FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

fastmover wrote:

JetBlue feels it needs size and scope to actually compete with the big guys. They can do that two ways grow organically or merge. They went for merge as every single major airline has.

B6 had their chance to expand by not bidding higher for VX. I actually rooted for them on that one instead of AS.

Or taking F9 when they were still of a similar business model and F9 was more DEN-centric.

NK/B6 feels like a PanAm/National situation. If it is the case, B6 would be better off going alone either growing organically or dying a slow, less painful death. AS has thrived just relying on their core focus of the west coast and Alaska. B6 has done the same relying on the east coast and Caribbean. And if it does pan out that B6 is PA-ing themselves, then that leaves a huge vacuum in the US air travel market.

IMO, F9/NK is the way to go for the US travelling public.

LOL “Coby Explanes” is that you? Just saw a YouTube video saying the same thing.

Pan-Am and its place in airline history but to compare this with B6/NK come on…. It’s no where near the same thing.

Haha no I'm not him. I actually can't stand his videos. But I had that thought before I saw the thumbnail on YouTube. Maybe PA/NA is an exaggeration especially since the airline scene and bankruptcy laws have changed since those days. But NK will more than likely be a tough pill for B6 to swallow. Maybe Chapter 11 is more like it.

TWA772LR wrote:

FlyinRabbit88 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

B6 had their chance to expand by not bidding higher for VX. I actually rooted for them on that one instead of AS.

Or taking F9 when they were still of a similar business model and F9 was more DEN-centric.

NK/B6 feels like a PanAm/National situation. If it is the case, B6 would be better off going alone either growing organically or dying a slow, less painful death. AS has thrived just relying on their core focus of the west coast and Alaska. B6 has done the same relying on the east coast and Caribbean. And if it does pan out that B6 is PA-ing themselves, then that leaves a huge vacuum in the US air travel market.

IMO, F9/NK is the way to go for the US travelling public.

LOL “Coby Explanes” is that you? Just saw a YouTube video saying the same thing.

Pan-Am and its place in airline history but to compare this with B6/NK come on…. It’s no where near the same thing.

Haha no I'm not him. I actually can't stand his videos. But I had that thought before I saw the thumbnail on YouTube. Maybe PA/NA is an exaggeration especially since the airline scene and bankruptcy laws have changed since those days. But NK will more than likely be a tough pill for B6 to swallow. Maybe Chapter 11 is more like it.

Lol no worries.

Maybe I’m more on the positive on how things could play out. Integrations might be easier than many might expect and the NK order book could really help with expansion plans into Western Europe, allow to expand Mint in the US, and alleviate network pressures in the NE with bases in DTW/ATL/ORD/DFW/IAH/LAS to flow passengers through when weather goes downhill in the NE.
Will integration costs be high because of changing NK airplanes into B6 styled aircraft, of course, but also can help with aircraft retirements that B6 wants off the books (E190s and the oldest of the A320s).

Everyone from the general public to Biden rail on the industry and NK for ancillary fees and other issues on NK. From seat pitch, leg room etc. jetblue would eliminate that. So on a customer stand point thats a plus. Airfares in general will probably go up due to inflation in general but it’s not to say with NK removed from the market that it would that big of an issue. But B6 being close to Chapter 11 is kind of a reach and the extreme on that side. Would think if the deal doesn’t go through is what could be a hard road going forward for B6 and NK. NK hasn’t been profitable since exiting Covid.

Personally I can understand the fear of losing an ULCC could bring questions but for an airline that a majority of custom re think of as a horrible experience from delays, Customer service, lots of junk/ancillary fees, etc etc etc that now people feel they / the industry needs them to stay around.

Spirit's stock is now trading under $15 a share.
Investors don't seem to be very confident in this merger being approved.

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

Never knew NK was as large as it was at LGA (6 gates and 22 departures).

Unfortunately for B6, I think this action comes too late. Should have been offered right off the bat along with NEA dissolution.

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

I don't disagree entirely, but that also creates opportunity for new entrants because this is not a closed market. True, the barriers to entry are very high, but the low cost sector is where most of the innovation and new airline launches have come from. Breeze and Avelo are two examples.

airplaneboy wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

Never knew NK was as large as it was at LGA (6 gates and 22 departures).

Unfortunately for B6, I think this action comes too late. Should have been offered right off the bat along with NEA dissolution.

Not true. They offered to divest them on almost a year ago when they came out publicly about the acquisition. A cursory google search will confirm that.

tlecam wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

I don't disagree entirely, but that also creates opportunity for new entrants because this is not a closed market. True, the barriers to entry are very high, but the low cost sector is where most of the innovation and new airline launches have come from. Breeze and Avelo are two examples.

I agree that it does leave room for new competitors but it will take MUCH more time for those potential competitors to backfill the ULCC capacity than it will take for B6 to wind down NK’s operations. That leaves a significant void in the interim that may only hopefully be filled. Worse yet in markets like LGA which is actually a closed market where instead of two ULCCs competing, you have just one with a slew of full fare carriers. I guess the argument there will be that if people want those low fares they should make the trek out to HPN or wherever else but that’s a tough sell IMO.

