EA CO AS wrote:Tack wrote:let’s be honest, VX was a move to eliminate a competitor that was squashing yields because they we’re hemorrhaging money
While VX was absolutely taking fistfuls of money and lighting them on fire, the overlap with AS was minimal and therefore any yield problems were very, very limited. The move to acquire them wasn't about eliminating a competitor, but to acquire assets AS would take decades to obtain on their own (extra gates at LAX and SFO, JFK slots, a turnkey intra-CA operation) while simultaneously keeping them from a more nimble competitor (B6). And to the poster earlier who said they paid for the brand, no - they didn't. Actually, the brand COST money to use! That's one of the many reasons AS decided to torpedo it.
We both know the VX purchase was a move by management to keep it out of B6's hands. The assets were a bonus and not one they would have otherwise paid such a premium for. They didn't want the Airbus. They could have cared less about slots at LGA or DAL. SFO gates could have been acquired in a different way - and it's no secret that they're not really being fully utilized at this point. LAX was already in the works before the VX thing even happened. Senior management is far too smart and far too frugal to overpay for VX primarily to get their hands on more gates at SFO and LAX. They would have found another way - they always do. They've always been very opportunistic and find a way to make things happen when they want to. It's no secret that VX was an annoyance - they spent a fair amount of time and resources trying to squash them when they first started up.