Blueballs
Topic Author
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:21 pm

RUMOR: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:47 am

The rumors and chatter are getting pretty loud! Reduced hiring at both companies. Jetblue is running on fumes. Delays and cancellations due to lack of crews and aircraft. Reduction in maintainance budget.
Is something happening or has jetblue simply decided to give up on being a great airline?
Last edited by atcsundevil on Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Title updated
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:49 am

This rumor has been running rampant inside UA for a better part of a year. I honestly don't see it happening as they would have to divest quite a bit to satisfy regulators for approval that it may not even be worth it.
SFO
 
Blueballs
Topic Author
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:51 am

With the current corporate friendly administration anything is possible. Slots are going away in New York so maybe little to nothing would be divested
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3315
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:53 am

What does UA gain? BOS and some planes? They left JFK for a reason and there is no way the Feds let them keep the JFK hub and EWR megahub. It doesn't make sense.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:54 am

jetblueguy22 wrote:
What does UA gain? BOS and some planes? They left JFK for a reason and there is no way the Feds let them keep the JFK hub and EWR megahub. It doesn't make sense.

Planes, employees, reduced competition, increased exposure in the Caribbean and Latin America markets. The elusive SE hub in FLL. There's a lot of pluses.
Last edited by flyguy84 on Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
SFO
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 9875
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:56 am

Blueballs wrote:
Jetblue is running on fumes.
Made an $85m profit in 1Q, the worst quarter of the year traditionally.
Blueballs wrote:
Delays and cancellations due to lack of crews and aircraft.
That definitely means merger with United if I've ever heard a justification. :banghead:
Blueballs wrote:
Reduction in maintainance budget.
Sure, before you merge with UA, you cut the maintenance budget. I'm sure that was the signal at CO as well. :rotfl:
Blueballs wrote:
Is something happening or has jetblue simply decided to give up on being a great airline?
They are trying to get earnings up.
 
Blueballs
Topic Author
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:00 am

Yes they are trying to get earnings up to drive the price up. When I say running on fumes I simply mean there is not a spare aircraft or pilot around. They are running so tight and burning guys out so much the operation falls apart weekly. On time performance is a running joke. They are running this place simply to drive the numbers up for the inevitable sale
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10068
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:01 am

flyguy84 wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
What does UA gain? BOS and some planes? They left JFK for a reason and there is no way the Feds let them keep the JFK hub and EWR megahub. It doesn't make sense.

Planes, employees, reduced competition, increased exposure in the Caribbean and Latin America markets. The elusive SE hub in FLL. There's a lot of pluses.


FLL is a horrible location for a SE hub.
 
Italianflyer
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:06 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:01 am

Even if the Feds were to approve it (doubtful) the state AGs in NY, NJ and likely CA would have a fit. It was state legal activism that killed 2 big insurance and 1 cable merger.

Second...B6 holds its own at its current cost structure. Bringing them to UA pay grades and costs has red ink all over. Third where are you getting the hiring slow down info?? There is a lull in the summer as most trainers are on the line but UA is looking for an extraordinary number of training positions to be filled in Q4.
 
Flaps
Posts: 1603
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:08 am

While B6 is certainly an operational disaster right now I don't think UA brings anything to the table that fixes that. I've yet to see a merger of two negatives yield anything positive.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:10 am

jetblueguy22 wrote:
What does UA gain?


A321neo's. :duck:

Seriously, anything's possible but why would it be a rumor through the company(s)? Did Munoz share a bit too much at a meeting or something? lol
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2525
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:20 am

Blueballs wrote:
The rumors and chatter are getting pretty loud! Reduced hiring at both companies. Jetblue is running on fumes. Delays and cancellations due to lack of crews and aircraft. Reduction in maintainance budget.
Is something happening or has jetblue simply decided to give up on being a great airline?