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

airplaneboy wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

Never knew NK was as large as it was at LGA (6 gates and 22 departures).

Unfortunately for B6, I think this action comes too late. Should have been offered right off the bat along with NEA dissolution.

Why are they too late? There was no way this DOJ under this administration was going to sign off on it anyway.

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

YES, exactly this! People rooting for the Spirit/Frontier merger don’t want to acknowledge this.

Mikeer50 wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

YES, exactly this! People rooting for the Spirit/Frontier merger don’t want to acknowledge this.

Yes that’s the one thing I have never understood. It’s like saying if Target bought Walmart the new company without its direct competitor would not raise prices.

tlecam wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

I don't disagree entirely, but that also creates opportunity for new entrants because this is not a closed market. True, the barriers to entry are very high, but the low cost sector is where most of the innovation and new airline launches have come from. Breeze and Avelo are two examples.

I agree with Brickell 100%.

And tlecam I agree with you as well, however, if the opportunity comes down the road, how is that going to impact the ULCC market and pricing in the immediate term? I have no idea what NK’s market share of the ULCC market is, but let’s say hypothetically it’s 20% (I’m sure it’s higher); existing ULCCs and future ULCCs that don’t exist yet can’t fill that void overnight, it will take a significant amount of time- maybe 3-5 years. With that capacity disappearing, the US aviation market will skew even more extremely towards non-ULCCs. How is that going to impact the market and pricing? I think that is something the judge would scrutinize.

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

If Frontier bought NK, the capacity would stay ULCC- that should be pretty obvious, so that’s a dumb question. B6 is not an ULCC, and I think them being a LCC will be argued in this case. If Frontier bought NK, yes, it’s eliminating one less competitor, but all of NK’s capacity stays ULCC. A self-inflicted wound that B6 has cast on themselves is that they’ve stated that they would take NK planes to bulk up their existing networks. Politics aside; if B6 takes NK planes and reduces cabin configuration and especially adds Mint seats on NK aircraft- I just can’t see a judge not having an issue with that. If B6 was acquiring Avelo or even Allegiant, I don’t think this would be as big of an issue.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

If Frontier bought NK, the capacity would stay ULCC- that should be pretty obvious, so that’s a dumb question. B6 is not an ULCC, and I think them being a LCC will be argued in this case. If Frontier bought NK, yes, it’s eliminating one less competitor, but all of NK’s capacity stays ULCC. A self-inflicted wound that B6 has cast on themselves is that they’ve stated that they would take NK planes to bulk up their existing networks. Politics aside; if B6 takes NK planes and reduces cabin configuration and especially adds Mint seats on NK aircraft- I just can’t see a judge not having an issue with that. If B6 was acquiring Avelo or even Allegiant, I don’t think this would be as big of an issue.

“That’s a dumb question” well thanks so much. I love this site.

With that said is this about capacity or price? My point however does remain why do people think that if frontier buys their exact competitor prices wouldn’t go up. If anything the DOJ I guess should not allow that merger either. Yes it would bulk up the current JetBlue network but they also said they wanted it to expand.

How soon before another airline starts to cry, its not fair that F9 got these gates, etc...

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

If Frontier bought NK, the capacity would stay ULCC- that should be pretty obvious, so that’s a dumb question. B6 is not an ULCC, and I think them being a LCC will be argued in this case. If Frontier bought NK, yes, it’s eliminating one less competitor, but all of NK’s capacity stays ULCC. A self-inflicted wound that B6 has cast on themselves is that they’ve stated that they would take NK planes to bulk up their existing networks. Politics aside; if B6 takes NK planes and reduces cabin configuration and especially adds Mint seats on NK aircraft- I just can’t see a judge not having an issue with that. If B6 was acquiring Avelo or even Allegiant, I don’t think this would be as big of an issue.

Yep, at the end of the day B6 is NOT an ULCC. B6 has 160 seats on Mint A321neos, and 200 on non-Mint A321neos. NK has 235. B6 has 150/162 on it's A320-200s, while NK has 182 on it's A320-200/neos. That means capacity will decrease 10-32%. This loss in seats is irrefutable. B6's "plans" to make up for the loss with higher utilization seem like a complete fantasy. And again, I think B6 needs to provide concrete examples of where they will expand. Because in their core markets, Northeast, Florida+Caribbean, and transcons, they already have enough scale to go head-to-head with the Big 4. Just dumping more planes into B6's core markets to gain a couple percentage points of market share will not impress any judge. They need to clearly articulate where and how they will be expanding.

