcy court documents as they are lodged. So yes they'll need time to complete their case because their evidence is "moving" not static.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 90):
That may be true, but I don't know that we can prove it with what we all know today.

I don't think we need to prove it. If the DOJ is going to file a suit and then take 6 months or longer to prepare their evidence I don't think that says very much about the DOJ's lawyers. And I don't think they're that dumb. The DOJ knows they have a chance of winning so some compelling briefs, with evidence, statistics and facts, must have been prepared and presented within the DOJ in order to win approval for even filing. (That's the way Government works so everyone can cover their butts) So it's a good bet there is a significant volume of material the DOJ has that is ready to go so it shouldn't take 6 months to complete.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14234 times:

I know this has no bearing in the slightest on the present case, but I was thinking today about the consolidation in the car rental industry. We have gone from something like seven national companies, to three: Avis/Budget, National/Alamo, and Hertz/Dollar/Thrifty. While the cases are in no way comparable, that consolidation has taken a lot of competition out of the market and substantially increased market concentration, yet the DOJ didn't bat an eyelid.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 86):
Government Signals Of Possible Settlement In American Airlines-US Air Merger

Good to hear, hopefully the parties can come to a mutually acceptable agreement out of court.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14022 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 85):
Two sources told Reuters earlier this week that there had been little or nothing in the way of settlement discussions before the complaint was filed. A person familiar with the matter said that the companies had offered concessions to the Justice Department but declined to describe them."

Well, you cannot really have settlement talking unless there is a lawsuit in action...

Quoting sydscott (Reply 89):
So while the DOJ should definitely need time to complete its case, given the length of time this merger has been going for and that the DOJ and US/AA have probably been engaging for, they should be significantly advanced in their case preparation to not need another 6 months to gather evidence.

At this point this is what the DOJ still has to do:

A new round of document requests to AA/US that are significantly larger in scope than what has happened so far.
Review the likely million pages of documents that will be delivered as part of the document request
Depositions with hundreds of AA/US employees. Basically anyone who is connected with the merger and its planning.
Another round of document request based on those deposition results.
Review the new round of documents.
Do any additional document requests/depositions that come out of the latest round of documents and the depositions.

That's a pretty involved process that's going to take a lot of people and a lot of time on both sides. For one they are going to be requesting meeting presentations and minutes for every meeting that has been conducted wrt to the merger. Then deposing a representative set of people in those meetings.

That's why it is going to take months.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 13983 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 93):
Well, you cannot really have settlement talking unless there is a lawsuit in action...
Quoting spink (Reply 93):
A new round of document requests to AA/US that are significantly larger in scope than what has happened so far.
Review the likely million pages of documents that will be delivered as part of the document request

...and if all the DOJ and their political cronies want is guarantees on DC slots / flying etc. all those millions of documents and such are just for show, if AA/US gives in to their demands the trial goes away. It may be called a settlement after the case was filed but before or after its the same reality, the DOJ wants something the airlines said no.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 13867 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 86):
Starting to look like this won't even make it to court. Is it really fair for these idiots in charge to play with peoples lives and emotions while punching their chests and stroking their egos?

From that limited quote, and from the filing itself, it sounds like they're still pretty far apart. That's standard language that is often included in status reports even when no settlement is anywhere near. Also - although this might be useless to say to you - there's a tremendous difference between someone disagreeing with your desired outcome and them being an idiot.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 87):
Either way I'm thinking that the people on here that claimed this merger was doa are far off the mark. The question isn't if the merger will happen but when and what cost to aa.

The real question is if there's a set of conditions that both parties can agree to that would avoid a trial. If so, then it's a when and at what cost. There are plenty of smart people on both sides of this. If there's a common ground, they'll find it, but probably not until significantly more happens. The DOJ has a lot of leverage right now. The carriers winning on the trial date issue would do some to balance that out, but not a ton. I'd expect that the judge will probably split the difference on the trial date; probably sometime in December. As for speculating as to "DOA," that's just impossible to do without seeing the actual evidence. All people have been going on is (1) what's in the complaint and (2) the historical record of what happens in these cases.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 89):
So while the DOJ should definitely need time to complete its case, given the length of time this merger has been going for and that the DOJ and US/AA have probably been engaging for, they should be significantly advanced in their case preparation to not need another 6 months to gather evidence.

That's not all for evidence gathering. A lot is for pre-trial motions, summary judgment, etc., which are likely to be a month or so in this case. If the carriers would stipulate that they won't file for SJ, then they could likely get a nearer trial date, but that's a huge strategic give.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 92):
Good to hear, hopefully the parties can come to a mutually acceptable agreement out of court.

