http://www.aviationpros.com/news/106...ys-pushes-for-merger-with-american

Excerpt:

It was reported earlier that US Airways was in talks with some creditors and advisers of bankrupt American Airlines regarding a takeover of the carrier. Some members of the unsecured creditors committee were said to have given a positive response to US Airways' plan for the combined airline. The objective was to complete the combination before AMR exits Chapter 11 protection.

To me the key word is "before". Looks like the wheels are in motion now.

This shotgun wedding doesn't seem to me like it will be a smoothe situation like United (if you call that smooth) or Delta. They haven't resolved the issues with the US/HP merger yet.

Good grief. It seems not that long ago that US Airways was the runt of the litter, far behind American, United, Delta, Northwest and Continental. Now they stand to become one of the three survivors. I would never have put money on that.

That said, there is some sort of inevitable logic to a US-AA merger leaving the USA with three major league carriers.

Then the question becomes, who eats who to leave us with two...?   

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 1): They haven't resolved the issues with the US/HP merger yet.

A real head-scratcher.

I've been on USAir Shuttle flights with some older FAs I remembered from America West of old, suggesting resolution of the issue. Then, I've been on transcon A321s and heard crew-members refer to themselves as "East" or "West." Yes the company seems to be bifurcated, and yes employees seem to consider two mini-companies working as one -- normal.

Kudos to USAirways if they manage such a merger without getting terminal indigestion.

UH OH.....

Quoting PM (Reply 2): Good grief. It seems not that long ago that US Airways was the runt of the litter, far behind American, United, Delta, Northwest and Continental. Now they stand to become one of the three survivors. I would never have put money on that.

US came VERY CLOSE to going out of business in 2004 before they merged with HP. HP basically took over US, with keeping the US name and color scheme.

While I don't ever fly US (no point when United is an all around better airline) they are a notch below DL, AA, and UA. However over the last few years the gap in quality has narrowed.

This is nothing new. This is the same story that has been out for over a week, with no new information that I could see. USAirways wants to merge with AA (nothing new there), and they have begun talking to members of the creditors committee (again, nothing new as of a week ago). USAirways is no more "officially" after an AA merger now than they have been for at least several weeks.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4): However over the last few years the gap in quality has narrowed.

They recovered very quickly from (1) charging for every drink service on every flight -- even transcons -- and (2) refusing to honor vouchers given to passengers for giving up their seats on overbooked flights.

I'm surprised that alone didn't put them out of business.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 3): I've been on USAir Shuttle flights with some older FAs I remembered from America West of old, suggesting resolution of the issue.

I thought the F/As still fly separate lfights? Or is that just the pilots who stick to East and West?

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 7): I thought the F/As still fly separate lfights?

So did I.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 7): Or is that just the pilots who stick to East and West?

I have no idea. Perhaps someone else knows.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Thread starter): Excerpt: It was reported earlier that US Airways was in talks with some creditors and adviaiallysers of bankrupt American Airlines regarding a takeover of the carrier. Some members of the unsecured creditors committee were said to have given a positive response to US Airways' plan for the combined airline. The objective was to complete the combination before AMR exits Chapter 11 protection. To me the key word is "before". Looks like the wheels are in motion now.

I think you can use the word "officially" when it has been announced by either US or AA. Until then it is just specualation

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4): US came VERY CLOSE to going out of business in 2004 before they merged with HP.

Correct. It was the Airbus loan garuntees that kept US from going out of business. The 2004 Bankruptcy was their second one in about 5-6 years.

Where is US going to get the money for a merger with AA? I believe AA has about $4B in cash to be able to fight the merger, which means US must come up with more money than that, if AA decides the merger isn't in their best interest. I can see both Boeing and Airbus getting deep into this (even though they shouldn't) to protect their interests.

This doesn't even address the unions. That will be a major stumbling point for or against the merger.

Finally, there is the Justice Department, which must sign off on the merger. I don't think what time is left for the Obama Administration will want to take sides in a union against union dispute in an election year. The next administastion may not be comfortable with it either.

