speedbird9
Topic Author
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:57 pm

WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:31 pm

apparently IAG and US Airways have signed a non-disclosure agreement with AMR.
US Airways have obviously done so in order to value AMR, in order to: make a bid, decide on whether to merge or make a merger bid.

IAG have done so in order to potentially protect their Oneworld partner if necessary.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2012/09/04/why-iag-is-mulling-stake-in-amr/
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:16 pm

Is IAG honestly worried about AA leaving Oneworld if US takes control? I mean, it's prudent to cover their butts, but isn't it already common knowledge that AA would stay in Oneworld - and that rival Star would be weakened?
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:24 pm

how is Star going to be weakened?? if it's because USAir might leave then you're LATE! That was common knowlege even on THIS board When the UA/CO merger was mentioned
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22943
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:28 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
Is IAG honestly worried about AA leaving Oneworld if US takes control?

Perhaps IAG is worried about how US would manage AA and how that might impact OneWorld?
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:31 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
Is IAG honestly worried about AA leaving Oneworld if US takes control? I mean, it's prudent to cover their butts, but isn't it already common knowledge that AA would stay in Oneworld - and that rival Star would be weakened?

I think all of these rumblings may just be an insurance policy, but I too, find it surprising that IAG would really be worried about AA bolting for Star. Not. Gonna. Happen. Regulators wouldn't like it. AA's many lucrative partners wouldn't like it. And perhaps most importantly - United really wouldn't like it.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:48 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 2):
how is Star going to be weakened?? if it's because USAir might leave then you're LATE! That was common knowlege even on THIS board When the UA/CO merger was mentioned

Huh? If you are saying it's a foregone conclusion, fine, but you can't just subtract an airline the size of US from Star and say it doesn't hurt. That's a lot of passengers and a much weaker network on the East Coast and in the Southeast. Star would no longer be THE dominant alliance domestically - it would be a much more even playing field.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Tue Sep 04, 2012 11:56 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 5):
Huh? If you are saying it's a foregone conclusion, fine, but you can't just subtract an airline the size of US from Star and say it doesn't hurt. That's a lot of passengers and a much weaker network on the East Coast and in the Southeast. Star would no longer be THE dominant alliance domestically - it would be a much more even playing field.

Absolutely.

If a merger takes place, it is definitely going to impact Star. Of course it won't be calamitous, but it will have an impact, particularly along the east coast, in the Atlantic Southeast, and especially in D.C., where plenty of high-yielding corporate and premium FFs split their flying between USAirways out of DCA for domestic and United out of IAD for transcon/longhaul/international.

If USAirways and AA merge, the combined entity in oneworld would split that D.C. market, and there would definitely be some amount of customers who would decide to stay with AA/oneworld, which would then have an even larger/stronger domestic operation at DCA plus connectivity to Europe and the Mid East via JFK/PHL/LHR, and to Asia over several connecting points as well.
 
avek00
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:52 pm

Odds are that at the time BA/IB and AA hammered out the Joint Business Agreement, the European side was probably able to extract far better terms due to AA's then-precarious position. While it's highly unlikely that US would insist upon scrapping the JBA, it's entirely possible that Parker would demand substantial revisions to the arrangement that would potentially compromise IAG's financial interests. Thus, IAG has taken steps to ensure it retains substantial clout in the disposition of AMR.
Live life to the fullest.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:20 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 5):
That's a lot of passengers and a much weaker network on the East Coast and in the Southeast.

The only major hole that would create in Star's network is CLT. Plus USAir's generous award availab

Once US-AA merges, it would be a tough decision to figure out how to right-size DCA-PHL-JFK-LGA (plus a sizable operation at BOS) without throwing away valuable assets or too much overlap. Based on US's and AA's track record, at least 1 of those would be in jeopardy.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8):
Once US-AA merges, it would be a tough decision to figure out how to right-size DCA-PHL-JFK-LGA (plus a sizable operation at BOS) without throwing away valuable assets or too much overlap. Based on US's and AA's track record, at least 1 of those would be in jeopardy.