Indeed. It would be nice.

Quoting spink (Reply 93):
A new round of document requests to AA/US that are significantly larger in scope than what has happened so far.
Review the likely million pages of documents that will be delivered as part of the document request
Depositions with hundreds of AA/US employees. Basically anyone who is connected with the merger and its planning.

Almost certainly not hundreds of employees. I'd guess more like a dozen for each company, max. Still, that would be a full month of depositions assuming one each day. I also doubt the document requests will be that voluminous; HSR second requests cover a ton of material.


User currently offlinehivue From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 13665 times:

Can/would the BK judge attempt to influence the DOJ case today when he (supposedly) rules on AMR's exit from Ch 11? In other words, if he declines to approve the exit plan pending a complete disposition of the DOJ case, will that put any pressure on the DOJ judge tomorrow to maybe move things along? I have to assume the two judges are not allowed to actively "collude" on the cases.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13562 times:

Quoting hivue (Reply 96):
Can/would the BK judge attempt to influence the DOJ case today when he (supposedly) rules on AMR's exit from Ch 11?

An open and as yet not fully answered question, the legal scholars are still reviewing.
We all accept that to delay the exit to get a more perfect plan is ideal, but the changes to the chpt.11 laws to minimze length of stay in chpt.11 is the issue.

Quoting IADCA (Reply 95):
In other words, if he declines to approve the exit plan pending a complete disposition of the DOJ case, will that put any pressure on the DOJ judge tomorrow to maybe move things along?

Not sure how the law works in this case, but I would assume that the DOJ is not a party to the chpt.11 proceedings.
AA / US and their creditors have made the merger process a part of the chpt.11 proceedings, a change from when they initially filed, so would the pressure be on the DOJ and their judge to speed up the process or can the chpt.11 judge force AA /US and their creditors to come up with another plan and merge after AA exits chpt.11?

The December timeline being pushed by AA / US is based on the expiry date of the merger proposal. If DOJ case is not fast tracked before that time things will get real interesting.


User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13415 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 97):

That's not my quote that you're responding to.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7521 posts, RR: 23
Reply 99, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13375 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 98):
Quoting par13del (Reply 97):

That's not my quote that you're responding to.

I don't believe that par13del intentionally pinned that quote on you per say. If one accidentally slides their cursor up after highlighting text to be quoted onto the post above it; it transposes the identity of the prior poster onto the select quoted text of the next poster. It's a glitch in the program.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13324 times:

Quoting IADCA (Reply 98):
That's not my quote that you're responding to.

Apologies, we have had issues with the quotes on post.


User currently offlinemiaami From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 589 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13268 times:

The latest from the BK hearing

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-...rove-amr-bankruptcy-163239175.html


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13275 times:

Quoting miaami (Reply 101):
The latest from the BK hearing

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/judge-....html

No surprise there.
Just wondering why the judge needs another 2 weeks to think it over.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13284 times:

The next couple of weeks could spell out the future for AA. If the judge delays the trial till next year, it could be another year before the merger is finalized. I highly doubt the creditors will wait that long for their money, and other investors could come in and offer their plan of reorganization. DL could offer a tone of $$$ for the MIA hub.

User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13247 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 103):
DL could offer a tone of $$$ for the MIA hub.

That would be hilarious.


User currently offlineTHrust From United States of America, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13090 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 103):

AA would never sell to them. If this lawsuit is successful, it will spell the undoing of AA. To me, it is a bold statement to American, saying "Sorry, you don't get to be able to grow like your competing airlines, because we think it's fair for them to merge and get bigger, but not you. Go to hell." American not only being blocked from its merger but being forced to sell out to the carrier they were trying to compete against would be the ultimate "f you" from the government.



Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 103):
DL could offer a tone of $$$ for the MIA hub.

Sure they could and become the laughing stock of the industry because a sale would never happen.


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12991 times:

Quoting THrust (Reply 105):
AA would never sell to them. If this lawsuit is successful, it will spell the undoing of AA. To me, it is a bold statement to American, saying "Sorry, you don't get to be able to grow like your competing airlines, because we think it's fair for them to merge and get bigger, but not you. Go to hell." American not only being blocked from its merger but being forced to sell out to the carrier they were trying to compete against would be the ultimate "f you" from the government.

I agree with you, most people fail to realize that AA can't compete being a distant 3rd in the market. They aren't going after the passengers southwest is going after they are going after the passengers UA and Delta are getting. They are losing tons of corporate accounts and will not be able to get them back on their own.

The real question is what does AA do if this doesn't work out. The horton plan will not work out long term and the parker plan won't be allowed. So what do they do?