For the next administration, if Airbus money is involved, I just don't see them wanting to approve a merger that will hurt Boeing aircraft sales.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4): While I don't ever fly US (no point when United is an all around better airline) they are a notch below DL, AA, and UA. However over the last few years the gap in quality has narrowed.

If the 2012 Airline Quality Report is to be believed, US is actually doing better than UA.

2012 US Airline Quality Rating (by nycdave Apr 8 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 4): While I don't ever fly US (no point when United is an all around better airline) they are a notch below DL, AA, and UA. However over the last few years the gap in quality has narrowed.

Just flew this past Christmas to Orlando with my Wife on US from PHL. The US flights from PHL were substantially cheaper than either B6 or UA from EWR, and PHL is not that much farther of a drive. While there are some differences in service, and the 757 and 762 we flew on were absolutely showing their age, the flights were clean, safe and on time. It was nice to once again be flying a widebody to Florida for the holidays, reminded me of my childhood flying CO, DL, EA, PA widedbodies to Florida.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): It was nice to once again be flying a widebody to Florida for the holidays, reminded me of my childhood flying CO, DL, EA, PA widedbodies to Florida.

  Yes, that must be nice. I had this feeling a few years ago on an AA A-300 MIA-JFK.

Was US deploying the 762 to Florida just for the holidays? Just how dated was it?!!! I'd love to fly one of them before they're retired...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): Just flew this past Christmas to Orlando with my Wife on US from PHL. The US flights from PHL were substantially cheaper than either B6 or UA from EWR, and PHL is not that much farther of a drive. While there are some differences in service, and the 757 and 762 we flew on were absolutely showing their age, the flights were clean, safe and on time. It was nice to once again be flying a widebody to Florida for the holidays, reminded me of my childhood flying CO, DL, EA, PA widedbodies to Florida.

Like I said, the gap has narrowed but US is clearly not on the same level, especially from a premium perspective. The lack of meals in F on short to medium hauls is embarrassing, no economy plus, arguably the worst fleet of TATL 757s, lack of IFE in the domestic US of any kind is a drag, and the fact that the unions STILL haven't integrated yet is attrocious.

...But if you don't care about any of these things then US is fine.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 13): Was US deploying the 762 to Florida just for the holidays? Just how dated was it?!!! I'd love to fly one of them before they're retired...

When we landed back at PHL I notice our 762 was continuing on to ZRH. And yes the interior was very dated, small bins, no PTVs etc.. But I enjoyed it.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 14): Like I said, the gap has narrowed but US is clearly not on the same level, especially from a premium perspective. The lack of meals in F on short to medium hauls is embarrassing, no economy plus, arguably the worst fleet of TATL 757s, lack of IFE in the domestic US of any kind is a drag, and the fact that the unions STILL haven't integrated yet is attrocious. ...But if you don't care about any of these things then US is fine.

The price was right, $500 for my Wife and I r/t during Christmas (plus we earned Mileage Plus miles). B6 and UA wanted about $350 more from EWR. PHL used to be a little kept secret for Onepass members in NJ because it was always cheaper fly from PHL than EWR and there were plenty of upgrades to be had. CO/UA have caught on.

Quoting commavia (Reply 5): This is nothing new. This is the same story that has been out for over a week, with no new information that I could see. USAirways wants to merge with AA (nothing new there), and they have begun talking to members of the creditors committee (again, nothing new as of a week ago). USAirways is no more "officially" after an AA merger now than they have been for at least several weeks.

Agreed.

I have no knowledge of how US Bankruptcy law operates, but can US takeover AA if the AA board deems the deal is not in the interests of shareholders, employees or creditors? Is the decision wholly up to creditors and lenders in a bankruptcy situation?

To put it another way: how much influence would the AA board have over this if they were not interested in a tie up with US?

AMR still has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization. I'm not sure when that time frame expires, but US can't do anything until the period of exclusivity expires.

Beyond that, US management has to realize that AA has some pretty strong unions. They managed to staple the TWA workers to the bottom of the seniority lists, and the APFA didn't create a fence around the STL hub the way the APA did for TWA pilots.

There is still bad blood between former TWA F/As and the APFA, since a number of TWA F/As were furloughed for so long that they dropped from the recall list.

So, US management, who is still dealing with the issue of US and former HP pilots still unable to agree to a unified seniority list, will be dealing with a labor headache, as the US and AA unions try to agree to unified seniority lists.

I know that ORD pilots have been irritated for the last few years, because STL pilots can bid for ORD trips.

It's safe to assume that there will be issues about switching hubs and trying to fly the 772s and 773s.

Obviously, there are a number of things about merging US and AA that make sense. US lacks a Midwestern hub, which AA has at ORD. AA lacks a southeast hub, which US has at CLT. The list goes on.

But, the potential for labor issues, in my opinion, makes the deal a bad one. Even if the pilots were to solve the seniority issue in the next few months, so that US operates as a single carrier for pilots, F/As, mechanics, and ground crew, AA's unions would make things miserable.

Even deciding on a single union for each work group would be interesting.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 7): I thought the F/As still fly separate lfights? Or is that just the pilots who stick to East and West?

I think they can fly on any aircraft, BUT they cannot mix up the crews. i.e. you cannot have two East F/A working with a West F/A.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): Where is US going to get the money for a merger with AA? I believe AA has about $4B in cash to be able to fight the merger, which means US must come up with more money than that, if AA decides the merger isn't in their best interest. I can see both Boeing and Airbus getting deep into this (even though they shouldn't) to protect their interests.

HP didn't have a bunch of cash on hand for the US acquisition either, it was made available by creditors. And I would not entirely assume AA would use that $4B to fight a merger. It might be put to better use after a merger. It will come down to what the creditors and BOD decide. AA management doesn't have as much of a say.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): This doesn't even address the unions. That will be a major stumbling point for or against the merger.

I have a feeling things will be at least superficially hashed out between the unions before any kind of announcement is made. I think the AA unions have had their bluff called by AA and now they will be looking for a way to gracefully bow out of the fight.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 13): Yes, that must be nice. I had this feeling a few years ago on an AA A-300 MIA-JFK.

HOW many years ago? I missed out on A300 flying.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): So, US management, who is still dealing with the issue of US and former HP pilots still unable to agree to a unified seniority list, will be dealing with a labor headache, as the US and AA unions try to agree to unified seniority lists.

AS far as I know the fact is that both US management AND unions agreed to binding arbitration, but the East pilots scuppered that, appraently "binding" is not "binding" as far as they are concerned. US management clearly feel that there is no need to stir up a hornets nest, while an uneasy truce has been called. Frankly, a US/AA merger has the potential to bite US East badly. They will no longer be the larger group, the AA group will be, by quite a significant margin.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Thread starter): Some members of the unsecured creditors committee were said to have given a positive response to US Airways' plan for the combined airline.

Here is the creditors committee:
1) Allied Pilots Association, the union for American Airlines about 9,000 pilots.
2) Association of Professional Flight Attendants, the union for American’s about 16,000 flight attendants.
3) Transport Workers Union of America - AFL-CIO, the union for about 23,000 employees, including mechanics, fleet service workers and others.
4) Manufacturers and Traders Trust Co., based in Baltimore, Md.
5) Wilmington Trust Co., based in Wilmington, Del.
6) The Bank of New York Mellon, based in New York.
7) The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., based in Washington, D.C.
8) Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Services LLC, based in Plano.
9) Boeing Capital Corp., based in Renton, Wash.

I'm going to assume that management is against the merger, but I don't know if that is really true.

Let's handicap this.
#1 AGAINST - obvious
#2 AGAINST - obvious
#3 AGAINST - obvious
#4/5/6 SPLIT. Aircraft lessors. Newer A/C holders will probably side with management, but for holders of the older A/C (that's most of the leased A/C) they will probably side with US because most have an existing relationship with US and they know AA is going to shaft them.
#7 FOR. Bound to whoever offers the best pension solution. That is probably US because AA is trying to ignore them and it won't take much for US to establish a better relationship. Plus, it puts pressure on AA to accept their demands.
#8 AGAINST. They will probably support management I'd guess because vendors want more future business and don't want to make an enemy of AA management.
#9 FOR. Boeing will go with whatever makes it most likely that their existing orders will be taken. I'd guess that is going with management.

It's actually pretty close if it were a democratic vote, but I don't think it works exactly like that. I'd say the three labor groups will sabotage any deal if they are able to do so.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 13): Was US deploying the 762 to Florida just for the holidays? Just how dated was it?!!! I'd love to fly one of them before they're retired...

I flew the 762 last year from CLT to GIG. Boy, it was really dated! No PTV of course, small bins, worn out seats, and it wasn't clean either. Not fit for a intercontinental flight ... compared to the competition.

A300s flew JFK-MIA until they left the fleet.


As for US and AA, I have never been a merger mania guy, but I DO see this one happening.

Simply because, with whatever knowledge I have as a human interested and involved with airlines, I do not see AA having a viable business plan going forward.

Grow the cornerstones by 20% with mainline flying when they have:

1. An ancient fleet of MD 80s that need to be shed in BK
2. Not enough deliveries to cover what they currently have + any growth, let alone 20% growth
3. The planes that are coming are smaller than the planes going in many cases...meaning fewer average seats per aircraft and actually shrinking # pax carried per flight vs what they have now.
4. No slots in the all important NYC cornerstone...how to grow there?
5. How much are they really going to grow MIA? There is virtually no competition...in short order, they will get to the point that further growth will dilute revenue


They need a major shake up and a viable business plan going forward.

CLT, PHL, DCA, MIA, DFW, PHX.

NYC, LAX, ORD de-emphasized as connecting spots BUT re-emphasized as O and D: high freq service to hubs, business centers, and token international destinations.

Fleet: 737, A319/320/321, A330, B777. 767s/757s are gone. E190 gone. Multiple regional carriers with E170/175 flying.

That's really their best shot as a combined company

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 22): Fleet: 737, A319/320/321, A330, B777. 767s/757s are gone. E190 gone. Multiple regional carriers with E170/175 flying.

Am I missing something? Isn't the E-190 (or C-series, B717, etc.) a good way to downguage from MD routes and bring between 70-seaters and your Airbus and 737 fleet?

I know this may sound weird, but if AA has more money than US, what's to stop AA from buying US?

Never going to happen, they have not be able to get there house in order for how many years! lease, this is like having a kid to save the marriage.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 24): what's to stop AA from buying US?

The reason they have that cash isn't to try and buy other airlines with, its a day-to-day expenses type thing, in case something gets really bad like the DFW tornado situation. They could do it, it just wouldn't make any sense because they would come up with almost no money afterwards to help out if there was another situation like what happened in DFW

Quoting rj777 (Reply 24): I know this may sound weird, but if AA has more money than US, what's to stop AA from buying US?

Because it's a one-directional love fest. Adding US doesn't solve many (if any) of AA's problems, but adding AA's network to US would drastically improve their visibility and viability against UA and DL. It has always been about Doug Parker's ego.

The end result of those 2 scenarios might sound the same, but no one goes out on a M&A cluster---- to solve someone else's problems.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): Even deciding on a single union for each work group would be interesting.

Actually, this depends on the size of the current union on property. I mentioned in a different post, if the US FA group (AFA) is less than 35% of the AA group (APFA) then representation is predetermined to be APFA.

Where do I get my "Keep AA my AA" lanyard and button?   

Quoting enilria (Reply 20): 8) Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Services LLC, based in Plano.

Quoting enilria (Reply 20): #8 AGAINST. They will probably support management I'd guess because vendors want more future business and don't want to make an enemy of AA management.

I see your reasoning, but I think that HP might just vote in favor. HP is developing a next-generation CRS for AA, that's true, but US is already a SHARES shop. Conceivably, current AA management could delay/cancel the next-gen CRS project and HP would be out at AA. If this merger happens, though, HP could very well be looking at having two of the three largest airlines on the planet hosted in SHARES, *and* have a larger next-gen CRS project to boot.

Who would have ever thought that SHARES could have slayed both Sabre and Apollo at AA and UA?

Just what consumers need. Fewer options. Higher fares. Smaller jets.

The thought of having only 3 remaining legacy US carriers makes me cringe.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 12): While there are some differences in service, and the 757 and 762 we flew on were absolutely showing their age,

Hmmmm.... sounds like the US 757s and 762s would fit in perfectly with the AA 757s... 

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): Where is US going to get the money for a merger with AA? I believe AA has about $4B in cash to be able to fight the merger, which means US must come up with more money than that, if AA decides the merger isn't in their best interest. I can see both Boeing and Airbus getting deep into this (even though they shouldn't) to protect their interests. This doesn't even address the unions. That will be a major stumbling point for or against the merger.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): AMR still has the exclusive right to file a plan of reorganization. I'm not sure when that time frame expires, but US can't do anything until the period of exclusivity expires. Beyond that, US management has to realize that AA has some pretty strong unions. They managed to staple the TWA workers to the bottom of the seniority lists, and the APFA didn't create a fence around the STL hub the way the APA did for TWA pilots. There is still bad blood between former TWA F/As and the APFA, since a number of TWA F/As were furloughed for so long that they dropped from the recall list. So, US management, who is still dealing with the issue of US and former HP pilots still unable to agree to a unified seniority list, will be dealing with a labor headache, as the US and AA unions try to agree to unified seniority lists.

If USAirways would be successful in pulling this off, which I doubt, this will be the stupidest thing that could happen. USAirways has yet to iron out their problems from their "merger" of US Air and America West.
This "merger" would be nothing more than a "marriage in hell."   

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): I can see both Boeing and Airbus getting deep into this (even though they shouldn't) to protect their interests

As mentioned before, Boeing is a large creditor to AA and I don't think they would be too keen on seeing a majority Boeing customer (Pre Airbus A32X order) go to US. US historically doesn't mind relying on one manufacturer and that manufacturer being Airbus. With that being said , I think these creditors know what they are doing and know that US would probably bring more baggage to the hold than AA already has. I know everyone says you must merge to survive but eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns - While UA And CO was a perfect marriage , this marriage would be like the Kardashian wedding - just doing it because !

At the March 22nd hearing AA and Eagle management were given exstention until Sept 28th on their prerogative to be the only group able to present a proposal for restructuring the airline:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters...nes_parent_may_reject_union_pacts/
Quote: Separately at Thursday's hearing, the airline received the court's go-ahead to extend until September its exclusivity rights for proposing a restructuring plan. The extension means creditors and potential acquirers cannot pursue their own proposals for how to restructure the airline until the exclusive period has passed.

AMR's bankruptcy case is In re: AMR Corp, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-15463. Unquote

Under bankruptcy law can this be pulled by the judge if the creditors committee petitions that the management is not working to the best interest of the creditors? Somehow the suggestion

Quoting rj777 (Reply 24): I know this may sound weird, but if AA has more money than US, what's to stop AA from buying US?

strikes me as one that would have the judge personally escorting AA management our of the main door at HQ.

Quoting PM (Reply 2): That said, there is some sort of inevitable logic to a US-AA merger leaving the USA with three major league carriers. Then the question becomes, who eats who to leave us with two...?

That notion actually makes me very uneasy. This is a big nation and I'd like to think we can support a handful of carriers.

I'm ardently in the United Airlines camp, but I also quite enjoy the "opportunity" to not fly them if I choose.
I'm all for strong national carriers, but it's nice...........no, necessary to have choices also.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 14): Like I said, the gap has narrowed but US is clearly not on the same level, especially from a premium perspective. The lack of meals in F on short to medium hauls is embarrassing, no economy plus, arguably the worst fleet of TATL 757s, lack of IFE in the domestic US of any kind is a drag, and the fact that the unions STILL haven't integrated yet is attrocious. ...But if you don't care about any of these things then US is fine.

A very big, and successful, domestic airline does not require full frills. That's why we have WN. My perception is that US, with it's LCC heritage in HP, fills a service gap between WN and the other legacies... while also flying international, much more so than WN, but less than DL or UA. They use "LCC" as a stock ticker for a reason. (Forget for the moment that all the other legacies are converging on that lower service category, except for the elite few at the front of the plane, for which all airlines are tripping over themselves to re-invent Sleeper Transport.)

Labor relations doesn't factor into the LCC issue (at least directly), it was lumped into the quote here but hashed out elsewhere.

-Rampart

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 36): That notion actually makes me very uneasy. This is a big nation and I'd like to think we can support a handful of carriers. I'm ardently in the United Airlines camp, but I also quite enjoy the "opportunity" to not fly them if I choose. I'm all for strong national carriers, but it's nice...........no, necessary to have choices also.

Spot on. I could not have said it better myself. I am all for viable carriers in this country, but I think it would be reaalllllyyyy bad for the consumer if we have two absolute juggernauts controlling commercial aviation. Worries me.

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 34): US historically doesn't mind relying on one manufacturer and that manufacturer being Airbus.

Wouldn't the same argument apply equally, if not more to AA than US? Apologies if I'm missing something.

Historically, AA has been a loyal Boeing (includes MD) customer ... except the few oddball A-300s. Only recently they selected the A320 family for future narrow bodies. Compared to that, US has been using both sides for a while - atleast since they merged with HX. Even before that, they selected A330 family for their long haul, while they had Boeing mostly.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 22): E190 gone.

A netters have been trying to get rid of the E-190 jets for several years (apparently because they don't fit some A.netter's business plan   ). The trouble is, the company seems to want them.

Rude of USAirways not to consider our wishes.  

Quoting rampart (Reply 37):

Then I'd say US has an identity crisis. They offer full frills like any of the other majors, but somehow they aren't allowed to be on the same level because they have LCC blood?

Quoting ASA (Reply 39): Wouldn't the same argument apply equally, if not more to AA than US?

The last Boeing HP/US ordered I believe was their old 737s, 757s, and seriously old 767s. Since then it has been all Airbus. I believe HP broke its ties with Boeing after an argument over a 737 crash (that might have been US though) and then Airbus gave US loan commitments during BK. Since the 90s the only orders have been for Arbii. AA recently was all Boeing but as you mentioned broke away in a huge way when it ordered 260 Arbii as well.

Anybody remember why US and HP broke their ties with Boeing ? I think it has to do with that 737 crash in determining liability.

Quoting vhtje (Reply 16): To put it another way: how much influence would the AA board have over this if they were not interested in a tie up with US?

Virtually none. The Board now has very little influence over the outcome - it's in the hands of the court, the trustee(s), and the Unsecured Creditors Committee.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): but US can't do anything until the period of exclusivity expires.

Don't believe that is true. If USAirways is able to convince the Unsecured Creditors Committee of a superior plan, and the Committee decides to go in that direction, they can go around management and directly to the judge with the business plan.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): Beyond that, US management has to realize that AA has some pretty strong unions.

Strong unions and horrible union integration (or none at all) hasn't stopped USAirways management to-date.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 18): And I would not entirely assume AA would use that $4B to fight a merger. It might be put to better use after a merger.

Honestly, I think Horton probably does want to merge. But this all comes down to control now - Horton knows that if they merge in bankruptcy, it will be on terms far less favorable to AA and/or AA management than if the merger occurs post-bankruptcy. AMR has a list of things they want to maintain control over, but they won't be in a place to dictate terms while in Chapter 11.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 18): I think the AA unions have had their bluff called by AA and now they will be looking for a way to gracefully bow out of the fight.

I agree that, for better or worse, the company called the bluff of the unions - particularly the APA. Nonetheless, I don't really see too much evidence of any of the unions "bowing out" - gracefully or otherwise - from fighting the company's proposed 1113 term sheets (and understandably so).

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 22): Grow the cornerstones by 20% with mainline flying when they have: 1. An ancient fleet of MD 80s that need to be shed in BK 2. Not enough deliveries to cover what they currently have + any growth, let alone 20% growth 3. The planes that are coming are smaller than the planes going in many cases...meaning fewer average seats per aircraft and actually shrinking # pax carried per flight vs what they have now. 4. No slots in the all important NYC cornerstone...how to grow there? 5. How much are they really going to grow MIA? There is virtually no competition...in short order, they will get to the point that further growth will dilute revenue

Where are you getting this from?

AA's business plan - as proposed - may or may not be viable, but the above isn't AA's business plan either way.

For starters, there has never been a proposal to grow "mainline flying" by 20%. At least not that I've ever seen. Secondly, that "ancient fleet of MD80s" is rapidly leaving the fleet, and that will accelerate dramatically very soon. As for fleet availability, they have 400+ planes to be delivered over the next decade, with probably 50-100 aircraft of flexibility built in there depending on how quickly they use new 737s/A320s to replace the original ~75 737s. No peak-time slots at JFK ... no argument there (but that, too, with a little more difficulty, could be solved). Miami can grow - assuming there isn't some massive lower-cost incursion in there, which I think is unlikely, AA has tons of runway left in terms of MIA growth.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 22): They need a major shake up and a viable business plan going forward. CLT, PHL, DCA, MIA, DFW, PHX. NYC, LAX, ORD de-emphasized as connecting spots BUT re-emphasized as O and D: high freq service to hubs, business centers, and token international destinations.

I doubt that would ever be the network plan - for a variety of reasons.

Quoting Acey559 (Reply 29): Where do I get my "Keep AA my AA" lanyard and button?

As much as many AA employees may hate Horton, I'm sure there are plenty that for a variety of pay, benefit, and seniority integration reasons, will be all to happy to support AA remaining independent as opposed to merging with another carrier.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 7): Or is that just the pilots who stick to East and West?

Pilots are still segregated. I shared a laugh with a HP captain who was on my AS flight over the weekend. I asked him if he wore his "CACTUS PILOT" badge with honor and he said "oh absolutely" and then proceeded to tell me how childish the US East pilots are (they wear "UNION PILOT" badges).

He said he was genuinely worried about AA and what that'll do to the union mess.....

Quoting commavia (Reply 43): As much as many AA employees may hate Horton, I'm sure there are plenty that for a variety of pay, benefit, and seniority integration reasons, will be all to happy to support AA remaining independent as opposed to merging with another carrier.

As an Eagle employee, I really hope this doesn't happen because it will almost surely spell the end of us, in my opinion. I may lose my job and Eagle may get slashed as things are now, but I would imagine things will be a whole lot worse if US and AA merge. Interesting to see how this will eventually play out, but I'm rooting for the judge/DOJ to say "no way"!

If US airways get a yes for a merger, that's a win for them.

If they get a no for a merger but drive up the price for a joint TPG/IAG bid, that's a win for US.

If the scary thought of a merger with US drives AA into bed with B6, that's a small win for US too (drastic reduction in LCC competition, esp mainland to Caribbean, plus messy overlap of MIA/FLL hubs that drives no synergy)

I just don't understand why AA would want this. Do they really want to be equally associated with US?

Quoting ckfred (Reply 17): ...and the APFA didn't create a fence around the STL hub the way the APA did for TWA pilots.

No, actually there was a fence. As long a s TW FAs stayed at STL, they kept their relative seniority at STL. If an AA FA wanted to transfer into STL, their bidding seniority was artificially adjusted relative to the TWA list. If a TW FA transferred out of STL, their biding seniority would have been relative to the date of their addition to the AA seniority list. TW FAs would have essentially retained what they had under the old TW.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 41): Then I'd say US has an identity crisis. They offer full frills like any of the other majors, but somehow they aren't allowed to be on the same level because they have LCC blood?

Didn't you say that they didn't offer full frills? That's the gist I got out of your previous post:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 14): US is clearly not on the same level, especially from a premium perspective. The lack of meals in F on short to medium hauls is embarrassing, no economy plus, arguably the worst fleet of TATL 757s, lack of IFE in the domestic US of any kind is a drag,

I agree, they don't offer full frills, but they don't have to, they can offer some, and still manage a bit of a price advantage over the others who are trying to offer full amenities. (A price advantage US appear so have, in many cases. AA also has price advantage in many cases, so that would seem to be congruent.) I don't see that as an identity crisis any more than WN trying to beef up their premium product or DL trying to diminish theirs. I'm not saying US-AA "aren't allowed" to be on the same level, I'm saying they don't need to be, as I see a reasonable market for some middle ground. Not unlike what B6 and F9 are trying (and what HP pioneered).

-Rampart