Something tells me LGA would be cut down quite a bit. With the new airline very strong in BOS I think the shuttle would stay but anything else non-hub goes.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:44 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 7):
While it's highly unlikely that US would insist upon scrapping the JBA, it's entirely possible that Parker would demand substantial revisions to the arrangement that would potentially compromise IAG's financial interests.

Doubtful. Parker is the one on the outside looking in, and he needs IAG's buy-in as much as the other way around.given the massive amount of economic value the JBA generates for AMR today.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8):
Once US-AA merges, it would be a tough decision to figure out how to right-size DCA-PHL-JFK-LGA (plus a sizable operation at BOS) without throwing away valuable assets or too much overlap. Based on US's and AA's track record, at least 1 of those would be in jeopardy.

I doubt it. The combined airline's leading or quite strong position in all four of the major northeast business markets would be a unique position of strength, so not sure why there would be a need to "right-size" it at all, particularly since the combined airline's operations at all four airports would really all serve generally different purposes. I could see optimizing of schedules - particularly internationally - between JFK and PHL, but not much else.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 9):
Something tells me LGA would be cut down quite a bit. With the new airline very strong in BOS I think the shuttle would stay but anything else non-hub goes.

Not sure why. The combined airline would be sitting on a huge pool of slots at LGA that could be used to develop a strong O&D schedule to major business markets around the U.S./world, building on the strong existing AA presence in New York plus the limited, but helpful, network and slot pool USAirways would bring.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:56 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 10):
I doubt it. The combined airline's leading or quite strong position in all four of the major northeast business markets would be a unique position of strength, so not sure why there would be a need to "right-size" it at all, particularly since the combined airline's operations at all four airports would really all serve generally different purposes. I could see optimizing of schedules - particularly internationally - between JFK and PHL, but not much else.

BOS is also a major business market too. Might as well create another hub there while they're at it.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 11):
BOS is also a major business market too. Might as well create another hub there while they're at it.

Of course. That was one of the four major markets I was referring to - along with New York, Philadelphia and DC. Nonetheless, because of its location, BOS can never be a major airline hub.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:39 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
Of course. That was one of the four major markets I was referring to - along with New York, Philadelphia and DC. Nonetheless, because of its location, BOS can never be a major airline hub.

The post I was referencing mentioned cutting one of JFK, PHL, LGA and DCA - BOS not included. It probably depends on who ends up making the decisions, US' feelings on LGA are quite clear. If AA kept control, they would probably vote to hack away at PHL.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:08 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
Of course. That was one of the four major markets I was referring to - along with New York, Philadelphia and DC. Nonetheless, because of its location, BOS can never be a major airline hub.

Someone at jetBlue clearly didn't get the memo.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:13 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 14):
Someone at jetBlue clearly didn't get the memo.

Sure they did. BOS does not function as a hub for JetBlue. It's a big station with lots of flights, catering almost entirely to O&D. JetBlue does handle some connections over JFK, but it's not a hub.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:23 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 15):
Sure they did. BOS does not function as a hub for JetBlue. It's a big station with lots of flights, catering almost entirely to O&D. JetBlue does handle some connections over JFK, but it's not a hub.

Haven't you noticed nearly all the B6 expansion in the past few years were for BOS not JFK ? JFK is maxing out for everyone so B6 smartly turned to the next-best-thing for growth.

They're definitely making BOS into another hub (and they actually have international feed for it - just look at JL's literature promoting NRT-BOS)
 
luckyone
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:42 pm

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 5):
That's a lot of passengers and a much weaker network on the East Coast and in the Southeast. Star would no longer be THE dominant alliance domestically - it would be a much more even playing field.

For all but some intra-Southeast traffic Dulles and IAH can work just as well as Charlotte. I'm sure United would be happy to try to accommodate traffic going to the Midwest or Northeast via Dulles and traffic heading Westbound via Houston. Granted, neither option is as attractive or offers the options as the big dog in the Southeast -- Delta at ATL, but then again, neither does CLT anyway.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 3608
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:52 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 6):

I don't think Star losing DCA to oneworld would hurt it that much. Of course you have the frequent flier base and strong O&D, but IAD has just as good, if not better domestic connectivity, and not to mention its an international gateway for UA. Yes DCA is a better O&D airport, but IAD has more going for it, IMO. I do agree that they are losing a foothold in the southern US by losing CLT, but those that can be covered by IAH and IAD, and to a lesser extent, EWR and ORD.

On a side note, I applaud Parker for getting AA's labor on his side and helping to bring IAG into this.
Not every day we find light winds. What do we do in these situations? Fly.
 
aeroblogger
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:53 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:00 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 12):
Nonetheless, because of its location, BOS can never be a major airline hub.

Quite contrary, I think BOS has the potential to be a fantastic 757 TATL hub. The location is perfect for USA-Europe connections.
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
 
crAAzy
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 10):
Not sure why. The combined airline would be sitting on a huge pool of slots at LGA that could be used to develop a strong O&D schedule to major business markets around the U.S./world, building on the strong existing AA presence in New York plus the limited, but helpful, network and slot pool USAirways would bring.



Agreed. NYC is still on of AA's strengths and US knows this. In some ways I feel US did the slot swap because it knew an AA merger was eventually going to be on the table. It made sense to strengthen it's position at DCA where it probably had more valuable corporate contracts while reducing it's weakening presence at LGA knowing a combined AA/US would have to give up a significant amount of slots anyway. Now DL will still have more slots at LGA than a combined US/AA taking any regulatory issues in the NYC area out of the picture.

Additionally by DL and US swapping out the slots prior to any US/AA merger it likely significantly decreased the overall amount of slots that would have had to be divested limiting the LGA access to other carriers.

IMHO this was one of the smartest (although risky) moves by US's management. They knew darn well that while DL might have some temporary short term gains if an AA/US tie up eventually did come to fruition their combined slot portfolio in the NYC will not only be more than enough to compete with DL and UA but their strength of their network throughout the NE (PHL,NYC,BOS,DCA) would surpass both DL and UA. Add CLT and MIA and your a dominant #1 in 3-4 of the top 7 population centers on the east coast as well as being a strong #2 in another 2 markets.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 13):
The post I was referencing mentioned cutting one of JFK, PHL, LGA and DCA - BOS not included. It probably depends on who ends up making the decisions, US' feelings on LGA are quite clear. If AA kept control, they would probably vote to hack away at PHL.



No one is going to hack away PHL or LGA.



I'll also add into the mix that with a combine AA/US in WAS there will likely be a larger OW presence at IAD including an increase on select transcon flights with the new A321s (LAX, SFO), 2-3 daily flights to major business hubs (ORD, MIA, DFW, ATL, BOS, CLT, PHL, etc) and a handful of select international flights (BA,IB,AB,LA,JL,CX,AA).
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:17 pm

Quoting luckyone (Reply 17):
Granted, neither option is as attractive or offers the options as the big dog in the Southeast -- Delta at ATL, but then again, neither does CLT anyway.
CLT is almost as good as ATL on a domestic leve (in terms of destinations offered-obviously ATL offers more frequency)l. Its internationally that ATL blows CLT out of the water.

[Edited 2012-09-05 14:18:42]
It is what it is...
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4588
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:28 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 21):
CLT is almost as good as ATL on a domestic level. Its internationally that ATL blows CLT out of the water.

CLT is great domestically. The funny thing is the idea that IAD/IAH can cover the Southeast effectively.

US leaving Star would sting. No excuse to be made about it. UA also loses codeshare feed with nobody to replace it.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:57 pm

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 20):
IMHO this was one of the smartest (although risky) moves by US's management. They knew darn well that while DL might have some temporary short term gains if an AA/US tie up eventually did come to fruition their combined slot portfolio in the NYC will not only be more than enough to compete with DL and UA but their strength of their network throughout the NE (PHL,NYC,BOS,DCA) would surpass both DL and UA. Add CLT and MIA and your a dominant #1 in 3-4 of the top 7 population centers on the east coast as well as being a strong #2 in another 2 markets.

per 2011 PANYNJ report for NYC :

UA CO 27.3m
DL 20.4m
US AA 20.3m
B6 13.7m

The merger helps with domestic volume but doesn't shift international volume one bit. Of course these are older numbers that doesn't take into account recent DL-LGA expansion or recent UA woes.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 20):
I'll also add into the mix that with a combine AA/US in WAS there will likely be a larger OW presence at IAD including an increase on select transcon flights with the new A321s (LAX, SFO), 2-3 daily flights to major business hubs (ORD, MIA, DFW, ATL, BOS, CLT, PHL, etc) and a handful of select international flights (BA,IB,AB,LA,JL,CX,AA).

As if 1 split-hub is not bad enough now you want 2 ? Out of that entire list of OW carriers, only BA currently offer any international service. To even get half of that list filled would be impressive.
 
FI642
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:48 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 10:33 pm

It just makes sense for them to purchase a stake in the new company. It ensures the new company will stay with One World, and strengthen the weakest of the Global Alliances.

Remember how the investment by KL in NW forged the early alliance. The potential is quite exciting.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
 
crAAzy
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:10 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
The merger helps with domestic volume but doesn't shift international volume one bit. Of course these are older numbers that doesn't take into account recent SA)">DL-LGA expansion or recent SA)">UA woes.

SA)">AA has plenty of opportunities for international expansion out of JFK currently and that's not including the additional US slots. A US/AA combination will likely create enough of a flyer base on the east coast for additional feed for international expansion out of JFK. Even if the current conservative SA)">AA management team stays in place ... LOL.

At the same time, the SA)">FF combined SA)">FF base with US in the NE/SE will allow SA)">AA/US several expansion opportunities out of LGA if they choose.

However, you are correct that they will not be a STRONG number 2 in a sense. But when all is said and done it's going to be quite interesting to see how the NYC market will shake out in the end. I imagine SA)">AA/US will increase moderately (3-5%), SA)">UA/CO will decrease moderately (3-5%), and SA)">DL/NW will also pull back a bit (1-2%) leaving all three airlines within a percentage or two of each other.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
As if 1 split-hub is not bad enough now you want 2 ? Out of that entire list of SA)">OW carriers, only BA currently offer any international service. To even get half of that list filled would be impressive.

I'm not suggesting a hub split as in NYC, however, I do think adding US's DCA metro area SA)">FF base will support a limited strategic IAD expansion and increase the coffers. American already operates a limited flight service to it's hubs at DFW, MIA, LAX. Adding a few more cities to compete with SA)">UA in key business markets is not at all unreallistic (ORD, PHX, SFO, etc).

BA already operates flights to LHR and SA)">AA can probably add a flight to the schedule or pick up one of BA's flights.
IB or SA)">AA can likely pick up the flight to MAD.
AB to BER or DUS since the WAS area will now be the largest metro area it won't already serve (after ORD starts).
LATAM or SA)">AA service to several routes in SA could easily compete with SA)">UA service from the WAS area.
JL could add a flight with it's new 787s and compete on the route with ANA and/or CX could provide another non-stop SA)">OW alternative into Asia with onward connections.

So I really don't think it's unrealistic for SA)">OW to add a few key routes out of IAD if US/AA do merge (MAD, BER/DUS, NRT, HKG, SCL, GRU, GIG, LIM, BOG).
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:52 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 23):
The merger helps with domestic volume but doesn't shift international volume one bit.