Anyways I still think at the end of the day this merger will happen, it's up to Parker to keep fighting so he get's a better deal.

[Edited 2013-08-29 13:48:03]

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12967 times:

Quoting THrust (Reply 105):

AA would never sell to them.

AA may not have much of a choice. If the creditors start demandind to be paid. Also IIRC AA put several of their routes andslots up as collateral a while back. This is all theory based on a long delayed trial or ruling inDOJ side.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 12934 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 108):

And on what planet do you think that DOJ would approve it?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12757 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 103):
I highly doubt the creditors will wait that long for their money, and other investors could come in and offer their plan of reorganization

In chpt.11 is it really up to the pre-existing creditors who are due to be wiped out?

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 107):
I agree with you, most people fail to realize that AA can't compete being a distant 3rd in the market.

If AA is a distant 3rd, how far back is US and no one seemed to have been claiming doom and gloom on US, that seems to only be applied to AA.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 108):
AA may not have much of a choice. If the creditors start demandind to be paid.

In chpt.11 it is about AA finding enough creditors to float a re-organization plan that the judge will approve, as cold as it sounds it is not about ensuring that the current creditors recover their full investment. Additionally, AA went into chpt.11 without any DIP financing, it may be up to the judge how much of their cash must be used to pay creditors.

US floated the idea of creditors receiving a previously unheard of percentage recovery, no one seems too concerned on the effect of such payouts on the combined airline when it emerges, nor the increases in wages to the combined workforce, a merged AA may well struggle to compete aggressively since it will likely loose a significant percentage of it lower operating cost.
The flip side is that the stand alone AA will have much lower operating cost with new a/c on the way and improved scope, they definately will be able to compete but not on as wide a scale.

Interesting times ahead.


User currently onlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4058 posts, RR: 8
Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12708 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 110):
If AA is a distant 3rd, how far back is US and no one seemed to have been claiming doom and gloom on US, that seems to only be applied to AA.

Plenty of people have been. US has an even smaller network - domestic and international - and a smaller premium base. It is much more likely to be squeezed out if the big carriers start a war of attrition.


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12686 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 110):
If AA is a distant 3rd, how far back is US and no one seemed to have been claiming doom and gloom on US, that seems to only be applied to AA.

Us air is also in bad shape in the long term but they've kept their costs down due to labor strife and a reluctance to invest in their company.

[Edited 2013-08-29 16:26:03]

User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11629 posts, RR: 61
Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12649 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 112):
Us air is also in bad shape in the long term but they've kept their costs down due to labor strife and a reluctance to invest in their company.

Which is precisely why I agree with others that US is the one who not only needs this merger far more, but also has a far more precarious future if this merger falls through.

People like to talk about how much smaller AA is compared with DL and UA, but the reality is that it's plenty large. AA's real challenge isn't sheer size, but rather network access in some particular regions - particularly the northeast. Nonetheless, a standalone AA would exit bankruptcy with hundreds of brand new fuel efficient planes arriving almost weekly, a steadily-improving onboard product/service offering, and competitive union contracts. And not to mention - AA smaller network (compared to DL and UA) still has extremely strong and dense coverage of some of the nation's largest and highest-yielding markets.

US, on the other hand, has a fleet that is not ancient but certainly not young. The company has a network that is - by Doug Parker's own frank admission - at a revenue-generating disadvantage to competitors, including AA. And of course - most importantly - US today has a business model built upon below-market labor costs, which I simply do not think will be sustainable once US' unions finally get their acts together and/or demand parity with their peers at AA, DL and UA.


User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5650 posts, RR: 6
Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12651 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 112):
a reluctance to invest in their company.

You keep saying that.

I guess 1-2 new aircraft per month (all with Gogo, soon to be equipped with streaming movies), the updated Envoy seats and product, and the first major airline to fully implement an AQP don't count as investments.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 112):
Us air is also in bad shape in the long term

Name one airline that has a positive long-term forecast. I'd be impressed if you could find one that has a long-term forecast.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12640 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 110):
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 103):
I highly doubt the creditors will wait that long for their money, and other investors could come in and offer their plan of reorganization

In chpt.11 is it really up to the pre-existing creditors who are due to be wiped out?

Yes but the AA unions make up about a third of the committee and I doubt they would support it. Breaking up the company would probably result in the termination of pensions as opposed to the current freeze and would probably lose another UCC member, the PBGC. It could happen but I think DL knew they would have a tough sell with the AA unions and the PBGC which is why they have not gotten too involved so far.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12632 times:

Quoting user444555 (Reply 115):
It could happen but I think DL knew they would have a tough sell with the AA unions and the PBGC which is why they have not gotten too involved so far.