Maybe it's the latter. Have you checked Jet Blue for a press release about deciding to give up?
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:09 am

This "rumor" is really more speculation. It seems to almost exclusively come from a UA pilot point of view as some sort of solution for UA to hire a bunch of new pilots as per some ridiculously inflated projections a while ago. But management doesn't make decisions that way. If UA really wanted to hire a slew of pilots or to buy a bunch of planes, they could do so much more easily on their own rather than through trying to acquire another carrier. A UA merger with any airline flying more than a handful of puddle jumpers will almost certainly be shut down by the feds.
Last edited by intotheair on Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
KTPAFlyer
Posts: 764
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 8:08 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:24 am

Polot wrote:
FLL is a horrible location for a SE hub.


So is MIA
 
User avatar
bluefltspecial
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:08 am

Blueballs wrote:
Yes they are trying to get earnings up to drive the price up. When I say running on fumes I simply mean there is not a spare aircraft or pilot around. They are running so tight and burning guys out so much the operation falls apart weekly. On time performance is a running joke. They are running this place simply to drive the numbers up for the inevitable sale


I mean no offense but where are you getting your information, is there a source?

As someone how managed operations for them at one point I can tell you, that the reliability on the E190 was so low that at one point for every 20 E190, there was 1 spare, I believe that is changed and they have 1 spare in JFK, BOS, and one in either FLL/MCO, some of those are considered "rolling spares" where it's blocked for a long sit to help in the event of delays or tech. As for the A320, even with the older birds, B6 has an outstanding team, they have nice reliability, and I think it was set at 1 per 50 A320s, with one in LGB that was "rolling" or long blocked due to small ops on the west coast, and then one in the Northeast and one in the Southeast. I'm not sure what it's like now with mix fleet of A321s and A321Mint.

That being said, they aren't short on pilots, or reserves - same for FAs, people are *still* lining up at the door to work there, regardless of how "bad" some think moral may or may not be. However, they have been constrained due to numerous weather events, which has put crews out of position many times, and resulted in timeouts, or over timeouts on pilots for week, or monthly allotments. Maybe that is what you are referencing?
Save a horse, ride a Fly-boy....
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:23 am

Well it would take care of JetBlues west coast issue in one fell swoop.
 
FlyUSAir
Posts: 387
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:26 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:31 am

JetBlue's operational disaster merged with United's PR/brand disaster is either a fantastic match-up or hell on earth. UA gains Boston, control of JFK back, and finally Southeast exposure with FLL/MCO hubs. JetBlue gains access to the Midwest, West-coast, and a ton of international destination in one fell swoop lol. At the same time, while UA makes sense over AA/DL, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
A319/A320/A321/A333 712/732/733/734/735/737/738/752/753/762/763 C172 CR2/CR7/CR9 E145/E170/E175/E190
MD82/MD83/MD88/MD90 Q100/Q400
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:41 am

Yeah, not going to happen.
Scott Kirby wants to bring p.s. back to JFK, but moving anything beyond that would only hurt them (JFK is less reliable than EWR). BOS doesn't make sense for the UA network at all.
As for FLL/MCO, Florida/Caribbean is a weak spot for UA, but they seem to be managing with IAH/IAD. They could just move into the underutilized MCO without buying B6.

I could see B6 and AS merging. That's it.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1852
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:52 am

ASQ400 wrote:
Scott Kirby wants to bring p.s. back to JFK, but moving anything beyond that would only hurt them (JFK is less reliable than EWR). BOS doesn't make sense for the UA network at all.


That's not really what he said. He said leaving JFK was the wrong decision. That doesn't mean it's the right decision to move back — even if they could. His point was more in reference to how the previous regime didn't foresee the valuable corporate contracts they lost after they dropped JFK.

But still, there's no way the FTC would allow such big operations at JFK and EWR under one airline. They wouldn't even allow AA and AS to codeshare to and from each other's hubs.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
Blueballs
Topic Author
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:52 am

bluefltspecial wrote:
Blueballs wrote:
Yes they are trying to get earnings up to drive the price up. When I say running on fumes I simply mean there is not a spare aircraft or pilot around. They are running so tight and burning guys out so much the operation falls apart weekly. On time performance is a running joke. They are running this place simply to drive the numbers up for the inevitable sale


I mean no offense but where are you getting your information, is there a source?