... nor does it need to. That's the key. Post-merged, AA would not need as big an international presence at JFK since it won't have New York as its primary European hub, as Delta and United do. AA's primary connecting point for Europe would be down 95 at PHL, allowing their New York operations - JFK and LGA - to be optimized more for O&D. And the slot holdings the combined new AA would have at JFK and LGA would be more than sufficient to build an extremely strong O&D-focused franchise in the New York area.
 
avek00
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:54 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 26):
... nor does it need to. That's the key. Post-merged, AA would not need as big an international presence at JFK since it won't have New York as its primary European hub, as Delta and United do. AA's primary connecting point for Europe would be down 95 at PHL, allowing their New York operations - JFK and LGA - to be optimized more for O&D. And the slot holdings the combined new AA would have at JFK and LGA would be more than sufficient to build an extremely strong O&D-focused franchise in the New York area.


All potentially true, but the ways in which TATL flows of a combined AA/US are optimized is certainly a matter of great import for IAG, and IMO, that's the reason why the company has ensured it will be actively involved in crafting AMR's fate.
Live life to the fullest.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:01 am

Quoting avek00 (Reply 27):
but the ways in which TATL flows of a combined AA/US are optimized is certainly a matter of great import for IAG, and IMO, that's the reason why the company has ensured it will be actively involved in crafting AMR's fate.

No question, but I don't think there's really any downside here for BA. The combined airline would inevitably end up in oneworld, and deeply tied to BA/IAG via the JBA/ATI. None of that would change. However, what would change is that BA would now have two huge new gateways to the eastern U.S. - PHL and CLT - that would provide far more extensive access to small northeast and southeast U.S. markets. Win-win for BA/IAG, from my perspective.
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 1):
Is IAG honestly worried about AA leaving Oneworld if US takes control? I mean, it's prudent to cover their butts, but isn't it already common knowledge that AA would stay in Oneworld - and that rival Star would be weakened?

No. They are not. But they are concerned as to what would happen if US does not take control of AMR.

IAG have signed the non-disclosure agreement so that it can obtain the necessary data to take protective action action as a backstop should the proposed US/AA merger should FAIL. The article provided by the thread opener says the IAG concern is if an alternative "AMR standalone plan" emerges. If it does IAG would then have the information it needs "to provide 'financial support' to protect its own interests".
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:02 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 10):
Not sure why. The combined airline would be sitting on a huge pool of slots at LGA that could be used to develop a strong O&D schedule to major business markets around the U.S./world, building on the strong existing AA presence in New York plus the limited, but helpful, network and slot pool USAirways would bring.

I'd think a combined carrier would move toward the "dual hub" DL model, with their sizable presence at both LGA and JFK. They'll still be smaller at JFK for sure, but LGA would a very nice O&D focused mini hub with some domestic connections that would needlessly clog JFK.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 18):
I don't think Star losing DCA to oneworld would hurt it that much. Of course you have the frequent flier base and strong O&D, but IAD has just as good, if not better domestic connectivity, and not to mention its an international gateway for UA. Yes DCA is a better O&D airport, but IAD has more going for it, IMO. I do agree that they are losing a foothold in the southern US by losing CLT, but those that can be covered by IAH and IAD, and to a lesser extent, EWR and ORD.

On a side note, I applaud Parker for getting AA's labor on his side and helping to bring IAG into this.

Given UA's current policy of not allowing many US codeshares from DCA - I've only seen LGA and BOS being shown as US codeshares on .bomb - I don't think it will change much in DC. Sure, there are plentiful options for those of us who want to stay in Star, but I wonder how many UA flyers really go to the effort of booking US n/s from DCA rather than a UA connection or a trip out to IAD. I'd imagine a good chunk of US flyers are flying US outright (i.e., as Dividend Miles members) rather than booking to earn MileagePlus miles on them.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:33 pm

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 25):
I'm not suggesting a hub split as in NYC, however, I do think adding US's DCA metro area SA)">FF base will support a limited strategic IAD expansion and increase the coffers. American already operates a limited flight service to it's hubs at DFW, MIA, LAX. Adding a few more cities to compete with SA)">UA in key business markets is not at all unreallistic (ORD, PHX, SFO, etc).