Not to mention the problems DL would have with the DOJ with ATL being so big and so close. UA would probably have a better shot but it would make them huge and after the treatment of AA and US, an easy approval of either airline taking over MIA would be IMO contemptible.


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12641 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
Name one airline that has a positive long-term forecast.

Delta, united, spirit, jetblue.


User currently offlinedallasnewark From Estonia, joined Nov 2005, 495 posts, RR: 1
Reply 118, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12649 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 107):
I agree with you, most people fail to realize that AA can't compete being a distant 3rd in the market. They aren't going after the passengers southwest is going after they are going after the passengers UA and Delta are getting. They are losing tons of corporate accounts and will not be able to get them back on their own.

Do you have any real data to back up your statements? How many corportate contracts have they lost to Delta and United?
I'm pretty sure you can't back up your statements with real data.

And as far as years of expereience in this field, I would have to say the following, Chasing goats in the field, doesn't make you a relationship expert.



B732/3/4/5/6/7/8/9, B742/4, B752/3,B762/3/4, B772/3, A306, A318/9/20/21, A332/3, A343/6, MD80/83/88, L1011, TU104/134, F
User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12641 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):
I guess 1-2 new aircraft per month (all with Gogo, soon to be equipped with streaming movies), the updated Envoy seats and product, and the first major airline to fully implement an AQP don't count as investments.

Those are aircraft to replace ancient 737-400s. When was the last time us air really grew on their own? I mean added like 10 new cities? It's had to have been at least 10 years. Us air is half the size in 2013 of what it was 15 years ago. Where other airlines are ordering new a/c for growth us air is just add planes to replace old ones.

Quoting commavia (Reply 113):
People like to talk about how much smaller AA is compared with DL and UA, but the reality is that it's plenty large. AA's real challenge isn't sheer size, but rather network access in some particular regions - particularly the northeast. Nonetheless, a standalone AA would exit bankruptcy with hundreds of brand new fuel efficient planes arriving almost weekly, a steadily-improving onboard product/service offering, and competitive union contracts. And not to mention - AA smaller network (compared to DL and UA) still has extremely strong and dense coverage of some of the nation's largest and highest-yielding markets.

US, on the other hand, has a fleet that is not ancient but certainly not young. The company has a network that is - by Doug Parker's own frank admission - at a revenue-generating disadvantage to competitors, including AA. And of course - most importantly - US today has a business model built upon below-market labor costs, which I simply do not think will be sustainable once US' unions finally get their acts together and/or demand parity with their peers at AA, DL and UA.

I agree, us air and aa are both in bad shape that is why this merger needs to happen. 1 very weak and 1 weak carrier can great 1 strong airline able to go toe to toe with dal and ua. Could Ua compete before their merger with cal? No, but now they can.


User currently onlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5650 posts, RR: 6
Reply 120, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12469 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 119):
When was the last time us air really grew on their own?

No. You said that US hasn't invested in their product. Investment doesn't always equal immediate growth. Fix the product that you have now, and then think about expanding if the market warrants it.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 119):
Us air is half the size in 2013 of what it was 15 years ago.

And 15 years ago they were losing 500 million dollars per year. They just made that much in profit in one quarter.

Nice try at the "too big to fail" angle.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12471 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 111):
It is much more likely to be squeezed out if the big carriers start a war of attrition.

This was once a common occurence when chasing market share was the be all to end all, thankfully the legacies abandoned that strategy.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 112):
Us air is also in bad shape in the long term but they've kept their costs down due to labor strife and a reluctance to invest in their company.
Quoting commavia (Reply 113):
Which is precisely why I agree with others that US is the one who not only needs this merger far more, but also has a far more precarious future if this merger falls through.

US will certainely increase AA's cost of doing business, they may be larger than DL and UA but if their cost are higher and their capital investment is lower because all their cash was used to payoff investors and creditors to push this merger AA could become the first carrier to test the mantra of too big to fail on the nations tax payers.

Quoting user444555 (Reply 115):
Yes but the AA unions make up about a third of the committee and I doubt they would support it.

The unions have so far not agreed to any of the changes in the work rules that they now work under, they were all placed on them by the judge. Like it or not in chpt.11 the unions always get the short end of the stick, ask those working for all the other carriers that went through chpt.11

Quoting user444555 (Reply 115):
Breaking up the company would probably result in the termination of pensions as opposed to the current freeze and would probably lose another UCC member, the PBGC.

DL did its pensions different from UA in their chpt.11 filing, so far AA has followed suit, but make no mistake, stand alone or merge, pensions will be adjusted, it is a huge liability for AA which must be addressed. I would be shocked to see AA emerge from chpt.11 without a reprieve from its massive pension obligation.