As someone how managed operations for them at one point I can tell you, that the reliability on the E190 was so low that at one point for every 20 E190, there was 1 spare, I believe that is changed and they have 1 spare in JFK, BOS, and one in either FLL/MCO, some of those are considered "rolling spares" where it's blocked for a long sit to help in the event of delays or tech. As for the A320, even with the older birds, B6 has an outstanding team, they have nice reliability, and I think it was set at 1 per 50 A320s, with one in LGB that was "rolling" or long blocked due to small ops on the west coast, and then one in the Northeast and one in the Southeast. I'm not sure what it's like now with mix fleet of A321s and A321Mint.

That being said, they aren't short on pilots, or reserves - same for FAs, people are *still* lining up at the door to work there, regardless of how "bad" some think moral may or may not be. However, they have been constrained due to numerous weather events, which has put crews out of position many times, and resulted in timeouts, or over timeouts on pilots for week, or monthly allotments. Maybe that is what you are referencing?


You managed something here at blue at one time. Congrats. Things have changed. People are not lining up to work in flight ops. Jetblue is low on most pilots lists. We do not have spare aircraft. That's why everyday we take one out of service and cancel 4-5 flights for the day. But on average more than one aircraft is going down per day causing more cancellations. I appreciate your insight but it is obsolete. Things have changed very badly here.
 
User avatar
LoftleidirDC8
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2017 3:32 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:19 am

This is nothing more than booted air crew gossip. When I worked for AA way back when like AA was about to take A340's to replace the MD-11 etc.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:19 am

intotheair wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
Scott Kirby wants to bring p.s. back to JFK, but moving anything beyond that would only hurt them (JFK is less reliable than EWR). BOS doesn't make sense for the UA network at all.


That's not really what he said. He said leaving JFK was the wrong decision. That doesn't mean it's the right decision to move back — even if they could. His point was more in reference to how the previous regime didn't foresee the valuable corporate contracts they lost after they dropped JFK.

But still, there's no way the FTC would allow such big operations at JFK and EWR under one airline. They wouldn't even allow AA and AS to codeshare to and from each other's hubs.


The FTC is so understaffed right now, they'd probably never get around to reviewing it anyway.
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 392
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:24 am

So then you'll have three dysfunctional airlines pretending to be one. How will they erroneously blend B6 into the fold? Strange tartan patterns replacing lat-lon lines on all the CO tail globes?
 
QXAS
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:25 am

ASQ400 wrote:
I could see B6 and AS merging. That's it.

This is the only merger involving B6 that would even make sense. Create a national 400+ airplane airline alternative to the US3+WN. Well that or my fantasy HA-AS-B6 triple merger which would create a situation of US4+WN (yes WN would still be larger but WN does not have the intercontinental widebody ops which would set it apart from UA,AA,DL and a merged HA-AS-B6. But that will never happen because AS and HA overlap to much. AS won't be in position to merge with anyone for quite a while as they are in the very early stages of the current merger. As a result I don't see B6 merging with anyone for quite some time. Of note would be the subfleet of 10 pmVX CFM 321Neos compared to the large fleet of B6 P&W 321Neos (correct me if I'm wrong about the engine selections) if AS merged with B6 after the VX merger is completed should the 321Neos be kept.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
theSFOspotter
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:51 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:37 am

United wouldn't do well operating from LAX, SNA and LGB. LGB or SNA would most likely be completely cut.
Q-400 A319 A320 B737-300/400/700/800/900ER B757-200/300 B787-8
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:55 am

I'm wondering why many people here are always wanting to merge the few remaining U.S. airlines? My God at the rate y'all suggest mergers, there will be just one carrier in less than a decade in the U.S..