Few cities succeed having international split from domestics.

Tokyo does, but ICN is stealing quite a lot of traffic
NYC does work to a certain degree, only due to the sheer size of the metropolitan
LGW is mostly low-yield sun destinations, so that doesn't count.
Montreal entirely flopped.

If the international services can't leverage the domestic connections, their appeal can only be so much.
 
commavia
Posts: 9642
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 30):
I'd think a combined carrier would move toward the "dual hub" DL model, with their sizable presence at both LGA and JFK. They'll still be smaller at JFK for sure, but LGA would a very nice O&D focused mini hub with some domestic connections that would needlessly clog JFK.

Doubtful.

A "split hub" in New York would never work for AA. I have my doubts as to whether it will even work for Delta. But for AA, they will simply never have the critical mass at JFK and LGA to make it work, plus it is simply not competitive with the throughout-the-day, omni-directional, multi-banked, international-and-domestic hubs in the northeast, which are EWR and PHL.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 30):
Sure, there are plentiful options for those of us who want to stay in Star, but I wonder how many UA flyers really go to the effort of booking US n/s from DCA rather than a UA connection or a trip out to IAD. I'd imagine a good chunk of US flyers are flying US outright (i.e., as Dividend Miles members) rather than booking to earn MileagePlus miles on them.

I know several. They put as much flying as they can on USAirways via DCA, which is infinitely more convenient from downtown, and go to IAD when they have to. Some are FFs with United, some with USAirways, but obviously all with Star. If a merger were to occur, there is some percentage of those people who would stop or decrease their flying on United out of IAD and switch to oneworld alternatives when/where possible. Would it put United out of business at IAD? Of course not. But I suspect it would have some impact.
 
lhcvg
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 2:53 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:46 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 32):

Doubtful.

A "split hub" in New York would never work for AA. I have my doubts as to whether it will even work for Delta. But for AA, they will simply never have the critical mass at JFK and LGA to make it work, plus it is simply not competitive with the throughout-the-day, omni-directional, multi-banked, international-and-domestic hubs in the northeast, which are EWR and PHL.

It may not be competitive, but both DL and AA make it work for them, whatever we want to call it. I just use split hub because I can't think of a better way to describe at least what DL does. But certainly from a capacity standpoint a combined AA/US would have a very nice presence at LGA to complement what goes on at JFK.

As to your second point, I was referring specifically to United MP members who choose fly US out of DCA for convenience, but who otherwise have a vested interest in UA MP membership, and for whom this merger would force a choice between switching to OW and either hopping UA connections from DCA or trekking out to IAD. Obviously there are a fair number of UA people who fly US from DCA (myself included on occassion), but I don't think the number who are big time UA flyers who also frequently use US out of DCA and would jump ship for the US options there alone (all other considerations aside) were they to join OW is that large.
 
LOWS
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 31):
Tokyo does, but ICN is stealing quite a lot of traffic

Seoul is also split between ICN and GMP.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: WSJ: Why IAG Is Mulling Stake In AMR

Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:44 pm

Quoting LOWS (Reply 34):
Seoul is also split between ICN and GMP.

Seoul's case is different because Seoul is such a huge part of South Korea, and the primary route that still requires flying is Jeju. GMP is more like "Seoul City Airport" than a full-blown Haneda.

Shanghai is also double airport, but as long as PVG offers all the connections you need, having SHA is not detrimental.

The same doesn't apply to if all oneworld international flights are out of IAD but 95% of domestic ones are only available from DCA.