User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3061 posts, RR: 19
Reply 122, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12442 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 119):
Those are aircraft to replace ancient 737-400s.

Replace and expand capacity. The A321's are also bigger aircraft than those they replace so same flight numbers, but more seats available. A smart way to grow.

Same for the A332/767 combo, same number of flights but more bums on seats.

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 119):
When was the last time us air really grew on their own? I mean added like 10 new cities?

CLT-GRU
CLT-LHR (replacing LGW)
DCA-SAN
DCA-Jackson
PHL-SLC
PHL-AUS
PHL-SAT

I've left out the DCA and LGA slot swap. Nothing major just slow, steady, profitable growth. That's what you'd expect out of a small carrier that wants to make $$$.


User currently offlineitrade From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12411 times:

US's fleet is larger than it was 10 years ago. In the start of 2003, US had 280 mainline craft. It now has 344 - a 23% increase.

US flew 40 billion RPMs in 2002, and 62 billion in 2012 - a 50%+ increase.

US barely flew to Europe 15 years ago, and now serves well over a dozen different cities - with multiple frequencies from US's gateways. US barely flew to the Caribbean 15 years ago, and now has large scale coverage.

Etc., etc., etc.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11629 posts, RR: 61
Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12404 times:

Quoting itrade (Reply 123):
US's fleet is larger than it was 10 years ago. In the start of 2003, US had 280 mainline craft. It now has 344 - a 23% increase.

US flew 40 billion RPMs in 2002, and 62 billion in 2012 - a 50%+ increase.

Well ... it should be substantially larger. After all, US merged with another airline between 2003 and 2012! I think the more appropriate comparison - for US and for all the other legacy airlines - is what proportion of their system ASMs were generated by mainline aircraft then as compared to now?


User currently offlinemiaami From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 589 posts, RR: 0
Reply 125, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12377 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 121):
The unions have so far not agreed to any of the changes in the work rules that they now work under, they were all placed on them by the judge. Like it or not in chpt.11 the unions always get the short end of the stick, ask those working for all the other carriers that went through chpt.11

You may want to do some research. All the AA unions voted for the contracts they are currently working under. The judge did not impose any work rules on the unions.


User currently offlineitrade From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12364 times:

Could be done for some - but hard to do for others as some carriers publish stats on wholly owned subsidiaries AND contract carriers, while others do not.

What I have noticed is how airlines control costs and revenues. US's system load factor in 1990 (not long after it merged with Piedmont and was working through its acquisition of PSA) was 59.8% with RPMs of 60,059 million. US's 2012 load factor was 82.9% with RPMs of 73,318 million (mainline and express).

Just because you were bigger in 1996 or 1990 doesn't mean you were better.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12424 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 121):
Quoting user444555 (Reply 115):
Yes but the AA unions make up about a third of the committee and I doubt they would support it.

The unions have so far not agreed to any of the changes in the work rules that they now work under, they were all placed on them by the judge. Like it or not in chpt.11 the unions always get the short end of the stick, ask those working for all the other carriers that went through chpt.11

Quoting user444555 (Reply 115):
Breaking up the company would probably result in the termination of pensions as opposed to the current freeze and would probably lose another UCC member, the PBGC.

DL did its pensions different from UA in their chpt.11 filing, so far AA has followed suit, but make no mistake, stand alone or merge, pensions will be adjusted, it is a huge liability for AA which must be addressed. I would be shocked to see AA emerge from chpt.11 without a reprieve from its massive pension obligation.

All unionized groups at AA are working under new contracts that last several years. I know some of the unions voted in the new contracts. Some might have had them imposed, but in bankruptcy it does not matter if they agree or disagree, in the end what matters is what the court imposes. Whether or not the AA unions still disagree does not matter. The contracts improve if the merger goes through which is why you see the unions fighting hard and upset with the Obama administration. I read a press release saying the TWU delivered petitions to Holder today.

I am confused by your statement regarding pensions. AA has dealt with them and without the DOJ lawsuit they were due to emerge this month. I am not sure why you think the pensions have not been dealt with already. They may be underfunded but AA agreed to PBGC requests to freeze them instead of terminating them which means AA will be responsible for the amounts accrued before they were frozen after bankruptcy. If they were terminated they would fall on the PBGC. I think you are right that DL and UA did them differently, but DL had a lot less unionized employees than UA. Most people don't realize it but WN is one of the most unionized airlines in the US. But back to AA and pensions. The PBGC sits on the AA Unsecured Creditor's Committee and convinced AA to freeze the pensions not terminate them. If AA is broken up in bankruptcy that would probably change. That is why I think it would take a lot for DL to get a majority of the UCC to agree to a different plan. Anything is possible but I doubt that would happen. There may be people on here who know more about this than me.