I don't get the fascination with merger mania here. B6 is better off w/o UA & UA has enough domestic market share, it wouldn't be approved & it's not going to happen without significant concessions, that would not help the proposed combined carrier survive.
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN WP YS 8M
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:46 am

QXAS wrote:
ASQ400 wrote:
I could see B6 and AS merging. That's it.

This is the only merger involving B6 that would even make sense. Create a national 400+ airplane airline alternative to the US3+WN. Well that or my fantasy HA-AS-B6 triple merger which would create a situation of US4+WN (yes WN would still be larger but WN does not have the intercontinental widebody ops which would set it apart from UA,AA,DL and a merged HA-AS-B6. But that will never happen because AS and HA overlap to much. AS won't be in position to merge with anyone for quite a while as they are in the very early stages of the current merger. As a result I don't see B6 merging with anyone for quite some time. Of note would be the subfleet of 10 pmVX CFM 321Neos compared to the large fleet of B6 P&W 321Neos (correct me if I'm wrong about the engine selections) if AS merged with B6 after the VX merger is completed should the 321Neos be kept.

In hindsight, VX/B6/HA could've worked route-wise. B6 in the east and Caribbean, VX in the west, and HA with Hawaii, a Pacific presence, and widebodies. All 3 have fleet synergies by way of their Airbus-dominated fleets.
Alas, it is not to be, and AS+B6+HA would require divesting the bulk of AS's presence in HI.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 6:48 am

RWA380 wrote:
I'm wondering why many people here are always wanting to merge the few remaining U.S. airlines? My God at the rate y'all suggest mergers, there will be just one carrier in less than a decade in the U.S..

I don't get the fascination with merger mania here. B6 is better off w/o UA & UA has enough domestic market share, it wouldn't be approved & it's not going to happen without significant concessions, that would not help the proposed combined carrier survive.

The idea of merging US3 with LCCs/each other is ludicrous. Not only would the government not allow it, it is also not in the works.
The idea of B6 merging with a strong West Coast carrier and competing with US3 is something that could happen, and almost happened in B6/VX (until AS stopped it)
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
F9Animal
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:13 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 7:29 am

JetBlue is doing just fine. They are big enough to take on another airline. They came close to snagging an airline running on fumes so to speak. As for operational issues? JetBlue will figure it out. Personally, I think the airline needs fresh leadership. The airline is attractive to would be pilots. All airlines endure these operational messes, and no airline is immune to it. I don't think UA would be a beneficial hookup for either outfit. UA has enough on its plate as it is. JetBlue is well positioned to recover, and the airline has deep pockets.
I Am A Different Animal!!
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5611
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 11:14 am

B6 on time rate for June 48%. And that is rounding up. Several flights cancelled each day for maintenance and/or staffing.

Going to be a long hot summer at T5.

As for UA...who knows?
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:13 pm

If B6 is going to be bought or merged with anyone it's Southwest.

Flyguy
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
airbazar
Posts: 9963
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:38 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
B6 on time rate for June 48%. And that is rounding up. Several flights cancelled each day for maintenance and/or staffing.
Going to be a long hot summer at T5.

I'm no B6 fan. Even though I live outside of Boston I have only flown them twice. However I think that their recent operational problems have little to do with the airline and more to do with where their 2 largest operating hubs are located: BOS and JFK. Bad Summer weather affects both of these airports at nearly the same time. The other problem is that both JFK and BOS have had ongoing runway construction projects and that too is affecting operations at those airports. One of these is bad enough but two is really bad. When both BOS and JFK are impacted, that has the potential to impact 2/3's of their entire operation. Other airlines have their operations far more spread out and diversified. But that is the identity of B6: They are an East Coast airline and I don't think that will ever change. In a way I admire their ability to just roll with it. They sure have their work cut out this Summer.
 
lostsound
Posts: 652
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:48 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
If B6 is going to be bought or merged with anyone it's Southwest.

