mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:52 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited 2012-07-17 02:54:03]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Braniff747SP
Posts: 2567
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:56 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:59 am

Yeah, that'll get passed the DOT no problem.
The 747 will always be the TRUE queen of the skies!
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:27 am

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

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

Let them compete.

Nothing stopping them. (as before........)
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
picarus
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 6:51 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:01 am

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

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

Picarus
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:45 am

Why would we want what is a National Monopoly ? IF service stinks now it would be like the 1980's Avianca of Colombia, they treated their passengers like dirt. For whatever faults the current system has, one mega airline is NOT the answer.
 
User avatar
kordcj
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:18 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:03 pm

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

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

It's 7a and I haven't had my coffee yet so this may not make sense to me in 2 hours...
The most obvious proof for intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't tried to contact us.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:18 pm

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

Not even worth discussing because we will never see it in our lifetime.
It is what it is...
 
User avatar
KGRB
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:19 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:38 pm

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

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

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

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

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

Not to mention that a work stoppage or computer failure at such an airline would be catastrophic for the US economy. This entity would be "too big to fail" - even more so than GM, Chrysler, Chase, BofA, etc.
Flown on 9E/AA/AL/CP/DL/EV/HP/MQ/NW/PT/OO/OH/UA/US/XJ/YV/YX/ZW
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:42 pm

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

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

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

ULA was only approved by the government as it was the only option available. Without the merger one or both of Boeing/LM's launch divisions were going to fold, which they are going to do anyways, but the merger allowed time for competitors to be viable.
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:52 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 6):

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

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

NOPE! Never ever would that be allowed. Even the carriers wouldn't support it. They (rightly so)
don't trust each other, imagine how they would bicker over who got what feed from what cities.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:53 pm

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

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

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

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

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

The American flying public deserve it.

[Edited 2012-07-17 11:59:19 by srbmod]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:44 pm

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

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

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):

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

The American flying public deserve it.

Sure they do, they deserve whatever they pay for. We repeatedly vote with our wallets and will try Spirit if it's $5 less. I don't understand the sense of entitlement you present.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:46 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions of more integration in this are met with contempt.

What happened to these days....



They may have been badly managed in the end but at least they once had the guts and ambition to be the best for a while.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:50 pm

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

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

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

That isnt the fault of UA, AA and DL. If people want to throw THEIR money at VX, it is their prerogative. Merging UA/AA and DL into one awful airline that has to streamline isnt going to stop bad idea like VX.
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:01 pm

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

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

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

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

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):

Suggestions of more integration in this are met with contempt.

What happened to these days....

Well, to be fair, PanAm existed in a time of far, far less integration - there is no logical reason that greater consolidation would result in a better product. The fewer options there are, the fewer choices the consumer has, the less any one of those competitors needs to attempt to differentiate themselves because people are forced onto one of them. If you whittle it down to only one massive national legacy carrier, why would that carrier make any attempt to provide an excellent experience when you have no choice but to fly them on the majority of routes?
 
catiii
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:13 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rightfully so.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:14 pm

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

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



BTW, what are these "holes" you speak of? Using your logic, there should only be one provider of any product or service in the country, removing any choice from the consumer, for the most part. One auto manufacturer, one food provider, etc. Does that REALLY make sense to you?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
DLPMMM
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:34 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:17 pm

Mikey72, you need to get out more.

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

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

Maybe you should take a closer look at the EU markets and their recent financial results...
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:39 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's just 'another' excuse.

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

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

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

That would become the problem of the competition.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:43 pm

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

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

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

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

Hoorah I hear you cry.

[Edited 2012-07-17 08:47:56]
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:43 pm

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

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



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


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

And, as someone else has mentioned, widebodies don't automatically mean better service for the customers, if indeed that is lacking. All things being equal, isn't it better to fly a full 737-900 than a half full widebody?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:25 pm

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

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

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

Yeah I know I do appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

To put something out there and then get pelted with a barrage of reasons 'why not' is a good way to get an understanding.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 22):

Sorry, but considering most of your "logic", I think there's a place for you in the market strategy department at "Family Airlines"......  
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
peanuts
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 4:38 pm

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

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

Well, US Domestic is a whole different animal and is easily misunderstood from abroad.
Going the USFlot route, as much as the current WH would LOVE the idea, is definitely not the way to go.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:28 pm

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

mmmm......well let's just hope that one day the U.S.A has an international airline befitting of such a great country.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
aeroblogger
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:53 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:35 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 23):
Sorry, but considering most of your "logic", I think there's a place for you in the market strategy department at "Family Airlines"......

Nah, I think Baltia is a better bet - after all, they currently have a VLA  

[Edited 2012-07-17 10:36:02]
Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
 
SkyTeamTriStar
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:47 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:55 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):

Welcome to FREE ENTERPRISE. Socialism doesn't work.
 
catiii
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:06 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
They don't compare to SQ, CX, EK, QR, QF, NZ, BA, LH etc on international....everyone knows that.

"Everyone" does? I'd rather take DL, UA, or even AA over BA, LH, AF, et al.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
No i'm not i'm demonstrating that the only area they can justify any sort of investment is domestic.

No, you're not justifying anything. You complain about the domestic network, which you clearly do not understand, and then further demonstrate that lack of understanding by making absolute statements that they need to order widebody aircraft which in your mind is some indicator of success.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 25):
mmmm......well let's just hope that one day the U.S.A has an international airline befitting of such a great country.

We have 3.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:08 pm

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

So Branson and other foreign investors come in and set up a proxy domestic carrier for cabotage, then funnel money into it to disrupt the profitable routes of their main competitors and steal profitable connecting traffic from foreign carriers, and this is proof that there are holes that a monopoly can fill?

Had the courts shut down VX after finding their ownership was not following the law instead of giving them an "out" that allows for "domestic" investors to take over some of the illegal ownership (invested in indirectly by the same foreign entities no doubt), then VX wouldn't be around to steal premium traffic and below cost in the first place.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:11 pm

Quoting steex (Reply 12):
Sure they do, they deserve whatever they pay for.
Quoting SkyTeamTriStar (Reply 27):
Welcome to FREE ENTERPRISE. Socialism doesn't work.

Skytrax isn't perfect but below is what they are publishing about 'all 4' American legacies.

One or even two not so good airlines you could deal with but all 4.....that ain't right ?

AA - (3.3 out of 10)

Horrible airline with extremely bad service. Although check in at both airports was both fast and steady, the cabin experience was atrocious. The flight attendants are very rude, they ran out of food for a 6 hour journey from JFK to LHR and half the plane was starving. Seats were very uncomfortable and the entertainment was below the bar.

The service was terrible. Staff unprofessional and unpleasant. It seems that the passengers and their needs are an obstacle the crew is trying to overcome. The plane was old with a few monitors constantly with advertising and other nonsense that should not be forced on passengers.

Flight attendants were very rude and abrupt with all passengers.

UA - (4 out of 10)

Used to be a frequent flyer of Continental and decided to try UA after the merger. The flight to China and back was terrible! 747-400 had terrible entertainment options. The food was disgusting. On the first leg from SFO, the rice in the chicken was very hard. On the way back, we were sitting on the tarmac for 2 hours. My seat would not recline and the table would crashed down with the lightest touch. The trip was very bad with 8 min lines at every economy bathroom on the plane. I will not fly United again.

Having allowed for second chances and have tried United on several occasions. I have now refused to fly with United on business trips. Ground services and lounges are below par against other airlines. No match to the likes of Lufthansa or KLM and especially Singapore.

DL - (3.8 out of 10)

My family's recent flight with Delta from Sydney to LAX was substandard in every respect. These are not the standards of care and competence which one expects from an international airline conducting long haul flights.

Flight from LHR-JFK delayed, on way back wasn't allowed to check in even though it was still under the 60 minute check in time. Delta supervisor at JFK Terminal 3 was extremely rude and unhelpful had to rebook a flight for the following day and pay a penalty, even that flight was delayed. Never flying Delta again, pay more and travel with a reputable airline.

US - (3.3 out of 10)

Very rude and unacceptable behavior. I will never fly US Airways again.

I only flew US Airways because I had to.

Next time I will pay extra to fly to another city to take a different airline.

FR gets 3 out of 10 !!!
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19046
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 13):
They may have been badly managed in the end but at least they once had the guts and ambition to be the best for a while.

Pan Am was never "the best". They had weak management for most of their history, not just at the end. They made many very poor decisions and their service was never much better than average.
 
aeroblogger
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:53 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:28 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Skytrax isn't perfect but below is what they are publishing about 'all 4' American legacies.

You are utterly missing the point. Combining the carriers into 1 would result in lower ratings, because the lack of competition would cause fares to rise and standards to fall.

Regardless, SkyTrax is complete rubbish mostly. Calling it "not perfect" is extremely generous.
Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:29 pm

Unless I'm mistaken, Skytrax has shown a non-U.S. carrier bias in the past......seems like that still remains



Anyway, that's 10 flights out of how many? Is this really a definitive sampling of the way pax feel about the carriers? I'll agree that even these incidents are too many, but I'm pretty sure that not all feel this way. BA's F/As don't always have the best reputation, do they?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
flyguy89
Posts: 1948
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:38 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
They don't compare to SQ, CX, EK, QR, QF, NZ, BA, LH etc on international....everyone knows that

The markets those airlines serve are much different than the markets served by US legacies.

SQ: One hub, no domestic market located smack-dab in the middle of a high-density, high-premium market with most of the Asian population centers within a 4-6 flight of it's hub.

CX: Practically the same as SQ.

EK: One hub, no domestic market, specializes in funneling high volumes of passengers through DXB which has little O&D traffic.

QR: See EK.

QF: Somewhat more comparable, but the Australian air market it smaller than the US and while QF does have a good product, they're not doing well financially are they?

NZ: See CX or SQ...only difference being is that they actually have somewhat of a domestic market.

BA: One hub, pathetic domestic network and while BA does provide great service, they provide little equity to the UK outside of London...US carriers have more long-haul ops to more UK cities than does BA. Sure, again they have great service, but their relevance to the rest of the UK is diluted when you have to connect in LHR to fly them...then they have to compete with KL, AF, and EI which all also offer competitive one-stop itineraries. And even though they've managed to consolidate down to a single mega-hub in London with economies of scale to operate VLA's, they still often find themselves struggling financially and cutting service standards.

LH: Probably the only carrier listed here operating in an environment comparable to the US. Multiple hubs, decent-sized domestic market...but I wouldn't say their service is astoundingly greater than US carriers in Economy or Business...perhaps in First but that's a small percentage of LH's seats.

In short, domestic service in the US is not deplorable. Yes TSA sucks, but otherwise it's fine and in certain aspects better than Europe (actual business class seats and not just economy seats with the middle seat free)...it varies from airline to airline. IMO Delta offers the best domestic economy product among the legacies with AA having the best domestic first class product.

Long Haul...well if the US legacies were really that terrible then people would be flocking to the foreign carriers in droves, but they don't. Additionally, the decentralized aspect of the US both warrants and benefits from the use of 767-size wide-bodies, it opens up more US cities to new international service which otherwise wouldn't exist in a more centralized environment...the number of US cities with long-haul service is huge compared to other countries and it's very beneficial economically, so in that aspect we are MUCH better served by our carriers than their global counterparts.
 
rwy04lga
Posts: 1976
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:21 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:59 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 11):
I think something needs to change.

Yeah, cheapos should pay more.

Quoting catiii (Reply 16):
unparallelled networks.

Needed to be repeated....UNPARALLELED NETWORKS

Quoting mayor (Reply 17):
One auto manufacturer, one food provider, etc

My choices...Burger King...Coca Cola...Boeing...Exxon...General Motors...Pizza Hut...

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
If it meant they could generate a half decent profit that would sustain continued re-investment and improving standards I'd be all for it.

Delta made a $1.2B profit last year, That's not decent enough for you? How much did BA make?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
They don't compare to SQ, CX, EK, QR, QF, NZ, BA, LH etc on international....everyone knows that.

Half of those mentioned have only one hub and NO domestic system...the others have a few more hubs and SOME domestic. 'Everyone knows' that the money is in international flights, so the likes of SQ, CX, EK, QR make tons of money without the expense of domestic structure and without the domestic competition. The others have little competition compared to the US airlines. US airlines have to compete on two fronts while other airlines don't. T'aint easy being an airline in the US.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 19):
That's just 'another' excuse.
That's just another cop-out answer without ANY substance
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
My family's recent flight with Delta from Sydney to LAX was substandard in every respect.

Why did you choose them?

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
I will not fly United again.
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Never flying Delta again
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
never fly US Airways again

So, it's American or walk.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
Next time I will pay extra
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 30):
pay more and travel with a reputable airline.

I'll bet THAT's why you chose Delta...or was it the choice CheapTickets.com gave you?
Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
 
steex
Posts: 1330
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):

In defense of mikey72, the reviews of the American carriers he was posting were not his experiences, they were pulled from SkyTrax. Whether or not that is a valid source or those are cherry-picked reviews is another issue, but they weren't his words.
 
mikey72
Topic Author
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 1:31 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:29 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):
Delta made a $1.2B profit last year,

Delta Airlines is currently losing money and United-Continental has a profit margin of 0.86%

The stocks are now on a 'sell rating'

We all know about AA.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):
How much did BA make?

That's relevant to this discussion why ? (BA have never had the luxury of Chapter 11 if you insist on going there)

Look, bar the Asian/Gulf carriers who's pockets are lined with gold most other carriers have area's to improve upon..............including BA.

Tit for tat is futile.

Maybe now we have seen the final foray into Chapter 11 and when the economy does finally improve standards will rise.

Things always get so heavy on here...i'm not going to participate anymore.
Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:38 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
Delta Airlines is currently losing money and United-Continental has a profit margin of 0.86%

I'd be willing to bet that DL turns in another profit, this year. Care to take that bet?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
blueman87
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:29 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:44 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
That's relevant to this discussion why ? (BA have never had the luxury of Chapter 11 if you insist on going there)

you mentioned there losing money you mad it relavant by making this comment

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
Delta Airlines is currently losing money and United-Continental has a profit margin of 0.86%

The stocks are now on a 'sell rating'

We all know about AA.
B6 T5 JFK DL T2/3 JFK
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:49 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
BA have never had the luxury of Chapter 11 if you insist on going there

BA had the luxury of being at least partially government owned, correct?
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:07 pm

What I expect to happen, slightly in the same direction, as it is with the bulk of the regional jets already now, is that the airline brand that sells the tickets and defines the levels of service will not be the operator of the plane - once Republic has its A319NEO they will fly for other brands I expect as an example,and maybe also fly AAs A320NEO. This will literally allow to fly a larger aircraft with AA passengers on the left side and DL passengers on the right, or use front and back and board through different jet ways maybe even from different floors. That AA or UA operate the mainline aircraft itself still today is only warranted through working contracts, if it is cheaper to have a carrier who cares for getting the aircraft from A to B and provides this service to the brands I see no reason this not to work.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:11 pm

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

It is the DOJ (Justice Department) not Transportation that would have an issue. In the late 1920s, Bill Boeing tried to build a vertically integrated aviation company that included among other companies, Boeing, United Airlines, Pratt & Whitney, and Hamilton Standard Propeller. It was broken up in 1934 under anti-trust law. Horizontal integration would not go over any better.

Declining service is not just in the USA, it is all over deregulation regions. Passengers do not want to pay for service, so they do not get it. A single domestic carrier would drop even more small cities or feed them all to a remote megahub because all unprofitable routes would be dropped or reduced a profit making level of service.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3018
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:47 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Thread starter):

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

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

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

I think they call it a stroke.

Quoting catiii (Reply 27):

"Everyone" does? I'd rather take DL, UA, or even AA over BA, LH, AF, et al.

I agree. BA for me was not a great experience nor was UA, but it depends more what airline will suit my needs at the time then what experience I have had on them.

Quoting catiii (Reply 27):
We have 3.

Right now we have 4 soon may be down to 3.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:54 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
That's relevant to this discussion why ? (BA have never had the luxury of Chapter 11 if you insist on going there)

Mikey, read your previous posts, when you are backed into a corner, you pull the Airline system across the globe card. You have done it with EK/BA posts before.

You do show a terrible understanding of the global airline system, but enjoy trying to put down faults of each area. You say you get out a lot, but I am not so sure. It is amazing to me how different the airline industries are globally, and the changes that are happening, yes, even in USA. Air travel is in constant flux, be it LCC's or legacies.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
Things always get so heavy on here...i'm not going to participate anymore.

This is up to you, but before your start posts and send such replies, you need to sit back and read some of the past topics and understand global aviation. People on here reply to you, you dismiss it out of hand, but these people have experience and I am sorry you do not. Read and learn before telling us how bad we all are.

Don't make yourself such an easy target.

Anyway, looks like you need to worry about UK. Olympic security is a failure, APD is gonna kill you, UK Goverment lack of Transport Policy and spine is going great, but at least you have some water for the ducks.
 
SkyTeamTriStar
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:47 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:02 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 37):
Quoting mikey72 (Reply 36):
Delta Airlines is currently losing money and United-Continental has a profit margin of 0.86%

I'd be willing to bet that DL turns in another profit, this year. Care to take that bet?

I second that! DL has been on the right path with their employees' morale, which in turn will become better customer service results. UA has a new CEO that is not on the employees side. All of this will turn into making more money for their companies.
Poor employee morale--->poor daily habits----->poor operating results = profits lost.
 
catiii
Posts: 2394
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting SkyTeamTriStar (Reply 44):
UA has a new CEO that is not on the employees side.

Not to get off topic, but that's such a blanket generalization that you should retract it.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6188
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:22 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 40):
What I expect to happen, slightly in the same direction, as it is with the bulk of the regional jets already now, is that the airline brand that sells the tickets and defines the levels of service will not be the operator of the plane - once Republic has its A319NEO they will fly for other brands I expect as an example,and maybe also fly AAs A320NEO. This will literally allow to fly a larger aircraft with AA passengers on the left side and DL passengers on the right, or use front and back and board through different jet ways maybe even from different floors. That AA or UA operate the mainline aircraft itself still today is only warranted through working contracts, if it is cheaper to have a carrier who cares for getting the aircraft from A to B and provides this service to the brands I see no reason this not to work.

And those self same contracts and the scope clauses, within, are the reasons this won't happen.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:51 pm

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 10):
The American flying public deserve it.

No. I saw a lovely chart posted by a blogger showing the "rise" in airfare compared to the rise in gas, Big Macs, and the CPI.

Here it is (don't know how to source):


Self explanatory.

Quoting mikey72 (Reply 10):
What is ridiculous is that there are so many holes in the way the U.S legacy domestic airline industry is run that an airline like VX can come along and still be in business after 5 years of not making a profit.

There's gaps because either: a) slot control imposed by the government, b) it's not cost effective to have every single destination serviced. You may argue government subsidisation will make that "obtainable" but look at Amtrak. Not tit for tat but look at what gov't owned corporations tend to do, or rather not do, in the US.
Fly Delta Jets
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:05 pm

Mikey72...

The US Airlines DON'T need A380s, sorry.

That seems to be the focus or objective of all your strange scenarios.

DL is strong and healthy now, you just can't take a loss for a quarter from a Japanese earthquake or bad oil hedging and say they're a failure of a carrier.

How are many of the European legacies doing?

What do you see as the big problem? You seem to be jumping all around and saying that there are only a bunch of excuses? No A380s? That's not a problem. Bad service? Merging the legacies into one airline will certainly NOT help.

I think you need to lurk more, or at least be more humble in your suggestions. You seem to be way off the mark in regards to the airline world, but many of us are... we just don't go making outrageous statements when we are unsure of an answer.

If this was a good idea, I doubt an airline enthusiast on airliners.net would be the first person to come up with this plan...
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
jfk777
Posts: 5861
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: AA, DL, UA - Tri-Owned Domestic Carrier

Tue Jul 17, 2012 11:24 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
How many more years was PA in existence after their merger with National? Indeed, they were doing poorly when that merger happened. They did all they could, i.e. selling assets, etc. that they could to stay afloat. Do we know how much infusion of money VX is getting from it's investors to keep them afloat, or did they have enough to begin with to stave off any problems?

10 years, the merger in 1981 and closed down in 1991.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 30):
Pan Am was never "the best". They had weak management for most of their history, not just at the end. They made many very poor decisions and their service was never much better than average.

It depends on what the "best" was. PA was often "first" to many things with 707 and 747 and 747SP. PA service was decent until the late 1970's, back then no one had Lie-flat seats and crazy IFE systems, PA service had the same things AF,LH, JAL and Qantas had.

Trippe was doing things his "way" and every obe else could go to hell. CEO's after him had the "ghost" of Trippe to deal with. The 747SP were to be "first" from JFK to Tokyo & SFO to HKG, if they didn't make money PA didn't really care, they had to be "first". Speeding like a drunken sailor for National was the transformitive deal that was the first chapter of the end.