User currently offlineuser444555 From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12422 times:

Quoting miaami (Reply 125):
You may want to do some research. All the AA unions voted for the contracts they are currently working under. The judge did not impose any work rules on the unions.

There you go I thought someone might know more.


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 129, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12396 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 117):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114):Name one airline that has a positive long-term forecast.
Delta, united, spirit, jetblue.

He said "forecast", not prognosis.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineitrade From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 130, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 12422 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 122):

CLT-GRU
CLT-LHR (replacing LGW)
DCA-SAN
DCA-Jackson
PHL-SLC
PHL-AUS
PHL-SAT

I've left out the DCA and LGA slot swap. Nothing major just slow, steady, profitable growth. That's what you'd expect out of a small carrier that wants to make $$$.

US flew to 119 airports in 10 countries in 1995. US currently flies to 203 airports in 31 countries today. I think there has been soem growth, no?


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12333 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 113):
US, on the other hand, has a fleet that is not ancient but certainly not young. The company has a network that is - by Doug Parker's own frank admission - at a revenue-generating disadvantage to competitors, including AA. And of course - most importantly - US today has a business model built upon below-market labor costs, which I simply do not think will be sustainable once US' unions finally get their acts together and/or demand parity with their peers at AA, DL and UA.

I get what you're saying, but I think some are saying that US will FAIL and I am just trying to wrap my arms around that. For starters, when was the last time a carrier their size in the US "failed", as in "folded"? Eastern or Pan Am a quarter century ago? Short of "folded", they will likely continue to lumber along, propped up by investors, and be a scurge on the industry IF it all hits the fan, but if things remain somewhat stable for the industry (a big IF) then I don't see why they can't have some semblance of success?

If nothing else, there's always US+AS or US+B6 (both unlikely) or perhaps a break-up of the company. Regardless, I just don't see them "folding" anytime in the forseeable future.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineLonghornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3298 posts, RR: 44
Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12283 times:

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131):
For starters, when was the last time a carrier their size in the US "failed", as in "folded"?

TWA. They were on the verge of liquidating in Chapter 7 when they were acquired by AA. To call it anything other than "folding" is semantics.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 131):
I don't see why they can't have some semblance of success?

Because their entire system is predicated on razor thin margins made possible by their low costs. Their costs are fixing to rise due to labor contracts being renegotiated, and a massive influx of debt payments in the next couple of years. Parker and Kirby know this, and they see the writing on the wall. That's why they are absolutely desperate for this merger.

US won't "fold" in the sense that they will just go away. They would be parted out.

Cheers,
Cameron


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12204 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 132):
TWA. They were on the verge of liquidating in Chapter 7 when they were acquired by AA. To call it anything other than "folding" is semantics.

Ya, I thought about TWA. I couldn't remember the way it went down, though they obviously were troubled.

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 132):
US won't "fold" in the sense that they will just go away. They would be parted out.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 134, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 12206 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 132):
Because their entire system is predicated on razor thin margins

Their operating margin was almost 8% last quarter, so not quite "razor thin", although it was lower (about 1.5% in Q1)

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 132):
influx of debt payments in the next couple of years

Which is why, absent a merger, US will have to focus more on the revenue side of the equation. It's not impossible, but would take more effort than simply merging and having the problem "go away".

I personally don't think that US would fail (or be split up). Depending on what the economy does, another trip through Ch 11 isn't completely out of the question within the next decade, but so long as things hold up economically then they can probably muddle by.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12039 times:

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 132):
Their costs are fixing to rise due to labor contracts being renegotiated, and a massive influx of debt payments in the next couple of years. Parker and Kirby know this, and they see the writing on the wall. That's why they are absolutely desperate for this merger.

US won't "fold" in the sense that they will just go away. They would be parted out.

So chpt.11 again to resolve those issues along with finally getting their pilot groups onto the same page is not an option?
As long as a business is able to find new investors chpt.11 is an option.

We all know about the billions that the airline industry was loosing pre and post 9/11 yet there was no shortage of new money, if the merger does not go off I honestly do not see any reason based on current conditions why both carriers cannot continue to operate. In the case of US, absent the merger, what exactly is there to get their pilots together to finally get a contract in place, they have been in court for years with rulings for and against and still no deal.....


User currently offlineflflyguy From United States of America, joined May 2004, 244 posts, RR: 3
Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 11977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Judge says trial should be before March .......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...irways-trial-idUKBRE97T0IJ20130830

Since she has a schedule conflict in early 2014, hopefully this means she will approve AA/US request for November trial.