Flyguy


B6 has 233 A320 and E190 aircraft. Whatever airline were to buy or merge with B6 would very most likely keep the planes because those are HUGE assets. That probably leaves WN out of the picture.
 
dcaviation
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:26 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 12:54 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
B6 on time rate for June 48%. And that is rounding up. Several flights cancelled each day for maintenance and/or staffing.

Going to be a long hot summer at T5.

As for UA...who knows?



UA had 78% on time rate. Best out of any airlines in US.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3264
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:06 pm

RWA380 wrote:
I'm wondering why many people here are always wanting to merge the few remaining U.S. airlines? My God at the rate y'all suggest mergers, there will be just one carrier in less than a decade in the U.S..

I don't get the fascination with merger mania here. B6 is better off w/o UA & UA has enough domestic market share, it wouldn't be approved & it's not going to happen without significant concessions, that would not help the proposed combined carrier survive.


Thank you. Don't get the merger fascination.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:38 pm

lostsound wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
If B6 is going to be bought or merged with anyone it's Southwest.

Flyguy


B6 has 233 A320 and E190 aircraft. Whatever airline were to buy or merge with B6 would very most likely keep the planes because those are HUGE assets. That probably leaves WN out of the picture.


The financial rewards and increase revenue capacity from BOS,NYC,FLL to the Caribbean network rewards out way the risk of two fleet types.
With a undertaking of B6 WN could easily off load or park the money losing E190's during the process.
Like AS/VX WN could easily take advantage of moving fleet types around to benefit market demands.

WN is in a constant re-evaluation on its level of service and product it offers.

Like FL WN can't let a competition swallow up B6.
Even it it means Buy and killing of B6 as a whole like it did with FL.

FLYGUY
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13981
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:55 pm

If there ever was a time, now would be the time considering the pro business and anti regulating policies of the current administration. My takes;

FLL melds well with UA's operation, it gives them the cornerstone for the Caribbean and Latin America to compliment EWR and IAH that UA and previously CO have long sought. There's a three way battle between B6, NK and WN for flights to the Caribbean and Latin America. However all three are constrained by the range of the A319/A320s and 737s. UA's long haul fleet gives them the opportunity to operate flights that NK and WN cannot such as FLL-LHR, GRU, SCL etc.

MCO, as with FLL, melds well with their operation. Both have facilities at the airport, B6 with their training University and UA with their maintenance base. And they also would have the ability to bring long haul service to the hub.

JFK is obviously the key, while it's in favor of them that UA does not serve JFK it's serving much the same market as EWR and would bring scrutiny from regulators. Which again going back to the first point, if your going to do it now is the time and this is the administration to approve this deal. If some divestitures needed to be made, they can give up "some" of the JFK slots and gates in one of several possible scenarios:

1. Swap some slots with AA, AA gets JFK slots that when combined with building out their terminal to it's original design would give them an enviable hub. UA would get to grow at the more business oriented LGA airport while still having enough slots to have a foothold in JFK.

2. Slot swap with DL, same as with AA. DL gets JFK slots to really realize the hub at JFK, they have enough slots at LGA that they could swap slots to UA and still maintain a leading presence at LGA. It would just be a little more parity amongst AA, DL and UA.

3. Divest just enough slots and gates at JFK to WN, NK, F9, G4, AS etc. to get the tie up with B6 approved while still receiving the majority of the benefits of the B6 JFK hub.

4. Administration asks for no divestitures.

BOS is a strong business market, melds well with UA.

LGB, I can see them retaining slots to support the following routes: DEN, SFO, IAH, NYC (EWR or JFK). Move service to LAX from LGB from AUS (replace regional with mainline), FLL, OAK, PDX, RNO (add mainline), SMF (add mainline), SLC (replace Regional with mainline), SJC, SEA (beef up existing service)
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:11 pm

People maybe lining up for FA jobs, but once they get in the door they don't just stand around like stary eyed robots gratefully taking whatever management throws at them. All these IROPS are doing wonders for the union movement inside b6. Work rules at b6 allow for scheduled 14 hour workdays (the FAA max) and can be extended up to 18 hours (again the FAA max), compare that to southwest that schedules max 12 or 12.5 hours and anything past that triggers massive double and triple pay. (same for Alaska by the way, which has a mirror image of a previous SWA contract).