Unlike B6 in recent years, NK has shown willingness to jump into competitive domestic markets. Admittedly not all routes have worked out, but B6 in contrast has stuck tightly to it's core markets. NK is also the ULCC most likely to serve routes more than daily. I think it's difficult to argue other ULCCs could easily replace NK's presence in the market. Other ULCCs don't fly anywhere as many routes like LAX-EWR, LAX-ORD, ORD-IAH or DTW-DFW. F9 obviously has big expansion plans, but they are still smaller than NK right now. It's not as if F9 could magically grow to meet their already-planned expansions, while also somehow growing to absorb the nearly 300 planes of capacity NK would be flying. G4 has a different business model, and can't really step into the vacuum NK would leave. B6 really needs to explain what it plans on doing with potentially 250+ planes on order post-merger, and why those plans are worth ignoring the loss of competition.

fastmover wrote:

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

fastmover wrote:

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

If Frontier bought NK, the capacity would stay ULCC- that should be pretty obvious, so that’s a dumb question. B6 is not an ULCC, and I think them being a LCC will be argued in this case. If Frontier bought NK, yes, it’s eliminating one less competitor, but all of NK’s capacity stays ULCC. A self-inflicted wound that B6 has cast on themselves is that they’ve stated that they would take NK planes to bulk up their existing networks. Politics aside; if B6 takes NK planes and reduces cabin configuration and especially adds Mint seats on NK aircraft- I just can’t see a judge not having an issue with that. If B6 was acquiring Avelo or even Allegiant, I don’t think this would be as big of an issue.

“That’s a dumb question” well thanks so much. I love this site.

With that said is this about capacity or price? My point however does remain why do people think that if frontier buys their exact competitor prices wouldn’t go up. If anything the DOJ I guess should not allow that merger either. Yes it would bulk up the current JetBlue network but they also said they wanted it to expand.

So… I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. Ok, let a non-ULCC carrier purchase the largest ULCC in the country, sure keep the network intact to a certain standpoint, but B6 is not going to keep the current NK network 100% intact, they’ve already stated they are going to redeploy assets. If they take those planes and bring the cabin configurations down, you’re eliminating capacity. If you take those planes and wipe out seats and put in Mint, you’re further diminishing capacity and increasing price. I don’t know what else to say to that standpoint, I feel like that’s a pretty straightforward and indisputable point.

I don’t think Walmart and Target is an apt comparison, for several reasons. Airline industry is very different. How is the ULCC capacity backfilled in the immediate term if B6 acquires NK? Frontier acquiring NK is keeping the capacity ULCC at the least, but that’s literally not on trial here, it’s B6 (a non-ULCC acquiring the largest) and NK.

And I’ve seen others here reference the Southwest AirTran merger here- that comparison couldn’t be more off and inappropriate. Different landscape, administration, the industry was not where it is now, regulations, etc. Comparing NK to AirTran is not as far off, but comparing B6 to Southwest is absolutely incomparable. Southwest is a true LCC (especially at that time) and B6 is not. Given that B6 has Mint which is a business class product that competes with AA, DL and UA business class products I think is going to be a huge factor here and the fact that that pricing and seats are not catering to average people buying tickets on NK. B6 has already stated they are going to take NK planes and repurpose them. Again, if B6 takes NK planes and reconfigures them and adds Mint and bulks up their BOS/NYC-LAX flights; how in the world does that not raise an eyebrow from the judge?

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

airplaneboy wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

Never knew NK was as large as it was at LGA (6 gates and 22 departures).

Unfortunately for B6, I think this action comes too late. Should have been offered right off the bat along with NEA dissolution.

It's not 22 departures, it' 22 slots which support 11 daily departures. Not that much, I think Air Canada has more than that at LaGuardia.

Mikeer50 wrote:

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

NK is closest to an ULCC and B6 is further away from being a true LCC- PERIOD. Look at their fares relative to their (non LCC) competitors, especially in their focus cities; that’s #1. You can argue all day long their share of Mint seats relative to their overall seats- bottom line is they have a highly competitive business class product that competes directly with the majors and they charge a substantial premium for over what NK charges for their upfront seats, and they are going to grow Mint flying through the acquisition. B6 is going to expand Mint- hell you guys have been talking about ‘Junior Mint’ and ‘Mint Express’ or whatever for years for them to implement on other flights, so don’t act so coy. As I’ve stated for the 3rd time now, if they take NK planes and reduce configuration (which they will) and especially if they reconfigure NK planes with Mint, a judge is not going to overlook that. It’s funny, all you guys keep overlooking and ignoring this statement in your responses.

EADSYABSOB73857 wrote:

NK is closest to an ULCC and B6 is further away from being a true LCC- PERIOD. [u]Look at their fares relative to their (non LCC) competitors,

The classifications LCC and ULCC aren't based on ticket prices. The C is for cost, but not ticket cost, it's what it costs the airline to fly the seat.