[Edited 2013-08-30 07:05:02]


The views expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer.
User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11942 times:

Quoting dallasnewark (Reply 118):
Do you have any real data to back up your statements? How many corportate contracts have they lost to Delta and United?
I'm pretty sure you can't back up your statements with real data.
Quoting flflyguy (Reply 136):

Judge says trial should be before March .......

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/0...irways-trial-idUKBRE97T0IJ20130830

Since she has a schedule conflict in early 2014, hopefully this means she will approve AA/US request for November trial.

Yep, that is exactly what it means.
Like I said a few days ago, the judge isn't going to put up with the BS from the Doj. They are going to have to actually build a strong case in the time allotted.

My guess is now the doj moves to settle.


User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 138, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11897 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 135):
So chpt.11 again to resolve those issues along with finally getting their pilot groups onto the same page is not an option?
As long as a business is able to find new investors chpt.11 is an option.

So if the long term viability is an issue for US then why not us that angle to push the merger with the doj? People seem to think it would work with AA why not inclue US's viability in this fight?


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11741 times:

Quote:
RT @Lebeaucarnews: BREAKING: Federal Judge set Nov. 25th as trial date for USAir/AMR anti-trust hearing.


User currently offlineAABB777 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11801 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Judge has set the DOJ vs AA/US trial date: November 25.

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11713 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 138):
So if the long term viability is an issue for US then why not us that angle to push the merger with the doj? People seem to think it would work with AA why not inclue US's viability in this fight?

The issue was in relation to the merger not being approved.


User currently offlineitrade From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11691 times:

Happy thanksgiving....Would hate to be an attorney with vacation plans!

User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 143, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11656 times:

Thank God the judge did not go with the March date, this outcome of this trial affects the lives of employees of both airlines. It was crystal clear the DOJ was using delay tactics, delay long enough and they will go away.


Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11594 times:

Quoting itrade (Reply 142):
Happy thanksgiving....Would hate to be an attorney with vacation plans!

With the money they'll make, they can buy a Turkey farm when they're done.  
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 134):
Which is why, absent a merger, US will have to focus more on the revenue side of the equation. It's not impossible, but would take more effort than simply merging and having the problem "go away".

I have felt for a long time that US' strongest asset is it's access to the northeast business markets. While I understand the slot-swap with DL, I really thought they had a great positioning in the market to be a stronger regional player in the business market. Three-class Airbus and E-jets (First/PLUS/Economy), good hard and decent soft product, less reliance on leisure markets, and probably a smaller overall fleet (including regionals). Regardless of whether this would be a realistic direction for them, it would have at least put more focus on the RASM side of things and positioned them a little stronger in their strongest market.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently onlineflyua From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 318 posts, RR: 6
Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11604 times:

chepos, I've been meaning to write to you in this thread:

Take heart! From a fellow airline employee who has "gone through the fire" of working for an airline which has seen dark, depressing days and a very uncertain future, hold on. Don't lose hope. And please try not to let the negative, doomsday comments on this addictive website get you down. USAirways and her employees will rise again. Your uniform wings may, at some point, be a different color metal or design, but I strongly believe you will be wearing them with pride for a very long time.

Best wishes,
flyua.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 1
Reply 146, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11544 times:

Quoting flyua (Reply 145):

Wow ! Thanks flyua!!


User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11537 times:

Quoting flyua (Reply 145):
chepos, I've been meaning to write to you in this thread:

Take heart! From a fellow airline employee who has "gone through the fire" of working for an airline which has seen dark, depressing days and a very uncertain future, hold on. Don't lose hope. And please try not to let the negative, doomsday comments on this addictive website get you down. USAirways and her employees will rise again. Your uniform wings may, at some point, be a different color metal or design, but I strongly believe you will be wearing them with pride for a very long time.

Best wishes,
flyua.

Thx a million for the encouragement, it means a lot coming from a fellow airline employee. To many on this website airplanes are just a hobby and they could care less what happens to an airline, as long as it is not the one they cheer-lead for. For me and for the thousands who work at both of these companies this is personal so we live and breathe it. In this case justice delayed was going to be justice denied, I do not know what will happen but at least the companies will have a chance to argue their point..



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11493 times:

Quoting chepos (Reply 147):
To many on this website airplanes are just a hobby and they could care less what happens to an airline, as long as it is not the one they cheer-lead for.

I doubt it. Most everyone knows someone in the industry. Several close family friends work for various airlines for me, and I certainly would have a emotional response to their misfortune should something happen. Of course we don't have the same emotional investment as an employee, but to categorize the board as full f people watching form the sidelines would be incorrect.


