avek00
Topic Author
Posts: 3155
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:02 am

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:51 am

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]
 
LAXtoATL
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:55 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:56 am

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:23 am

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]
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:44 am

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:49 am

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:53 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 12:22 pm

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.
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 2959
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:51 pm

Quoting user444555 (Reply 6):

Quick question:

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

Cheers,
Cameron
Cheers,
Cameron
 
gegarrenton
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:32 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:02 pm

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.
 
chepos
Posts: 5932
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:42 pm

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!!!!
 
ECAMActions
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:44 pm

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.
 
chepos
Posts: 5932
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 9:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:00 pm

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!!!!
 
ECAMActions
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:08 pm

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]
 
apodino
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:31 pm

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.
 
ECAMActions
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:53 pm

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]
 
apodino
Posts: 3022
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:13 pm

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.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:32 pm

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
 
ECAMActions
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:50 pm

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.
 
gegarrenton
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:32 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:56 pm

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.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:09 pm

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
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:10 pm

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
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:27 pm

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
 
gegarrenton
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:32 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:28 pm

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. 
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:09 pm

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
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 9:26 pm

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:58 pm

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]
 
gegarrenton
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:32 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:15 am

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.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:00 am

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.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:58 am

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
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:28 am

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]
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:39 am

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:20 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:45 pm

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.
 
ORD2PHL
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:15 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:07 pm

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
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:37 pm

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:41 pm

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.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5818
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:16 pm

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.
 
IADCA
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:04 pm

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.
 
user444555
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:40 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:13 pm

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.
 
nutsaboutplanes
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:37 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:31 am

American Airlines, US Airways, Alaska Airlines, Northwest Airlines, America West Airlines, USAFR
 
silentbob
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:26 am

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.
 
jmc1975
Posts: 2884
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2000 10:57 am

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:28 am

Bottomline, the DOJ filed this lawsuit simply for kicks and giggles...nothing else.
.......
 
User avatar
anfromme
Posts: 765
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:58 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:31 am

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.
42
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:01 am

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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6661
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:33 am

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?
 
odysseus9001
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:02 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:36 am

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
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 1:28 pm

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
 
spink
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:58 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 2:55 pm

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.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 11368
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: U.S. Anti Trust Suit: AMR/LCC - Part IV

Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:25 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 727LOVER, alggag, b377, Baidu [Spider], berari, CalTex, Caryjack, Google [Bot], IPFreely, JetBuddy, jetsetter629, MAH4546, nzrich, qf789, RightRudder, seat1a, steex, tharanga, tlecam, ty97, Ytraveller and 345 guests