Of course when airlines cut costs they have to compete on price, because their product sucks, so LCC's are usually cheaper, but they will charge as much as they think the market will bare, just like the legacies.

fastmover wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JetBlue has agreed to divest all holdings (gates & slots) of Spirit Airlines at LGA to Frontier.

https://news.jetblue.com/latest-news/pr ... fault.aspx

The thing is even if they give Frontier those slots, F9 has less incentive to keep fares low once the only other ULCC is gone. Frankly, the same could be said generally across the country more broadly. Once NK is gone, there’s significantly less pressure for other ULCCs to keep their fares at their current level. They could raise fares and still remain the “cheap” option in the market. That’s why I don’t see the merger being approved. It’s one thing to remove a small competitor but removing the largest ULCC will skew the market too significantly.

But if frontier bought Spirit wouldn’t that be the same? The other major ulcc is gone so now they can raise prices?

I do believe a combined NK-F9 would raise prices. However, I also believe the effect would be much worse with a combined B6-NK. B6 buying NK directly removes the largest chunk of “low” fare seats from the market. That gives leeway to all other airlines to significantly raise fares as they have significantly less ULCC competition to face. I could see legacies either dropping or significantly raising prices on their basic economy offerings. That would allow the remaining ULCCs to raise their fares as well as the gap on fares between them and the more full service carriers would allow them to still be the “cheap” option. With a combined F9-NK, yes it would raise fares but not to the same extent as a merger with B6 would produce. The more full service carriers could raise fares as well but not as much as they otherwise would as they’d still have to compete against lots of ULCC capacity in the market.

Since any merger "raises prices" the solution is simple. Divide AA, DL, UA into 4 equal parts of 200 aircraft. Prices will drop. Since it can be proved that the scale of operation of 750+ aircraft reduces costs, then NK+B6 may increase prices in LCC but decrease in legacy

I chuckle at what is either a deeply held conviction searching for an argument to back it up or merely blatant misinformation being written on this thread in an attempt to discredit the B6/NK tie-up.

As Mikeer50, there is a difference between LCC/ULCC and LFC/ULFC. The cost structure is less important to the consumer and authorities as is the fare structure. Southwest are NOT a LCC (a quick glance at their CASM data will make that obvious) as was claimed above, nor are they a LFC.

The government have also stated they are against "junk fees." The ULCC may have lower "fares," however let us compare how much total cost (fare plus fees/ancillaries) ULCC pax face versus competitors. Almost all of the time they are quite competitive for a ticket with checked bag and seat assignment. It is shameful what the ULCCs do to low-income, low-information clientele by luring them in with super low fares then dropping massive fees (which many times are multiples of the fare itself) on them. Therefore, I reject the wild claim that a value carrier (B6) with transparent pricing, comfortable seating, free wifi and drinks/snacks purchasing a ULCC will be at the detriment of the consumer. Hogwash.

All of this talk of fares is an incomplete and inaccurate comparison among the airlines and is the weak foundation for many arguments against the merger.

Frontier have plenty of aircraft on order and have proven a willingness to enter a wide variety of markets and routes. They, along with Allegiant, Avelo, Breeze, Sun Country, et al will fill Spirit's void in the airborne intercity bus service.

An example from the Breeze News & Discussion thread:

Manderson12 wrote:

It all depends on where they fly from Charleston. MCO, I believe will be successful flying from Charleston WV, Spirit flew that route for years until they became a target to be bought out by JetBlue.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23822983#p23824401

Any markets Spirit serve which can only sustain ULCC service will indeed be backfilled by opportunistic competitors, especially start-ups with very low cost structures.

We also have no idea what changes are coming when the airline "combines the best of both." We could see additional fare classes (more unbundled options at JB), seating options (reduced seat pitch in the aft or more Big Front Seats/Domestic First fleetwide), and more buy on board catering. Adding these elements would make Jetblue more competitive overall while also keeping or making a wider range of products accessible to price sensitive travellers. It's funny how everyone, including the DOJ and DOT complains about junk fees and 28" seat pitch and how these agencies vow to change that, but when an airline says they will change that inorder to offer a high value quality product, it's a problem. So, does that mean it's expected for airlines to make certain changes that will effect CASM/RASM yet not raise fares? And if Spirit suddenly wanted to change its business model and become more full service, would they be prevented from doing so? It's funny how airlines, while a business, are forced to act like they're a public utility.

sunking737 wrote:

How soon before another airline starts to cry, its not fair that F9 got these gates, etc...

Divestitures such as these have happened in other mergers. There are also not many large ULCCs left but I would assume JetBlue tried to reach Allegiant to make a deal but doubtful if Allegiant would even want 3 slot pairs at LGA. Allegiant hasn't complained in the past from other mergers.

On another note, it looks like JetBlue is intent on growing EWR with the NK merger. No deal was to divest Spirit's "slots" at EWR. I would assume JetBlue would cancel ACY and not sure if it would keep even half of the size of Spirit's operation at PHL to merge with its own BOS flights which will all help to increase demand to use B6 at EWR.

trueblew wrote:

An example from the Breeze News & Discussion thread:

Manderson12 wrote:

It all depends on where they fly from Charleston. MCO, I believe will be successful flying from Charleston WV, Spirit flew that route for years until they became a target to be bought out by JetBlue.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23822983#p23824401

Any markets Spirit serve which can only sustain ULCC service will indeed be backfilled by opportunistic competitors, especially start-ups with very low cost structures.

I could see Avelo or Breeze interested in ACY but would provide less than half of the service of what Spirit offers. I have my doubts on Allegiant since flies out of more distant airports and wants to charge higher fares to Florida than what NK or F9 does from a major airport (or maybe I am wrong) but cursory it seems higher when I looked at ABE-SFB (on G4) flown 2x daily, vs. ACY-MCO (flown at least 2x daily) which has low fare deals like PHL-MCO.

trueblew wrote:

I chuckle at what is either a deeply held conviction searching for an argument to back it up or merely blatant misinformation being written on this thread in an attempt to discredit the B6/NK tie-up.

As Mikeer50, there is a difference between LCC/ULCC and LFC/ULFC. The cost structure is less important to the consumer and authorities as is the fare structure. Southwest are NOT a LCC (a quick glance at their CASM data will make that obvious) as was claimed above, nor are they a LFC.

The government have also stated they are against "junk fees." The ULCC may have lower "fares," however let us compare how much total cost (fare plus fees/ancillaries) ULCC pax face versus competitors. Almost all of the time they are quite competitive for a ticket with checked bag and seat assignment. It is shameful what the ULCCs do to low-income, low-information clientele by luring them in with super low fares then dropping massive fees (which many times are multiples of the fare itself) on them. Therefore, I reject the wild claim that a value carrier (B6) with transparent pricing, comfortable seating, free wifi and drinks/snacks purchasing a ULCC will be at the detriment of the consumer. Hogwash.

All of this talk of fares is an incomplete and inaccurate comparison among the airlines and is the weak foundation for many arguments against the merger.

Frontier have plenty of aircraft on order and have proven a willingness to enter a wide variety of markets and routes. They, along with Allegiant, Avelo, Breeze, Sun Country, et al will fill Spirit's void in the airborne intercity bus service.

" the airborne intercity bus service."

This made me laugh out loud!

completely agree.

Mikeer50 wrote:

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

You're mistaking (ultra) low COST carriers for low FARE carriers. It's not about the amenities but the airlines costs.

B6/NK divesting 22 slots and 6 gates at LGA to F9. Why does NK need 6 gates for only 22 slots? Wouldn't 6 gates allow an operation of up to 60 flights a day? Seems like poor utilization unless the strategy is to gate squat.

ASFlyer wrote:

Mikeer50 wrote:

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

You're mistaking (ultra) low COST carriers for low FARE carriers. It's not about the amenities but the airlines costs.

The traveling public doesn’t care about the airlines costs. The DOJ is throwing these terms around and mixing them up much like I did. Their argument is that FARES will go up, they couldn’t care less about costs. Low costs don’t always equate to low fares, it’s much more complicated than that. What’s the definition of ULCC verse LCC? Where does that line get drawn?

TWA772LR wrote:

B6/NK divesting 22 slots and 6 gates at LGA to F9. Why does NK need 6 gates for only 22 slots? Wouldn't 6 gates allow an operation of up to 60 flights a day? Seems like poor utilization unless the strategy is to gate squat.

They have 6 gates because they use the Marine Terminal. It’s only NK and F9 using that terminal hence they have all the gates.

Brickell305 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

B6/NK divesting 22 slots and 6 gates at LGA to F9. Why does NK need 6 gates for only 22 slots? Wouldn't 6 gates allow an operation of up to 60 flights a day? Seems like poor utilization unless the strategy is to gate squat.

They have 6 gates because they use the Marine Terminal. It’s only NK and F9 using that terminal hence they have all the gates.

Exactly. And with how many delays there are incessantly at LGA, not bad to have spare gates!

Mikeer50 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

Mikeer50 wrote:

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

You're mistaking (ultra) low COST carriers for low FARE carriers. It's not about the amenities but the airlines costs.

The traveling public doesn’t care about the airlines costs. The DOJ is throwing these terms around and mixing them up much like I did. Their argument is that FARES will go up, they couldn’t care less about costs. Low costs don’t always equate to low fares, it’s much more complicated than that. What’s the definition of ULCC verse LCC? Where does that line get drawn?

I just told you what the definition of ULCC is and LCC. If you don't like the explanation, I don't know what to tell you. ULCC and LCC are not a reference to fares. ULCC means Ultra low COST carrier. Not low FARE carrier. I suppose ultra low costs translate to lower fares - as we see with Frontier and Spirit, but its because their costs are so low. They don't provide any frills for free. But yes, the argument from the government is that fares will go up because competition will be reduced or eliminated.

It's funny the people saying that B6 will raise prices once they are merged and that a merged F9/NK won't because they would be the largest ULCC. That's exactly how they'll raise fares. By being the largest, they'll be able to essentially price other ULCCs out of a given market and raise fares. On size alone, they'll have the ability to restrict seats in a market to raise prices. There are a lot of markets with which a combined F9/NK would be the only game in town which would allow them a monopoly and raise fares. Similar to how AA treats DFW, UA at IAH and DL at DTW and ATL or when DL had CVG.

Fares will go up whether it's B6/NK, F9/NK or all of them stand alone and one fails. Fares are going up.

ASFlyer wrote:

Mikeer50 wrote:

ASFlyer wrote:

You're mistaking (ultra) low COST carriers for low FARE carriers. It's not about the amenities but the airlines costs.

The traveling public doesn’t care about the airlines costs. The DOJ is throwing these terms around and mixing them up much like I did. Their argument is that FARES will go up, they couldn’t care less about costs. Low costs don’t always equate to low fares, it’s much more complicated than that. What’s the definition of ULCC verse LCC? Where does that line get drawn?

I just told you what the definition of ULCC is and LCC. If you don't like the explanation, I don't know what to tell you. ULCC and LCC are not a reference to fares. ULCC means Ultra low COST carrier. Not low FARE carrier. I suppose ultra low costs translate to lower fares - as we see with Frontier and Spirit, but its because their costs are so low. They don't provide any frills for free. But yes, the argument from the government is that fares will go up because competition will be reduced or eliminated.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, HP used to advertise that they were a low cost, low fare carrier. But I see billboards for F9 that advertise low fares.

trueblew wrote:

Any markets Spirit serve which can only sustain ULCC service will indeed be backfilled by opportunistic competitors, especially start-ups with very low cost structures.

There are some nonstop routes dropped by ULCC's that still have nonstop service on legacy carriers such as DEN-BTV/GSP/HSV/PWM, DTW-JAX/MCI/PDX/SAN/SEA, IAH-CVG/CLE, and LAX-PDX/SEA/TPA.

B6 would likely hold onto LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT nonstop service if the B6-NK merger happens with
(a) the focus city that B6 already has at LAX,
(b) the presence that B6 already has at CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT,
(c) the limited nonstop competition that is there on LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL with LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL currently served nonstop by only two airlines, and
(d) the lack of nonstop competition that is currently there on LAX-PIT nonstop service.

Some of the passengers who are currently flying on NK would be willing to pay higher fares for a B6 nonstop flight or a legacy carrier nonstop flight if the ULCC nonstop options aren't there.

Most of the nonstop routes that NK operates within the contiguous U.S. would likely be able to support nonstop service on B6, WN, AA, DL, or UA if the B6-NK merger happens.

jplatts wrote:

trueblew wrote:

Any markets Spirit serve which can only sustain ULCC service will indeed be backfilled by opportunistic competitors, especially start-ups with very low cost structures.

There are some nonstop routes dropped by ULCC's that still have nonstop service on legacy carriers such as DEN-BTV/GSP/HSV/PWM, DTW-JAX/MCI/PDX/SAN/SEA, IAH-CVG/CLE, and LAX-PDX/SEA/TPA.

B6 would likely hold onto LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT nonstop service if the B6-NK merger happens with
(a) the focus city that B6 already has at LAX,
(b) the presence that B6 already has at CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT,
(c) the limited nonstop competition that is there on LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL with LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL currently served nonstop by only two airlines, and
(d) the lack of nonstop competition that is currently there on LAX-PIT nonstop service.

Some of the passengers who are currently flying on NK would be willing to pay higher fares for a B6 nonstop flight or a legacy carrier nonstop flight if the ULCC nonstop options aren't there.

Most of the nonstop routes that NK operates within the contiguous U.S. would likely be able to support nonstop service on B6, WN, AA, DL, or UA if the B6-NK merger happens.

What presence does B6 really have a PHL. FLL was dumped, all of the Covid routes long since gone and BOS is down to a handful of flights a day.

usairways85 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

trueblew wrote:

Any markets Spirit serve which can only sustain ULCC service will indeed be backfilled by opportunistic competitors, especially start-ups with very low cost structures.

There are some nonstop routes dropped by ULCC's that still have nonstop service on legacy carriers such as DEN-BTV/GSP/HSV/PWM, DTW-JAX/MCI/PDX/SAN/SEA, IAH-CVG/CLE, and LAX-PDX/SEA/TPA.

B6 would likely hold onto LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT nonstop service if the B6-NK merger happens with
(a) the focus city that B6 already has at LAX,
(b) the presence that B6 already has at CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT,
(c) the limited nonstop competition that is there on LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL with LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL currently served nonstop by only two airlines, and
(d) the lack of nonstop competition that is currently there on LAX-PIT nonstop service.

Some of the passengers who are currently flying on NK would be willing to pay higher fares for a B6 nonstop flight or a legacy carrier nonstop flight if the ULCC nonstop options aren't there.

Most of the nonstop routes that NK operates within the contiguous U.S. would likely be able to support nonstop service on B6, WN, AA, DL, or UA if the B6-NK merger happens.

What presence does B6 really have a PHL. FLL was dumped, all of the Covid routes long since gone and BOS is down to a handful of flights a day.

My theory there is that there is either a "gentleman's agreement" with AA to not do much in Philly or B6 simply sees Philly as non-essential with the ability for their flyers to earn/redeem on AA out of it. B6 announced a half-dozen routes from Philly in early June 2020, 6 weeks before the NEA and likely when the "clean room" team was discussing the NEA, so those in network planning were not privy to the talks. The PHL expansion fell apart very quickly, which makes me think that if there is no more NEA, we'll see some routes return, regardless of the NK merger.

lowfareair wrote:

usairways85 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There are some nonstop routes dropped by ULCC's that still have nonstop service on legacy carriers such as DEN-BTV/GSP/HSV/PWM, DTW-JAX/MCI/PDX/SAN/SEA, IAH-CVG/CLE, and LAX-PDX/SEA/TPA.

B6 would likely hold onto LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT nonstop service if the B6-NK merger happens with
(a) the focus city that B6 already has at LAX,
(b) the presence that B6 already has at CLE/DTW/PHL/PIT,
(c) the limited nonstop competition that is there on LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL with LAX-CLE/DTW/PHL currently served nonstop by only two airlines, and
(d) the lack of nonstop competition that is currently there on LAX-PIT nonstop service.

Some of the passengers who are currently flying on NK would be willing to pay higher fares for a B6 nonstop flight or a legacy carrier nonstop flight if the ULCC nonstop options aren't there.

Most of the nonstop routes that NK operates within the contiguous U.S. would likely be able to support nonstop service on B6, WN, AA, DL, or UA if the B6-NK merger happens.

What presence does B6 really have a PHL. FLL was dumped, all of the Covid routes long since gone and BOS is down to a handful of flights a day.

My theory there is that there is either a "gentleman's agreement" with AA to not do much in Philly or B6 simply sees Philly as non-essential with the ability for their flyers to earn/redeem on AA out of it. B6 announced a half-dozen routes from Philly in early June 2020, 6 weeks before the NEA and likely when the "clean room" team was discussing the NEA, so those in network planning were not privy to the talks. The PHL expansion fell apart very quickly, which makes me think that if there is no more NEA, we'll see some routes return, regardless of the NK merger.

My understanding was the PHL routes were W20, Covid-depressed demand environment adds, only seeking to bring Northeasterners to the sun markets in FL and PR during that fall/winter where planes to NYC were flying at very low LFs. I'd doubt B6 would add these routes back in the current environment, especially since F9 and NK have expanded a bunch post-Covid in PHL.

YVR744CP wrote:

tlecam wrote:

YVR744CP wrote:

How many times are people going to bring up past mergers? Like it or not, the political environment is different now. At least offer some new and compelling arguments instead of asking this every few posts. It's a stale and irrelevant argument in today's reality.

The political environment is different, but legal precedence still matters in court. That’s why it is relevant. The political environment factors into the DOJ, how it analyzes challenging anti-trust cases and the positions the take in negotiating concessions. However, the DOJ shoulders the burden of proof in court (should the case go to trial) where legal precedence matters.

So based on legal precedence, ALL future mergers must be approved, right? Theoretical AA/B6, AA/AS, or whatever combination of carriers should be allowed to merge? Sorry, I'm not buying it. The U.S. needs more competition, not less.

the USA will ALWAYS have competition in the Airline industry. If B6 loses this merger opportunity? then they should seek a merger with Hawaiian. That would gave them Kick Butt competition. they would and could go non stop from Honolulu to New York and from New York to anywhere in Europe or the middle East with their A330's or B787's. Hawaiian might be the senior carrier but B6 would be "Kick Butt" size and power to Both airlines

Fares would not go up F9/NK as much, if at all, than B6/NK. F9 needs to fill the planes it has on order, especially what a combined F9/NK order book would have looked like. They can't raise fares without adding services that increase cost, especially as fares increase closer to the FULL-SERVICE carriers. They make profit on volume/high load factors, feeding the ULCC ancillary profit generator. F9 would have made a killing being the only player in the market and I believe would have priced to its model-type grabbing market share after market share. A real loss for the market. Instead we might get a larger legacy-like carrier (B6) that really still won't be able to compete effectively without a large FF base and international routes (especially now that it's attempt at that via AA has proven illegal).

TYWoolman wrote:

Fares would not go up F9/NK as much, if at all, than B6/NK. F9 needs to fill the planes it has on order, especially what a combined F9/NK order book would have looked like. They can't raise fares without adding services that increase cost, especially as fares increase closer to the FULL-SERVICE carriers. They make profit on volume/high load factors, feeding the ULCC ancillary profit generator. F9 would have made a killing being the only player in the market and I believe would have priced to its model-type grabbing market share after market share. A real loss for the market. Instead we might get a larger legacy-like carrier (B6) that really still won't be able to compete effectively without a large FF base and international routes (especially now that it's attempt at that via AA has proven illegal).

You just said fares would not go up or as much if it was spirit and frontier and later you say if frontier was the only one around they would make a killing. Hmmmm

fastmover wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Fares would not go up F9/NK as much, if at all, than B6/NK. F9 needs to fill the planes it has on order, especially what a combined F9/NK order book would have looked like. They can't raise fares without adding services that increase cost, especially as fares increase closer to the FULL-SERVICE carriers. They make profit on volume/high load factors, feeding the ULCC ancillary profit generator. F9 would have made a killing being the only player in the market and I believe would have priced to its model-type grabbing market share after market share. A real loss for the market. Instead we might get a larger legactry-like carrier (B6) that really still won't be able to compete effectively without a large FF base and international routes (especially now that it's attempt at that via AA has proven illegal).

You just said fares would not go up or as much if it was spirit and frontier and later you say if frontier was the only one around they would make a killing. Hmmmm

I don't claim to have a crystal ball, but making a killing doesn't have to mean in a predatory-pricing way. I meant that F9/NK would have been the only large extensive nationwide ULCC that can price fares profitably within that cost-structure model. This is unlike B6 who blatantly claims it will remove seats and bring NK assets up to the higher cost B6 model structure (not that that would be particularly bad per se, just personally what I think the industry doesn't need). All that talk about bringing competition to the legacies is just marketing spin on far-fetched benefits of said merger. Yes, mergers were approved in the past, but with it too their empty promises in some form or another that are in the forefront of regulators' minds.

TYWoolman wrote:

This is unlike B6 who blatantly claims it will remove seats and bring NK assets up to the higher cost B6 model structure.

B6 does not claim this and it also will not happen. The only thing that B6 has said is that, "After closing, we plan to integrate Spirit aircraft over time by retrofitting its existing fleet as JetBlue, introducing the JetBlue onboard experience to Spirit customers." While Spirit currently offers more seats per plane than B6 does on the comparable fleet type there is a lot that will happen between now and the future day were NK is gone and there is only JetBlue.

Consider:
- The replacement of the E190 with the A220 (40% increase in seats per plane)
- The replacement of old A320s with new A321s
- NKs retirement of the A319s to be replaced with A320
- All the new orders that will be fulfilled between now and the hypothetical day that B6 and NK are operating as one B6.

The bottom line is there will be more seats flying on more airplanes with the combined airline than there are today between the separate airlines due to expansion and bigger airplanes even if the number of seats on a particular aircraft type are slightly reduced.

Mikeer50 wrote:

People love to throw around ULCC, LCC, legacy, etc. Has anyone ever defined what the difference between a ULCC and a LCC really is? Just saying one charges for bags, or seats, or drinks, or has Mint or big seats up front, etc is too ambiguous. The last poster said Southwest is more of an LCC than JetBlue. Why, because JetBlue has devoted a fraction of their capacity to a Mint product? If the government is going to argue the LCC verse ULCC point during a trial shouldn’t those two things be defined? Maybe they have been, but I must have missed it.

You are now deflecting and trying to cite encyclopedia definitions- dude, whether it’s termed as an ULCC or ULFC is splitting hairs. On average carriers like Frontier and Spirit are priced lower than JetBlue, Alaska, AA, DL and UA. If Spirit and their pricing model is gone, if that marketshare has been absorbed by an airline that does not price like them, how does that not have an impact on consumers? You haven’t contested that point at all.

Sancho99504 wrote:

It's funny the people saying that B6 will raise prices once they are merged and that a merged F9/NK won't because they would be the largest ULCC. That's exactly how they'll raise fares. By being the largest, they'll be able to essentially price other ULCCs out of a given market and raise fares. On size alone, they'll have the ability to restrict seats in a market to raise prices. There are a lot of markets with which a combined F9/NK would be the only game in town which would allow them a monopoly and raise fares. Similar to how AA treats DFW, UA at IAH and DL at DTW and ATL or when DL had CVG.

Fares will go up whether it's B6/NK, F9/NK or all of them stand alone and one fails. Fares are going up.

So, will a B6/NK merger have a similar impact to a F9/NK merger? I don’t think so. I think the B6 merger would have far more reaching implications, especially on price.

strfyr51 wrote:

YVR744CP wrote:

tlecam wrote:

The political environment is different, but legal precedence still matters in court. That’s why it is relevant. The political environment factors into the DOJ, how it analyzes challenging anti-trust cases and the positions the take in negotiating concessions. However, the DOJ shoulders the burden of proof in court (should the case go to trial) where legal precedence matters.

So based on legal precedence, ALL future mergers must be approved, right? Theoretical AA/B6, AA/AS, or whatever combination of carriers should be allowed to merge? Sorry, I'm not buying it. The U.S. needs more competition, not less.

the USA will ALWAYS have competition in the Airline industry. If B6 loses this merger opportunity? then they should seek a merger with Hawaiian. That would gave them Kick Butt competition. they would and could go non stop from Honolulu to New York and from New York to anywhere in Europe or the middle East with their A330's or B787's. Hawaiian might be the senior carrier but B6 would be "Kick Butt" size and power to Both airlines

Not going to happen whatsoever.