User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1844 posts, RR: 2
Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11459 times:

I think that the DOJ was using their stall tactics to show just what kind of Turkeys they are. Maybe they'll settle and avoid getting STUFFED in court and getting served on a silver platter with cranberry sauce! Yes I know I used a bunch of Thanksgiving references there, but it's true. I've never cared for politics!

User currently offlineflyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11372 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 148):
but to categorize the board as full f people watching form the sidelines would be incorrect.

Where did he say that? I believe he said:

Quoting chepos (Reply 147):
To many on this website airplanes are just a hobby and they could care less what happens to an airline
Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 148):
Several close family friends work for various airlines for me, and I certainly would have a emotional response to their misfortune should something happen

Thank you, and you sound sincere, and its appreciated.. however, the "emotional response" is not the same for all.. For example, take a look at any thread on here which highlights the negative/doom-and-gloom, dismal outlook of virtually any airline.. Its hundreds of post deep. Then, take a look at the post which highlight the positive.. barely the number of posts in comparison.. For example, Just find the post highlighting AA's profits this year.. No one wants to chime in on that. We on this board are as guilty as the media.. The sensationalism is in the "tragic." Haters gonna hate.. who cares.

AA ORD


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11316 times:

Quoting chepos (Reply 147):
To many on this website airplanes are just a hobby and they could care less what happens to an airline
Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 150):
Where did he say that?

See above.

And I agree with the second part whole heartedly.


User currently offlineflyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11363 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 151):
See above.

I did.. he said "to many" people, not TOO many people..


"to many" and "full of' are vastly different.

AA ORD


User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11315 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 148):
I doubt it. Most everyone knows someone in the industry. Several close family friends work for various airlines for me, and I certainly would have a emotional response to their misfortune should something happen. Of course we don't have the same emotional investment as an employee, but to categorize the board as full f people watching form the sidelines would be incorrect.

I've been a member of a.net for 12 years now, I have read it all on these boards. Yes, some members take joy in predicting the failure of certain carriers. Look up at threads that have to do with US Airways and you can see how negative those threads can get. As FlyFree 727 mentions, post a positive thread and it will remain almost empty until it disappears.

Regards,

Chepos



Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11213 times:

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 152):
I did.. he said "to many" people, not TOO many people..

True, I had just assumed it was a typo. That was dumb of me!

Quoting chepos (Reply 153):
I've been a member of a.net for 12 years now, I have read it all on these boards. Yes, some members take joy in predicting the failure of certain carriers. Look up at threads that have to do with US Airways and you can see how negative those threads can get. As FlyFree 727 mentions, post a positive thread and it will remain almost empty until it disappears.

As I mentioned above, I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant a majority, instead of just some.


User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11215 times:

Any guess on how long a trial?? My best guess would be 30-60 days??

User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11213 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 155):
Any guess on how long a trial?? My best guess would be 30-60 days??

More on the order of 10-12, especially since DOJ won't have the time to really go after some of the more peripheral stuff now given that the carriers got something much closer to what they wanted on timing. These things do tend to drag a bit longer than estimated, typically, but I'd be surprised if it went over 15 days.

[Edited 2013-08-30 11:57:26]

User currently offlineECAMActions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11114 times:

So you think they will settle now?

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11107 times:

Is this type of case a jury trial? Or will the judge decide the case?

User currently offlinechepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 6219 posts, RR: 11
Reply 159, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 11056 times:

A judge will decide the case.


Fly the Flag!!!!
User currently offlineIADCA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1291 posts, RR: 8
Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11033 times:

Quoting ECAMActions (Reply 157):
So you think they will settle now?

I don't think it's tremendously more or less likely now than before this morning. On the one hand, the DOJ has more time pressure than they were counting on, which might make them more likely to want to settle. On the other, AA and US now have a trial date that allows them to try the case without needing to negotiate an extension of the merger agreement, which likely makes them more hesitant to offer more concessions (as they can now get a full yes or no within that time). It certainly improves AA and US' bargaining power. That said, cases where money isn't the issue are harder to settle in general. I'm very reluctant to put a probability on it, as I really don't know how far apart they are.

I doubt that a 90% loss on the trial date is likely to cause the DOJ to suddenly think DCA slots are the best they can get, but I'm speculating of course. The trial date is still almost 3 months away, which means a lot of office-bound weekends and late nights for both sides, but it's doable. As I've said, DOJ already has a lot of the most salient documents around from the Second Request. This just might mean fewer depositions, which might not be a bad thing for anyone involved.

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 158):

Is this type of case a jury trial? Or will the judge decide the case?