The Pilots should have their contract in the next 10 months or so, and FA's should be voting in TWU and starting their contract process in about that same time frame (then another 2 years or whatever to actual contract being voted in).

B6 is maturing as a airline, and that means mature labor and operational costs too. How is management going to keep investors happy going forward? Economies of scale with a merger.

B6 employees want a merger because it leapfrogs them into good mature labor contracts. You all want mergers because of I guess they are fun to theorize about.

I'd take a merger with Alaska or SWA any day of the week. UA would work too, but I think Alaska or Hawaiian are most likely. Nightmare scenario would be a merge with any of the ULCC, they have even worse pay and work rules than b6.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 714
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:14 pm

Whenever mergers occur, the airline with the least amenities dominates. So in this case, JetBlue's service will reduce to United's levels. Back then when United and Continental merged, Continental's services were reduced to United's levels as meals were discontinued.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13981
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:17 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Whenever mergers occur, the airline with the least amenities dominates. So in this case, JetBlue's service will reduce to United's levels. Back then when United and Continental merged, Continental's services were reduced to United's levels as meals were discontinued.


One would hope it wouldn't be that way. Take MINT for example, it really answers the need for replacement for UA's previous P.S. service (I forget what their calling now, Coastal?).
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
jetbluefan1
Posts: 3305
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:39 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 2:45 pm

FWIW, I hope this never happens. The industry needs more competition, not less.

While I find the OP's premise to be suspect (Is B6 truly short on crew? First time I've heard this...and I would be very surprised), the prestige of a combined UA/B6 network would be unmatched. It would be a huge player in all of the largest US metro areas (sans Dallas).

Although, it may not be super profitable. Just look at DL, the most profitable of the Big 3, with its fortress hubs in relatively low profile cities, such as Detroit and Salt Lake City.

STT757 wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Whenever mergers occur, the airline with the least amenities dominates. So in this case, JetBlue's service will reduce to United's levels. Back then when United and Continental merged, Continental's services were reduced to United's levels as meals were discontinued.


One would hope it wouldn't be that way. Take MINT for example, it really answers the need for replacement for UA's previous P.S. service (I forget what their calling now, Coastal?).


I think Coast? Not sure.

As a total side note, as a New Yorker, I know almost no one who flies UA to California (or VX, for that matter). Virtually all who do live in NJ or are from the West Coast. Anyone who lives in the 5 boroughs flies DL/AA/B6 from JFK, with a slight advantage to DL. Anecdotally, I know of several Fortune 500 companies which allow its NYC employees to fly B6 MINT (given its relative affordability to DL/AA).
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5611
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:06 pm

Just an update on runway construction

JFK ended in May

BOS ended a few weeks ago

That on time rate is B6s to own.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:17 pm

It's a shame JetBlue didn't merge with Virgin - that merger made so much sense from a cultural and fleet standpoint.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1770
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:35 pm

william wrote:
RWA380 wrote:
I'm wondering why many people here are always wanting to merge the few remaining U.S. airlines? My God at the rate y'all suggest mergers, there will be just one carrier in less than a decade in the U.S..

I don't get the fascination with merger mania here. B6 is better off w/o UA & UA has enough domestic market share, it wouldn't be approved & it's not going to happen without significant concessions, that would not help the proposed combined carrier survive.


Thank you. Don't get the merger fascination.


:checkmark: And it often has to do with fleet reasons. Clearly, the more recent mergers/acquisitions have been based on fleet commonality.... AA (Boeing and MD) and US (significant Airbus). AS (Boeing) and VX (Airbus). WN (737) and AirTran (717). UA (both) and CO (Boeing).

Mergers / acquisitions happen for one or two reasons.... gain access to routes / markets in one step rather than over time or would be too difficult / impossible otherwise, and / or belief that it will create shareholder value. The first one can be significant geographic areas, strategic hubs, or specific routes (e.g. international), or to grow scale. These (usually) are public companies with a goal of growing shareholder value, which is perceived to result from the first reason, or from general revenue growth, synergies, and cost take-out activities.

Code sharing or organic growth can provide the benefits of access to certain routes or markets without the larger risk of a merger. Transformational transactions need to provide significant benefits.
 
77H
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:03 pm

theSFOspotter wrote:
United wouldn't do well operating from LAX, SNA and LGB. LGB or SNA would most likely be completely cut.


I was of the understanding that within the Greater LA basin SNA was the larger, more important of the two markets. LGB adds nothing of note to a hypothetical UA-B6 tie up that their hublet at LAX does not already cover. I imagine LGB quickly being given up in the scenario. It would be a different story if LGB wasn't also mired by strong community (read nimby) opposition and restrictions to existing operations and expansion like SNA.

77H
 
Austin787
Posts: 398
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:07 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Whenever mergers occur, the airline with the least amenities dominates. So in this case, JetBlue's service will reduce to United's levels. Back then when United and Continental merged, Continental's services were reduced to United's levels as meals were discontinued.


Continental announced the meals would be discontinued before the merger was announced.

I've noticed that when airlines merge, the management's pre-merger airline dominates.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:08 pm

JAAlbert wrote:
It's a shame JetBlue didn't merge with Virgin - that merger made so much sense from a cultural and fleet standpoint.


"Cultural" to Virgin/B6 management = excuse for low pay and bad workrules. Virgin was a pro at this and their hiring skewed towards young people seeking glamour at the cost of workrules/pay. Funny thing is after a couple years the eyes of those young people open and when cultural as a cost saving tool began to fail them, Virgin sold out. I see the same signs at b6.

Very happy Alaska got Virgin and will be vaporizing their "culture". The old virgin employees are gonna love those superior Alaska paychecks and work rules, and the rest of the industry gets its industry standards raised. win/win
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:39 pm

DarthLobster wrote:
So then you'll have three dysfunctional airlines pretending to be one. How will they erroneously blend B6 into the fold? Strange tartan patterns replacing lat-lon lines on all the CO tail globes?

Three dysfunctional airlines?! It's really just the one.
CO was still Bethune's world-class operation when it merged with UA. B6 is going through a rough patch, but it's still a good operation. Pre-merger UA, on the other hand, was in a state of rectal anarchy.
Thanks to Smisek, merged UA is basically at the same level as old UA, but some pieces of the operation are at CO's level. I'd thus say 1.5 messed-up airlines, not 3
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA
 
catiii
Posts: 3286
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:39 pm

Blueballs wrote:
Yes they are trying to get earnings up to drive the price up. When I say running on fumes I simply mean there is not a spare aircraft or pilot around. They are running so tight and burning guys out so much the operation falls apart weekly. On time performance is a running joke. They are running this place simply to drive the numbers up for the inevitable sale


DM me and let me know what department you're a CM in. Because it's clear it don't know what you're talking about, and you need to be set straight.
 
ASQ400
Posts: 342
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:21 am

Re: United and jetblue merger

Sat Jul 01, 2017 4:41 pm

catiii wrote:
Blueballs wrote:
Yes they are trying to get earnings up to drive the price up. When I say running on fumes I simply mean there is not a spare aircraft or pilot around. They are running so tight and burning guys out so much the operation falls apart weekly. On time performance is a running joke. They are running this place simply to drive the numbers up for the inevitable sale


DM me and let me know what department you're a CM in. Because it's clear it don't know what you're talking about, and you need to be set straight.

He's probably just a low-paid maintenance guy who likes to whine.
TLV, BRU, ZRH, CDG, FRA, EWR, JFK, DEN, SFO, AUS, RNO, SEA, YYC, YYZ, IAH, ATL, IAD, DCA, ORD, SJC, SNA

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos