US Airways Dividend Miles - US Airways and American formally agree to consider merger [New Master Thread]

AMR Corporation And US Airways Announce Non-Disclosure Agreement

FORT WORTH, Texas and TEMPE, Ariz., Aug. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- AMR Corporation ("AMR"), the parent company of American Airlines®, and US Airways Group, Inc. (LCC) today announced that they have entered into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"), under which the companies have agreed to exchange certain confidential information and, in close collaboration with AMR's Unsecured Creditors Committee, to work in good faith to evaluate a potential combination.
The companies do not expect to provide any further announcements regarding the status of any such discussions unless and until the parties have entered into a transaction or discussions between the parties have been terminated. Furthermore, AMR and US Airways have each agreed while they are evaluating a potential combination that they and their representatives will not engage in discussions with other parties concerning a potential combination of AMR and US Airways. The companies noted that there can be no assurance that a transaction will result from these discussions.

American Airlines and US Airways Group said Friday they have agreed to consider a potential merger.

A deal, which is still far from reality, would create an airline giant on par with the world's largest — United Continental Holdings Inc. and the slightly smaller Delta Air Lines.

http://marketday.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/31/13590396-amr-us-airways-agree-to-consider-merger?lite

Here is the Press Release (http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3573) from American. . .


AMR Corporation And US Airways Announce Non-Disclosure Agreement

FORT WORTH, Texas and TEMPE, Ariz., Aug. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- AMR Corporation ("AMR"), the parent company of American Airlines®, and US Airways Group, Inc. (NYSE: LCC) today announced that they have entered into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"), under which the companies have agreed to exchange certain confidential information and, in close collaboration with AMR's Unsecured Creditors Committee, to work in good faith to evaluate a potential combination.

The companies do not expect to provide any further announcements regarding the status of any such discussions unless and until the parties have entered into a transaction or discussions between the parties have been terminated. Furthermore, AMR and US Airways have each agreed while they are evaluating a potential combination that they and their representatives will not engage in discussions with other parties concerning a potential combination of AMR and US Airways. The companies noted that there can be no assurance that a transaction will result from these discussions.

SOURCE AMR Corporation

Finally, Parker has been muzzled and has been banned from negotiating with AA's labor unions. Just last week, when the AA pilots should have been negotiating with AA, they were off at a meeting with Parker.

Here's what the US employees got:

Dear Fellow Employees:

Today we announced that US Airways has entered into a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with American Airlines’ parent company, under which both companies have agreed to exchange certain confidential information and to work in good faith to evaluate a potential combination. We are pleased to be working directly with American to study a potential merger and we consider this very good news. It does not mean we are merging – it simply means we have agreed to work together to discuss and analyze a potential merger.

A Non-Disclosure Agreement is pretty much what it sounds like. We, along with American, have agreed to not publicly disclose anything about the discussions or analysis as we move forward because we don’t believe that would be productive. We have also agreed not to discuss the work that is being done to analyze a potential combination with anyone not covered by the NDA. This agreement will likely remain in place until either a deal has been signed or we have determined this process will not result in a transaction.

As a result, we will not be able to be as open and candid about the discussions with American as we usually are about issues that are important to all of us. We will still be very communicative, of course, about all other aspects of our airline, and our Communications Team will continue their great work through About US, US Daily, Wings, State of the Airline webcasts, Crew News webcasts, etc.

I trust you recognize the importance of signing this NDA and we appreciate your understanding. While we may not be providing regular updates on this process, rest assured your management team is working diligently and aggressively to do what is best for US Airways and our hard-working team members. I will let you know more as soon we are able.

In the meantime, please keep up the great work. You all are doing a wonderful job of taking care of our customers and running a great airline. The results are remarkable. Thank you so much for all you do.

Sincerely,
Doug

Maybe inevitable, but not looking forward to it. When we fly Biz Class between the U.S. and Brazil, AA allows 3 free checked bags, US only two. Also, the phone resevations folks with US always seemed to have difficulty finding the full range of flights and one US airport agent (at GSP) argued that the weight allowance was 50 lbs. per bag (it was 70 lbs, for Brazil) and entred a message taht our bags were suspiciousy heavy (which alerted the Customs folks in Brazil, who told us about the message; they thought it was strange, and found nothing suspicious). We did like the virtually lie-flat seats in the US 767 biz class, but AA was as good.

I wonder if US would cut back on flights between the U.S. and Brazil. I assume that if they fully merged they'd join the Oneworld alliance, leaving Star. With TAM likely leaving Star, due to the LAN-TAM merger, this will impact Star's presence in South America.

Maybe inevitable, but not looking forward to it.

Since this is the US forum, most of your reasoning seems to indicate you should be looking forward to it. I'm a long-time US CP/2MM, left out in the cold with the PIT pullout, who has now moved to PLT with AA. If this means I can combine my lifetime miles to AA lifetime PLT, and get both carriers out of PIT (would have the plurality of flights, though far from majority/dominant), I think it would be the best outcome for me.

Since this is the US forum, most of your reasoning seems to think you should be looking forward to it. I'm a long-time US CP/2MM, left out in the cold with the PIT pullout, who has now moved to PLT with AA. If this means I can combine my lifetime miles to AA lifetime PLT, and get bother carriers out of PIT (would have the pkurality of flights, though far from majority/dominant), I think it would be the best outcome for me.

Not sure the bolded part is gonna happen even if US and AA combine. IIRC, when AA acquired TWA, the TWA account balances (unspent miles) were converted to AA miles and added to the AA lifetime counter. But I don't think that previously redeemed TWA miles were added to AA's lifetime counter.

To add yet another wrinkle, AA changed its lifetime Gold/Plat counters last year so that only Butt in Seat miles count toward lifetime status.

Not sure the bolded part is gonna happen even if US and AA combine. IIRC, when AA acquired TWA, the TWA account balances (unspent miles) were converted to AA miles and added to the AA lifetime counter. But I don't think that previously redeemed TWA miles were added to AA's lifetime counter.

To add yet another wrinkle, AA changed its lifetime Gold/Plat counters last year so that only Butt in Seat miles count toward lifetime status.

Who knows what they will do, but US does award lifetime Silver at 1MM, so I would guess they would have a way to combine lifetime flight miles on US with lifetime flight miles on AA.

That being said, this is putting a cart several counties in front of a horse.

View from the Wing reports that US isn't the only one with a NDA in place with AA:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2012/08/31/american-in-talks-with-us-airways-british-airways-and-hedge-funds-about-its-post-bankruptcy-future/

So the consensus is that it will be a oneworld member airline then, not StarAlliance, isn't it?

I wonder if they will be part of Star Alliance or another chain

So the consensus is that it will be a oneworld member airline then, not StarAlliance, isn't it?

I wonder if they will be part of Star Alliance or another chain

I believe it has already been announced that they would leave Star and join OneWorld.

It is mentioned in posts 158, 162, and 164 here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles/1301818-us-airways-american-airlines-merger-related-thread-merged-threads-11.html

Post 180 here is pretty specific about it:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles/1301818-us-airways-american-airlines-merger-related-thread-merged-threads-12.html

I didn't easily find anything from US about it, but I'm sure it is out there somewhere.

Parker told the unions in April that AA's headquarters would remain at DFW and that AA would remain in Oneworld:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/uk-amr-usair-idUKBRE83J17320120420

Simple Due diligence - this is not an agreement to actually merge.

AA has already prosecuted NDA agreements in relation to such discussions with other entities, including British Airways.

Simple Due diligence - this is not an agreement to actually merge.

AA has already prosecuted NDA agreements in relation to such discussions with other entities, including British Airways.

So what? Due to foreign ownership laws, BA cannot acquire more than a 25% interest in AA.

If a deal is to be done, it will be between AA and US or no one.

So what? Due to foreign ownership laws, BA cannot acquire more than a 25% interest in AA.

If a deal is to be done, it will be between AA and US or no one.

If AA is not interested, why would it even bother taking the "next step"? While I haven't followed this closely, it seems like AA might not have a choice but to "merge" with US.

LAX

So what? Due to foreign ownership laws, BA cannot acquire more than a 25% interest in AA.

If a deal is to be done, it will be between AA and US or no one.

Actually, foreigners can own just under 50% of the total equity of a USA-based airline, but they cannot own more than 25% of the voting power. Nonvoting stock could make up the rest. Not unlike the ownership structure of VX.

If AA is not interested, why would it even bother taking the "next step"? While I haven't followed this closely, it seems like AA might not have a choice but to "merge" with US.

AA is taking this "next step" so that it can either embrace a merger with US or craft a plan of reorganization that provides for an independent AA. That way, AA management can honestly say that "we looked at all the alternatives."

Whether there's a merger as a part of AA's exit from Ch 11 ultimately rests upon the unsecured creditors.

Simple Due diligence - this is not an agreement to actually merge.

AA has already prosecuted NDA agreements in relation to such discussions with other entities, including British Airways.

All true. And probably could have been said about many/most merger in the past that were completed. Completion always had a step one. Most, but not all, step ones lead to completion. It would be quite odd to put the effort into this, after all the hyperbole that it would not happen, if there wasn't a high probability.

Except that most big airline mergers in the past occurred outside of bankruptcy so by definition both parties were at least interested in merging with someone. This is different - AMR feels some pressure from the UCC to at least explore any possible benefits of a merger. So the NDA's could be just a way to placate the UCC - "We looked at the possibility of merging with several different carriers but saw no advantages over our stand-alone plan." Of course, the opposite could occur - "We looked at merger possibilities and conclude that a merger with XYZ offers more benefits than a stand-alone plan."

Jim

I am sure this question shows my naitivity but I thought this would be a good place to ask. If this merger goes through will my Dividend miles be still valid? At the moment I have 440,000 miles and am hoping to snag some low milege for next August in Envoy to Italy which would run me only 100K per person (three people) right now everything is at high for July and August 1st just opened at high. I don't mind having to pay more for the third ticket but would love to get two at the low price. If they merge with American will my miles still be valid? Worried if I should just bite the bullet and book sooner rather than later even if it means having to buy more miles. ( I figure a promo will come around sooner or later they always do) I thought I was golden as it was just going to be my husband and myself so I had wiggle room for even a low and a high combination but now our son wants to join us

Simple Due diligence - this is not an agreement to actually merge.

AA has already prosecuted NDA agreements in relation to such discussions with other entities, including British Airways.

Prosecuted? Executed, I think that would be the word here. I am not so thrilled by the prospect of an airline (USAirways) which STILL after 5 years or more hasn't fully integrated USAirways and America West, coping with an even larger merger.

I am sure this question shows my naitivity but I thought this would be a good place to ask. If this merger goes through will my Dividend miles be still valid? At the moment I have 440,000 miles and am hoping to snag some low milege for next August in Envoy to Italy

Your miles will be fine, if the dozens of previous airline mergers are any indication. Your bigger worry will be getting those low envoy awards for august....which may never materialize.

...

If a deal is to be done, it will be between AA and US or no one.That's quite likely - but look for it to occur after AA exits Ch. 11, not during.

In which case it would be AA absorbing US.

So, late 2013, 2014 or even 2015 would be when such a merger occurred.

In any case, don't expect there to be any operations under US flight numbers by 2016.

That's quite likely - but look for it to occur after AA exits Ch. 11, not during.

In which case it would be AA absorbing US.

So, late 2013, 2014 or even 2015 would be when such a merger occurred.

In any case, don't expect there to be any operations under US flight numbers by 2016.
I hope you're right, Serfty! We are going to Spain for a special event in Sept 2014 and this is our last chance to try J class in the *A carriers but I can't book it until late 2013! After that, I do prefer the way AAdvantage works (one way awards, QF and other partners bookable online) to USDM.

View from the Wing[/U] reports that US isn't the only one with a NDA in place with AA:


The London Sunday Times reports that BA's parent company is taking a financial stake in American to help its negotiating position with USAirways, and to insure it remains in One World.

BA poised to take stake in America’s new super airline
Ben Marlow
The Sunday TimesPublished: 02 September 2012Industry

THE owner of British Airways is manoeuvring to become a cornerstone...is widely expected to merge with US Airways. The new carrier would rival the world...precursor to a full-blown merger with US Airways. A cash infusion from BA’s parent...

Let's hope that Lifetime Memberships in the respective clubs are honored.

If this merger goes through will my Dividend miles be still valid?

The chance that something would happen to DMs other than being transferred into the merged program is infinitesimally greater than zero. No worries

BA's parent company is taking a financial stake in American to help its negotiating position with USAirways, and to insure it remains in One World.

Parker has already said the plan is to join OW. The odds of it being something else, with AA as a cornerstone of OW and US a redheaded stepchild of *A is just slightly higher than the above.

So if the merger/acquisition happens, what's the shortest and longest time we'll be able US miles on *A?

At the moment I have 440,000 miles and am hoping to snag some low milege for next August in Envoy to Italy which would run me only 100K per person (three people) right now everything is at high for July and August 1st just opened at high.

Your miles will be fine, if the dozens of previous airline mergers are any indication. Your bigger worry will be getting those low envoy awards for august....which may never materialize.

PHL-FCO is the highest demand TATL route for US. Your best chance is to find C award seats on LH, connecting through FRA or MUC.

PHL-FCO is the highest demand TATL route for US. Your best chance is to find C award seats on LH, connecting through FRA or MUC.
Actually year round it's PHL-FRA, PHL-TLV, PHL-LHR.

So if the merger/acquisition happens, what's the shortest and longest time we'll be able US miles on *A?

My money is on any merger being a part of AA's POR, so nothing would happen before AA exits bankruptcy - the end of the year at the earliest. The longest would be if there were never a merger between AA and US - as long as US is able to last as the smallest network carrier. If AA emerged from bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier and then offered to merge with US on AA's terms - Horton's preferred plan it seems - it would be somewhere between the two above scenarios.

Jim

View from the Wing reports that US isn't the only one with a NDA in place with AA:

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2012/08/31/american-in-talks-with-us-airways-british-airways-and-hedge-funds-about-its-post-bankruptcy-future/

FYI... Speculation (desire) of many of those on the AA side of FT is that AA will acquire B6 rather than do a deal with US.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/1373581-rumor-aa-wants-buy-jetblue.html

I only want to see this merger succeed if US stats with Star Alliance. If not due to where I have to fly on a regular basis, I will have to hold my nose and jump to UA. I fly to either SFO, MUC, FRA, ZRH and BSL on almost a weekly basis and those are all *A based carriers in those ports. One world really sucks for me. I don't ever fly to LATAM or Asia which is where One World actually doesn't totally suck.

I only want to see this merger succeed if US stats with Star Alliance. If not due to where I have to fly on a regular basis, I will have to hold my nose and jump to UA. I fly to either SFO, MUC, FRA, ZRH and BSL on almost a weekly basis and those are all *A based carriers in those ports. One world really sucks for me. I don't ever fly to LATAM or Asia which is where One World actually doesn't totally suck.

The chances that a merged US-AA is in Star Alliance are extremely remote, especially since Parker has already said that AA would remain in Oneworld. AA is a big fish in OW while US is a nobody in Star.

Your destinations are Star strongholds, but if/when AA and US merge, it is very likely that the airline continues to serve many of the current European destinations flown by US from PHL and/or CLT. AA already flies MIA-SFO plus AA flies to FRA and ZRH. I assume that US flies to some/all of these European cities as well. It's likely that there would be fewer frequencies to Star hubs, but keep in mind that Oneworld member Air Berlin might help with Germany.

I must say, I am disappointed by this move. Most of my flights are to *A destinations, so it looks like I'll have to jump ship to another *A member. Maybe I'll finally jump onto the Aegean Airlines bullet.

I must say, I am disappointed by this move. Most of my flights are to *A destinations, so it looks like I'll have to jump ship to another *A member. Maybe I'll finally jump onto the Aegean Airlines bullet.

There are very few destinations which aren't served by both *A and OW. Where are you travelling? Central Africa?

There are very few destinations which aren't served by both *A and OW. Where are you travelling? Central Africa?

While technically true, the availability of non-stops between city pairs differs substantially between the groups. It really depends on where you live and where you want to go.

For example, if you want to travel from Manila to Hong Kong, oneworld is great. with multiple non-stops on Cathay. Star Alliance involves an inconvenient connection in Seoul, Singapore or Bangkok.

Adding a connection when not necessary is incredibly inconvenient to me.

There are very few destinations which aren't served by both *A and OW. Where are you travelling? Central Africa?

While technically true, the availability of non-stops between city pairs differs substantially between the groups. It really depends on where you live and where you want to go.

For example, if you want to travel from Manila to Hong Kong, oneworld is great. with multiple non-stops on Cathay. Star Alliance involves an inconvenient connection in Seoul, Singapore or Bangkok.

Adding a connection when not necessary is incredibly inconvenient to me.

Exactly. The majority of my flying involves an area which does not have a local OW carrier and would involve lengthy connections. For example, a direct 11 hr flight would turn into a 3 hour flight plus another 13 hour flight, not even taking into account the necessary layover. And that also leaves me trying to piece together flights with connecting times which aren't ridiculous in length. Coupled with the inferiority of the hard product, I'd much rather stick with *A.

On the plus side, I guess that means more miles for me!

It's likely that there would be fewer frequencies to Star hubs, but keep in mind that Oneworld member Air Berlin might help with Germany.

AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?

If the result of an AA/US merger can't at least maintain their current level of service into Europe, they shouldn't merge at all. AA needs to do more than just run a joint shuttle service with BA to LHR to be a bigger player TATL. A merger with US would presumably be part of it.

FYI... Speculation (desire) of many of those on the AA side of FT is that AA will acquire B6 rather than do a deal with US.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/1373581-rumor-aa-wants-buy-jetblue.html

B6 has no desire to merge with AA. Nor should they want to, because it's likely that AA would dump large portions of B6's network- FLL, MCO and LGB don't really work well with the "cornerstones".

[QUOTE=eponymous_coward;19257245]AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?

If the result of an AA/US merger can't at least maintain their current level of service into Europe, they shouldn't merge at all. AA needs to do more than just run a joint shuttle service with BA to LHR to be a bigger player TATL. A merger with US would presumably be part of it.



Agree with you here. I don't think forcing corporate flyers to connect through LHR is sustainable. Delta and UAL must agree - look at their non stop destinations from EWR/JFK/IAD/ATL. As someone who trecks across the ocean monthly and likes to land/shower/work - I just cant be productive if I have to land at LHR then take another flight - I would much rather have my connection US side. I will, however, occasionally connect in LHR on the return as it's nice not having to connect in PHL or IAD to RDU after a 9 hour flight.

I do fear that the RDU LHR flight will be lost in a merger. I can't see AA/BA running CLT and RDU to LHR.

While I assume there would be some elimination of routes in a US/AA merger, why is there speculation that there would be a total elimination of US routes? If PHL-FRA, CLT-FRA, PHL-CDG are money making flights, I would expect the new USAA airline to keep flying them no matter the alliance. All I care about would be keeping my hard earned status (almost entirely regional jet segments).

While I assume there would be some elimination of routes in a US/AA merger, why is there speculation that there would be a total elimination of US routes?

There was similar chatter back when HP and US merged, that every PHX flight to the East coast would be routed through PHL or CLT and the PHX long-haul nonstops would go away.

While this has actually happened in a few cases (RDU, BDL, and YYZ come to mind), many have hung on and when I've been on the flights they've been pretty full (BOS, JFK/EWR, MCO come to mind). Some of those that went away may have been waning anyway prior to the merger.

As what happened then, if this merger happens, nothing will change overnight. They'll look at all routes for profitability. If PHL-FRA remains so, I don't think they'll eliminate that route. And maybe, just maybe, US will try out a PHX-Europe nonstop (we can dream, can't we? ;) )

AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?

:D

As you know (or perhaps you don't), DL has a much larger customer base throughout Germany as a result of its former FRA hub acquired from Pan Am.

If the result of an AA/US merger can't at least maintain their current level of service into Europe, they shouldn't merge at all. AA needs to do more than just run a joint shuttle service with BA to LHR to be a bigger player TATL. A merger with US would presumably be part of it.

I assume that most European destinations would remain in a combined US-AA, but to the extent that there's more than one daily flight to FRA from PHL or CLT, frequencies may be cut back to one per day.

US flies a single daily flight to LHR, the primary business destination across the Atlantic, compared to AA's 19 daily flights this summer. It ain't about dots on the map - it's about where premium fares can be sold.

While I assume there would be some elimination of routes in a US/AA merger, why is there speculation that there would be a total elimination of US routes? If PHL-FRA, CLT-FRA, PHL-CDG are money making flights, I would expect the new USAA airline to keep flying them no matter the alliance. All I care about would be keeping my hard earned status (almost entirely regional jet segments).

I'm not speculating that there would be any "total elimination of US routes."

Let's be serious for a moment however - there's almost no O&D between CLT and Brasil. Nearly everyone on that plane to Rio is a connecting passenger. Anybody think that flight would remain at CLT? US put that flight at CLT because US doesn't have a hub any place else where there is substantial O&D to/from Brasil, like NYC or MIA or ATL or DFW. So it was either CLT or PHL.


Agree with you here. I don't think forcing corporate flyers to connect through LHR is sustainable. Delta and UAL must agree - look at their non stop destinations from EWR/JFK/IAD/ATL. As someone who trecks across the ocean monthly and likes to land/shower/work - I just cant be productive if I have to land at LHR then take another flight - I would much rather have my connection US side. I will, however, occasionally connect in LHR on the return as it's nice not having to connect in PHL or IAD to RDU after a 9 hour flight.

I assume that most of the US European flights would remain, if they're making sufficient money. Whether they remain won't be up to Parker/AA; BA will have input due to the TATL immunized joint venture.


I do fear that the RDU LHR flight will be lost in a merger. I can't see AA/BA running CLT and RDU to LHR.

The RDU flight will continue to exist as long as the Research Triangle Park businesses (GSK and others) continue to provide subsidies/revenue guarantees to AA.

Personally, I would love to see the B6-AA thing happen and US continue as a standalone *A airline. For me, it's not a question of which is better (Oneworld or Star)...I just know that having access to both of them is better than one. That's what I have now by actively flying US but also maintaining some miles with AA. Even with two relatively low-tier elite statuses, I usually have multiple options to most parts of the globe. (Sadly I keep running into options lately where Skyteam is the only nonstop, but being able to pick from the other two means I can usually get a decent connection.)

I also think that taking one more competitor out of the marketplace will raise fares on that many more routes. Maybe good for you guys who like to bet on airline stocks but bad for us fliers.

While technically true, the availability of non-stops between city pairs differs substantially between the groups. It really depends on where you live and where you want to go.

For example, if you want to travel from Manila to Hong Kong, oneworld is great. with multiple non-stops on Cathay. Star Alliance involves an inconvenient connection in Seoul, Singapore or Bangkok.

Adding a connection when not necessary is incredibly inconvenient to me.

I know that there are those who love nonstop and disdain connections. I am not one of them. I'd always choose a connection over a nonstop. Just yesterday, I was able to book PHX-DEN-SAN. Sure, long to the destination, but more miles, more segments, another airport to visit, and most happily more time in the sky. Call me crazy if you like.

A larger portion of US domestic trafffic involves pax who connect. If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HKG?

AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?


"Criminal" really? Unfortunate, sure; short sighted, sure; but criminal? Oh, also, *A lost a great deal of service to, and within, the UK when LH sold BD to BA. Should we also call this "criminal"?


B6 has no desire to merge with AA. Nor should they want to, because it's likely that AA would dump large portions of B6's network- FLL, MCO and LGB don't really work well with the "cornerstones".

A great deal of mergers, including within the airline industry, happen despite one party having no interest. I would much rather have AA acquire B6 than to have Parker involved with yet another airline.

:D

As you know (or perhaps you don't), DL has a much larger customer base throughout Germany as a result of its former FRA hub acquired from Pan Am.

What was going on 20-25 years ago might as well be in the Triassic as far as the industry is concerned these days. By all rights, then AA should still have hubs in STL and SJC, and UA should still have a hub in MIA and should still fly JFK-NRT/LHR, if that's the sort of historical standard we're using.

My point is DL has been much more aggressive than AA at trying to have a complete route map. If the Chapter 11 proceedings and mergers aren't the antidote to that, what is?

Certainly I don't expect them to fly routes just to fly them, though. But a US/AA merger would hopefully give the combined entity more oomph in Europe.

Personally, I would love to see the B6-AA thing happen and US continue as a standalone *A airline. For me, it's not a question of which is better (Oneworld or Star)...I just know that having access to both of them is better than one. That's what I have now by actively flying US but also maintaining some miles with AA. Even with two relatively low-tier elite statuses, I usually have multiple options to most parts of the globe. (Sadly I keep running into options lately where Skyteam is the only nonstop, but being able to pick from the other two means I can usually get a decent connection.)

I also think that taking one more competitor out of the marketplace will raise fares on that many more routes. Maybe good for you guys who like to bet on airline stocks but bad for us fliers.

Not much recognition of the ironic tension between your two paragraphs, hmm?

Over half of the US public doesn't own a passport, so being able to choose between *A or oneworld for overseas travel is irrelevant for them. But even the prototypical FT "buy cheap Y fares and mileage run to fly LH/SQ/CX F" crowd (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/09/03/if-i-didn%E2%80%99t-love-loyalty-programs-so-much%E2%80%A6/) knows that B6 offers a better experience to the vast majority of the American flying public, than the legacies who shove you into cramped seats and ding you with every nuisance fee they can think of.

A great deal of mergers, including within the airline industry, happen despite one party having no interesting. I would much rather have AA acquire B6 than to have Parker involved with yet another airline.

AA should not be in the business of spending a lot of cash to turn planes into beer cans. They already did that in other mergers.

I for one remember the change in service levels from the old US to the present config, think loss of envoy lounge in PHL, decrease in benefits for status members, first airline to start charging fees for everything - or close to the first. AA has some issues with service also, but we do not need to turn these airlines into another giant airline with mediocre service. Flying just about any foreign carrier gets you better service and better metal. (with some exceptions). I am wholeheartedly against a merger of the two.

I know that there are those who love nonstop and disdain connections. I am not one of them. I'd always choose a connection over a nonstop. Just yesterday, I was able to book PHX-DEN-SAN. Sure, long to the destination, but more miles, more segments, another airport to visit, and most happily more time in the sky. Call me crazy if you like.

I travel for work and need to get to where I need to be. Connections double the chance of a misconnect or a weather or maintenance delay. No thanks for me unless I have no other choice.

A larger portion of US domestic trafffic involves pax who connect. If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HNG?

Take a look at a map. It's like flying Los Angeles to San Francisco and connecting through Chicago, which is something I would never even consider.

Take a look at a map. It's like flying Los Angeles to San Francisco and connecting through Chicago, which is something I would never even consider.

I have, perhaps you should too:

Flying MHL-HKG through the closest *A hub, TPE, increases distance by 73%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

Connecting MNL-TPE-HKG makes more sense than connecting DTW-ORD-IND or SYR-PHL-PIT which both increase distance by 77%.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dtw-ind,dtw-ord-ind
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syr-pit,syr-phl-pit

The comparision you suggest is hardly a comparision. Flying LAX-ORD-SFO increases distance by 964%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

While I am sure that you wouldn't fly LAX-ORD-SFO, it simply isn't like flying MNL-HKG via a hub.

And before you object, my post had a typo, I said HNG rather than HKG, but the route you had suggested was MNL-HKG. But, really how many people do fly to Hienghene?

Darn, this is not good.

Darn, this is not good.

I don't think so either. But, perhaps you might expound a bit?

I don't think so either. But, perhaps you might expound a bit?

Here is one reason:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/credit-card-programs/1349595-will-you-move-spg-sapphire-if-us-merges-aa.html

Also I am not comfortable with the rising fares after some of the past mergers. My parents are in PHL and I frequently fly DFW - PHL so having competition and choice on that route is important.

Here is one reason:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/credit-card-programs/1349595-will-you-move-spg-sapphire-if-us-merges-aa.html

Also I am not comfortable with the rising fares after some of the past mergers. My parents are in PHL and I frequently fly DFW - PHL so having competition and choice on that route is important.

You'll have it soon. The Wright Amendment runs out of steam in 2014, and you can bet money WN will be flying DAL-PHL.

I assume that most of the US European flights would remain, if they're making sufficient money.

I think that will depend on how many passengers make a connection to a *A carrier in one of the European hubs. Without a partner in FRA, for example, would CLT-FRA still make money? Or PHL-AMS?

I've heard (urban legend?) that AA doesn't serve TLV because of some dispute based on Israel's labor laws. If true, would an AA/US carrier operating as AA still fly PHL-TLV?

Jim

I've heard (urban legend?) that AA doesn't serve TLV because of some dispute based on Israel's labor laws. If true, would an AA/US carrier operating as AA still fly PHL-TLV?

Jim

A discussion about this issue can be found here (posts 296-298):

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/religious-travelers/1083255-master-thread-kosher-meals-20.html

You'll have it soon. The Wright Amendment runs out of steam in 2014, and you can bet money WN will be flying DAL-PHL.

Since DAL is limited on the number of gates, I am not sure how many non-stops there will be, if any. Plus not a fan of RR 2.0

I have, perhaps you should too:

Flying MHL-HKG through the closest *A hub, TPE, increases distance by 73%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

Connecting MNL-TPE-HKG makes more sense than connecting DTW-ORD-IND or SYR-PHL-PIT which both increase distance by 77%.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dtw-ind,dtw-ord-ind
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syr-pit,syr-phl-pit

The comparision you suggest is hardly a comparision. Flying LAX-ORD-SFO increases distance by 964%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

While I am sure that you wouldn't fly LAX-ORD-SFO, it simply isn't like flying MNL-HKG via a hub.

And before you object, my post had a typo, I said HNG rather than HKG, but the route you had suggested was MNL-HKG. But, really how many people do fly to Hienghene?

What in the world are you talking about?

Since when is Taipei a Star Alliance "hub"?

What Star carrier flies MNL-TPE?

What Star carrier flies TPE-HKG?

Even ignoring all that, the issue is flying non-stop versus connecting. Everyone I work with avoids connections whenever possible for the reasons I previously listed, which you seemed to ignore.

What in the world are you talking about?

Since when is Taipei a Star Alliance "hub"?

What Star carrier flies MNL-TPE?

What Star carrier flies TPE-HKG?

Even ignoring all that, the issue is flying non-stop versus connecting. Everyone I work with avoids connections whenever possible for the reasons I previously listed, which you seemed to ignore.

TPE will be a *A hub once BR's membership is finalized. Sorry that my verb tense was missing.

BR flies MNL-TPE-HKG.

You didn't just express your disdain for connections, you over inflated the pain of a specific market -- viz. MNL-HKG -- with an over-the-top assertion that it is like LAX-ORD-SFO.

You are not alone in wishing to avoid connections, but the fact is that an exceedingly large portion of domestic air traffic connects everyday. My original claim was "If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HKG?" You have offered nothing against this, no reason why a market outside the US should be different than a market inside the US only that you prefer point-to-point rather than travelling the hub-and-spoke system which exists in the US.

Since DAL is limited on the number of gates, I am not sure how many non-stops there will be, if any. Plus not a fan of RR 2.0

Given WN's experience at PHL, particularly with the impact on system wide performance that PHL has caused, I too would be surprised with DAL-PHL nonstop. But DAL-BNA-PHL or DAL-MDW-PHL are certainly possibilities.

TPE will be a *A hub once BR's membership is finalized. Sorry that my verb tense was missing.

It is more than just verb tense missing.

BR is a niche player and TPE will not suddenly become a "hub" of any legitimate type.

BR flies MNL-TPE-HKG.

That's nice, but I'll still fly non-stop on oneworld before doing a connection through TPE, even if BR finally becomes an active member of Star. You do realize that some membership applications languish for years?

You didn't just express your disdain for connections, you over inflated the pain of a specific market -- viz. MNL-HKG -- with an over-the-top assertion that it is like LAX-ORD-SFO.

It's called giving an example.

Ignoring the hypothetical future, as of right now and in the past, if I want to fly from MNL to HKG, as I did a week ago, I can fly on CX non-stop and it is 617 nm. But if I want to fly on Star, I have to connect through ICN, BKK or SIN. That's 2520, 2094, or 2660 nm. Beijing is a similar distance.

Why in the world would anyone other than a mileage runner fly three to four times further than a non-stop?

As I said earlier, with extremely few exceptions, I won't fly with any connections when a non-stop is available. I need to be where I need to be.

The discussion here in any event is alliances. Due to routings on many city pairs, one alliance is more convenient than another.

You are not alone in wishing to avoid connections, but the fact is that an exceedingly large portion of domestic air traffic connects everyday. My original claim was "If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HKG?" You have offered nothing against this, no reason why a market outside the US should be different than a market inside the US only that you prefer point-to-point rather than travelling the hub-and-spoke system which exists in the US.

Because when I choose which carrier to fly, I look to which is the most convenient. Many people in the States choose their carrier on which is the cheapest and don't care if they have two connections en-route.

Internationally, as in the U.S., I fly non-stops whenever possible regardless of which carrier it is. When there is a choice, I'll choose the carrier I prefer most, but with the race to the bottom in the States, it doesn't seem to matter much which carrier you fly.

So I wouldn't fly BR anyway when oneworld has non-stops available.

What you don't seem to grasp is that one alliance works better for some people than others. That was the issue--just to get you back on track.

I for one remember the change in service levels from the old US to the present config, think loss of envoy lounge in PHL, decrease in benefits for status members, first airline to start charging fees for everything - or close to the first. AA has some issues with service also, but we do not need to turn these airlines into another giant airline with mediocre service. Flying just about any foreign carrier gets you better service and better metal. (with some exceptions). I am wholeheartedly against a merger of the two.

.... squeezing all of PIT + PHL into just PHL... with the delays to prove it.

AMR Corporation And US Airways Announce Non-Disclosure Agreement

FORT WORTH, Texas and TEMPE, Ariz., Aug. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- AMR Corporation ("AMR"), the parent company of American Airlines®, and US Airways Group, Inc. (LCC) today announced that they have entered into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"), under which the companies have agreed to exchange certain confidential information and, in close collaboration with AMR's Unsecured Creditors Committee, to work in good faith to evaluate a potential combination.
The companies do not expect to provide any further announcements regarding the status of any such discussions unless and until the parties have entered into a transaction or discussions between the parties have been terminated. Furthermore, AMR and US Airways have each agreed while they are evaluating a potential combination that they and their representatives will not engage in discussions with other parties concerning a potential combination of AMR and US Airways. The companies noted that there can be no assurance that a transaction will result from these discussions.

This merger is excellent for improving service levels as well as improving profit for the airline.

US + AA combined will have modern equipment to use on the most profitable routes, also will be able to use Joint venture partners better on the OneWorld alliance. Just so many net positives compared to the negatives.

At JFK and LGA you will have: JetBlue, Delta and AA with the USAir merger as the strongest domestic players. Less competition may lead to higher pricing but on the flip side it means more reinvestment and more integration making flights and connections easier. I would rather easier connections and more reinvestment and larger networks and improved customer service levels.

Less competition may lead to higher pricing

Less competition WILL lead to higher pricing. In fact there was an article in USA Today (last week? two weeks ago?), that the average air fares already went up as a result of UA/CO & DL/NW mergers (and these went up significantly in cities like MEM where there is almost only DL left with very little competition). While merger might be good for US & AA, it will be bad for us - the travelers - just look what happened with UA. All in all, I am against... (Plus or selfish reasons, I want US in *A...)

Less competition WILL lead to higher pricing. In fact there was an article in USA Today (last week? two weeks ago?), that the average air fares already went up as a result of UA/CO & DL/NW mergers (and these went up significantly in cities like MEM where there is almost only DL left with very little competition). While merger might be good for US & AA, it will be bad for us - the travelers - just look what happened with UA. All in all, I am against... (Plus or selfish reasons, I want US in *A...)

So fares go up, but you ask yourself this: Has convenience levels gone up, has safety levels gone up, has the alliance partners worked on improvements, have airlines been better funded and well capitalized and able to maintain their survival and success?

The answer is yes, healthier airlines and better services albeit with higher prices at times. Mergers are not wrong. Startups or smaller airlines will merge or expand to fill in pricing gaps or to fill demand needs.

Just look at what AA did with the JFK to NRT route for instance, they pulled out, moved to Haneda, came out with a joint venture with partner JAL which went into bankruptcy. So now JAL/AA partnership gets to run the show at Narita which means a better quality airline for the customers with new Dreamliner 787. Carriers with integrate or merge get better, and it forces carriers to make improvements.

The system now is working and the USAirways/AA merger will be the last legacy carrier to integrate. And after this the whole Aviation system in america will be stable for the first time.

The government needs to take a hands off approach, and deregulation is working. We do NOT need nationalization of airlines or undue restrictions. USAir/AA merging is good for customers.

If pricing levels on routes get inflated new competition will come in especially if demand exceeds supply because adding seats on the route is now a reason for another airline to come in as fares get unduly high to compete on price and get more cost efficient structures.

This is the basis of the airline industry we live in and the cycle continues but is why we need the merger and why the system works. Artificial governmental controls do not work.

As multiple carriers in the USA merge for growth and if there is severe contraction on various routes, other carriers will be able to take over the segments so fewer carriers in the nation but stronger competition in respective markets and sufficient competition to maintain supply/demand levels in all markets.

AA/USAirways merger works for the USA. Just 1 major merger left, then the rest will play out itself.

If the merger goes through, why would the new joint venture continue with the name American Airlines, and not US Airways?

So fares go up, but you ask yourself this: Has convenience levels gone up, has safety levels gone up, has the alliance partners worked on improvements, have airlines been better funded and well capitalized and able to maintain their survival and success?

The answer is yes, healthier airlines and better services albeit with higher prices at times. Mergers are not wrong. Startups or smaller airlines will merge or expand to fill in pricing gaps or to fill demand needs.

Just look at what AA did with the JFK to NRT route for instance, they pulled out, moved to Haneda, came out with a joint venture with partner JAL which went into bankruptcy. So now JAL/AA partnership gets to run the show at Narita which means a better quality airline for the customers with new Dreamliner 787. Carriers with integrate or merge get better, and it forces carriers to make improvements.

The system now is working and the USAirways/AA merger will be the last legacy carrier to integrate. And after this the whole Aviation system in america will be stable for the first time.

The government needs to take a hands off approach, and deregulation is working. We do NOT need nationalization of airlines or undue restrictions. USAir/AA merging is good for customers.

If pricing levels on routes get inflated new competition will come in especially if demand exceeds supply because adding seats on the route is now a reason for another airline to come in as fares get unduly high to compete on price and get more cost efficient structures.

This is the basis of the airline industry we live in and the cycle continues but is why we need the merger and why the system works. Artificial governmental controls do not work.

As multiple carriers in the USA merge for growth and if there is severe contraction on various routes, other carriers will be able to take over the segments so fewer carriers in the nation but stronger competition in respective markets and sufficient competition to maintain supply/demand levels in all markets.

AA/USAirways merger works for the USA. Just 1 major merger left, then the rest will play out itself.

I disagree 100%. Monopolies should not be allowed, period. And that is what is created on certain routes with more airline consolidation. This is exactly the type of area where the government should step in and lookout for the hundreds of millions of Americans in such a vital industry and not for the few people that can get rich off a deal like this.

Competition = Good for everyone

competition = good for everyone

+1000000000

So fares go up, but you ask yourself this: Has convenience levels gone up

Do yourself a favor: visit the UA forum. Read about SHARES fiasco, low upgrade opportunities for UA top elites, withdrawal of 'Expert Mode' etc. etc. etc. Each day is a disaster on the UA forum...

If the merger goes through, why would the new joint venture continue with the name American Airlines, and not US Airways?

American Airlines resists US Airways' pressure to merge - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/flights/travel/story/2012-07-19/American-Airlines-resists-US-Airways-pressure-to-merge/56345594/1)

American's executives stress that their company is the larger, better-situated airline.

[US Airways CEO Doug] Parker doesn't buy that. But he says that if the two were to combine, the airline would be called American and would keep its headquarters in Fort Worth.

US Airways to exit Star Alliance if it merges with American - USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/07/us-airways-would-exit-star-alliance-if-it-merges-with-american/806454/1)

American Airlines resists US Airways' pressure to merge - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/flights/travel/story/2012-07-19/American-Airlines-resists-US-Airways-pressure-to-merge/56345594/1)



US Airways to exit Star Alliance if it merges with American - USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/07/us-airways-would-exit-star-alliance-if-it-merges-with-american/806454/1)

Right, but it really doesn't say why. I was hoping there was a definite reason. Personally, if a merger happened, I'd rather them stick with US Airways. Unfortunately, when I think of American Airlines (same with United), I think of 9/11 and a tarnished name. I just think US Airways or a new name would provide a fresh start.

American Airlines resists US Airways' pressure to merge - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/money/flights/travel/story/2012-07-19/American-Airlines-resists-US-Airways-pressure-to-merge/56345594/1)



US Airways to exit Star Alliance if it merges with American - USATODAY.com (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/07/us-airways-would-exit-star-alliance-if-it-merges-with-american/806454/1)

We don't need USAirways and United on Star Alliance. USAirways and American Airlines merged together and joining OneWorld is a better alliance.

OneWorld, SkyTeam and Star Alliance will all compete with each other for legacy flights. Some markets will have all three on flights.

And some carriers will go at it alone. But make no mistake: We will have better markets worldwide after the mergers.

Mergers in the airline industry have occured across nations, like British Airways and Iberia or Air France and KLM.

AA and USAir merger makes sense. After this merger, there won't be any others such as one global airline merger. That will be anti competitive. However I do expect non legacy carriers to grow and even expand if the other carriers force prices higher. JetBlue will take on more routes, Virgin America has room for growth as well as other non legacies.

And yes there will also be new startup airlines formed as well in the future. The market never stays still. Before the markets contracted we had a lot of competition in the industry. TWA, Pan Am, and many others. Then what happened, these airlines folded but new startups like JetBlue wound up taking away marketshare. After these mergers and I do believe AA and USAirways will merge and a deal eventually finalized with the American Airlines name intact on OneWorld, we will see healthy growth and competition emerge.

If the merger goes through, why would the new joint venture continue with the name American Airlines, and not US Airways?

Better name recognition world-wide.Thats why it wasnt called America West but USAirways even thou AW took over US. Also why CO/UA is called United even thou almost everything about it says Continental

If the merger goes through, why would the new joint venture continue with the name American Airlines, and not US Airways?

Same reason the UA/CO merger stuck w the UA name (even though it was really more of a takeover by CO). UA was the larger carrier w more customers & certainly more name recognition in its 2nd largest market (Asia).

Same w AA/US. US may be taking over American (if your in denial about this, just wait & see which executives stay & which leave) but American here to is the larger airline w more customers. It certainly gets more complicated then that but these are just a few reasons

Better name recognition world-wide.Thats why it wasnt called America West but USAirways even thou AW took over US. Also why CO/UA is called United even thou almost everything about it says Continental



Same reason the UA/CO merger stuck w the UA name (even though it was really more of a takeover by CO). UA was the larger carrier w more customers & certainly more name recognition in its 2nd largest market (Asia).

Same w AA/US. US may be taking over American (if your in denial about this, just wait & see which executives stay & which leave) but American here to is the larger airline w more customers. It certainly gets more complicated then that but these are just a few reasons


Thanks for the answers, I appreciate it.

Same reason the UA/CO merger stuck w the UA name (even though it was really more of a takeover by CO). UA was the larger carrier w more customers & certainly more name recognition in its 2nd largest market (Asia).

Same w AA/US. US may be taking over American (if your in denial about this, just wait & see which executives stay & which leave) but American here to is the larger airline w more customers. It certainly gets more complicated then that but these are just a few reasons

US is also a better run airline. Same deal over at United where Continental management took charge but the United name was kept.

American Airlines name will be kept, no doubt about it and yes with US Management at the helm.

US is also a better run airline. Same deal over at United where Continental management took charge but the United name was kept.

American Airlines name will be kept, no doubt about it and yes with US Management at the helm.

There is really no comparison between how US is managed and how CO managed(es) UA. UA forum is, like, omg, kthxbai... As the other poster said, not a day goes by there without next new major problem.

There is really no comparison between how US is managed and how CO managed(es) UA. UA forum is, like, omg, kthxbai... As the other poster said, not a day goes by there without next new major problem.

CO management had a more difficult time because of the UA merger than they thought. Continental was excellent but after the merger the firm has gone downhill.

Delta on the other hand has been thriving strongly.

It is unclear the impact of an AA and US merger will have and if they will be able to be more like Delta or more like United post merger or somewhere inbetween. But considering the consessions AA seems to be getting so far, it seems to reason that a merged US and AA will be better than United.

I held a "Lifetime" TWA card for many years prior to TWA being taken over by AA. My "Lifetime" TWA lounge pass was extended for an additional two years and then vanished.

I currently hold a US AIR CLUB lounge "Lifetime" which dates from the 1980s. I would imagine, under AA, a similar two year duration of validity and then nothing.

Thus far, only Delta continues to honor my Pan Am "Lifetime" lounge pass by conversion to SkyMiles Life membership.

I held a "Lifetime" TWA card for many years prior to TWA being taken over by AA. My "Lifetime" TWA lounge pass was extended for an additional two years and then vanished.

AA did not honor the lifetime TWA club memberships because AA did not merge with TWA. AA bought assets out of bankruptcy and chose not to include lifetime club memberships in the liabilities it assumed.

I currently hold a US AIR CLUB lounge "Lifetime" which dates from the 1980s. I would imagine, under AA, a similar two year duration of validity and then nothing.

If US and AA merge, then the obligations made by USAir long ago will continue, including your lifetime club membership. If AA were to buy US assets out of bankruptcy (as was the case with TWA), then your imagination would be correct.

[QUOTE=adamj023;19341581]US is also a better run airline.


Not sure about the better run airline. With no entertainment except on international long haul flights, skimpy meal service (compared to United), only two upgrades (compared to six with UA) USAir is more like Amish Air. The main reason I fly them and keep my Chirman status is for the VERY generous upgrades.

. . . Not sure about the better run airline. With no entertainment except on international long haul flights, skimpy meal service (compared to United), only two upgrades (compared to six with UA) USAir is more like Amish Air. The main reason I fly them and keep my Chirman status is for the VERY generous upgrades.

1. Solution is simple - bring your own entertainment. The only thing I really need on a flight is a powerport and maybe WiFi.

2. Last time I checked, meals on UA/US were equally bad. But that was a few weeks ago. Were there recent changes?

3. US ecerts don't have fare restrictions. UA GPUs do. And even though UA GPUs have a slight edge due to use of paper GPUs on LH, both options suck. I would prefer AA-style SWUs - no restrictions and up to 3 segments per SWU.

1. Solution is simple - bring your own entertainment. The only thing I really need on a flight is a powerport and maybe WiFi.

2. Last time I checked, meals on UA/US were equally bad. But that was a few weeks ago. Were there recent changes?

3. US ecerts don't have fare restrictions. UA GPUs do. And even though UA GPUs have a slight edge due to use of paper GPUs on LH, both options suck. I would prefer AA-style SWUs - no restrictions and up to 3 segments per SWU.

Right now we have unlimited space available coach upgrades on US. Does the same apply to ExP on AA?

[QUOTE=adamj023;19341581]With no entertainment except on international long haul flights

Honestly, I'm baffled that this is an issue for anyone. :confused: The only IFE I need is my iPod and a book. With tablets & other mobile devices, you can bring your own IFE with you.

Right now we have unlimited space available coach upgrades on US. Does the same apply to ExP on AA?

Yes, AA's EXPs enjoy UDU on any published fares to US (50 states), Canada, Mexico, Caribbean and Central America. Even on the 3-class transcons (try that at UA). AA's SWUs are valid systemwide on all published fares.

Right now we have unlimited space available coach upgrades on US. Does the same apply to ExP on AA?

EXP UDU is as good as CP automatic upgrades.

[QUOTE=sfallsflyer;19470681]

Honestly, I'm baffled that this is an issue for anyone. :confused: The only IFE I need is my iPod and a book. With tablets & other mobile devices, you can bring your own IFE with you.
I suppose I could bring my own waffle iron also. It's just nice to have the option of watching the news on the shorter flights. I flew domestic UA from PBI to EWR and was amazed at the options offered in first compared to US (meals, entertainment etc). Again, not complaining on the upgrades, I think UA does the better job at that. It’s just that they seem to be a few generations behind. The AA upgrades sound sweet also.

AA bought assets out of bankruptcy and chose not to include lifetime club memberships in the liabilities it assumed.

TWA filed for bankruptcy as part of the AA acquisition. IMHO not including life memberships was not a good business decision because it left a bad impression with particularly loyal customers.

TWA filed for bankruptcy as part of the AA acquisition. IMHO not including life memberships was not a good business decision because it left a bad impression with particularly loyal customers.

It may or may not have been a good business decision, but that's irrelevant to Romadoc's supposition that a merger with AA would somehow kill the lifetime US club memberships. Unless US files for bankruptcy, the merged entity will be saddled with (and will honor) the obligations of both predecessor entities.

It may or may not have been a good business decision, but that's irrelevant to Romadoc's supposition that a merger with AA would somehow kill the lifetime US club memberships. Unless US files for bankruptcy, the merged entity will be saddled with (and will honor) the obligations of both predecessor entities.

You mean like how UA "honored" its commitments with its MM program once CO took over?

You mean like how UA "honored" its commitments with its MM program once CO took over?

There is a difference between assumed contracts that are paid for by customers, and loyalty programs. The million mile program is a benefit in a loyalty program that can be changed at any time (I realize there is a lawsuit out there over this, and have not followed it so I may have missed something); however, when you purchase a lifetime club membership you are entering into a contract with the seller. In this case US Airways has entered a contract with the purchaser whereby the purchaser can use a club for the rest of their life.

If US and AA merge in a transaction whereby US does not enter chapter 11 there is no way for them to terminate that club contract without incurring penalties and/or damages. AA can terminate their contracts under their reorganization plan, but that would not have any impact on US contracts.

Last time I checked, meals on UA/US were equally bad. But that was a few weeks ago. Were there recent changes?

The food is equally mediocre, but the meals are a bit easier to come by on UA. That said, I think that's a product of UA's hub locations as much as anything else -- not as many 3.5h+ flights out of ORD or IAH as there are out of PHL or PHX.

Based on my limited sample set this year, AA beats both of 'em in F.

It may or may not have been a good business decision, but that's irrelevant to Romadoc's supposition that a merger with AA would somehow kill the lifetime US club memberships.

US made their life club members second class citizens years ago when they started charging an annual fee for access to other airline lounges. Still, as a lifetime AC member I would love to pay $60 per year to access AA partner lounges.

Based on past mergers, what is the general time frame for the airlines to harmonize alliances?

I suppose what I'm asking is that if one had a flight booked on US, and before the departure date a merger is announced, how soon after the announcement would the flight credit miles to OW as opposed to *A?

With CO there was about a 9 month gap between announcing their departure from Skyteam and actually leaving the alliance, but that wasn't in the middle of merger talk the way US and AA currently are.

Edit: Just found this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles/1393227-potential-merger-booking-concern.html

Seems the consensus was that in the short term there is no concern.

Based on past mergers, what is the general time frame for the airlines to harmonize alliances?

I suppose what I'm asking is that if one had a flight booked on US, and before the departure date a merger is announced, how soon after the announcement would the flight credit miles to OW as opposed to *A?

With CO there was about a 9 month gap between announcing their departure from Skyteam and actually leaving the alliance, but that wasn't in the middle of merger talk the way US and AA currently are.

Edit: Just found this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/us-airways-dividend-miles/1393227-potential-merger-booking-concern.html

Seems the consensus was that in the short term there is no concern.

Thanks for that link - I've been wondering the same thing, both because I have some upcoming flights on US (credited to my UA account) and because I was considering some US MRs out of DEN, and possibly a trip to Europe staying on *A (since I'll have *G from UA in a month)

Does American Airlines reaching an agreement with Pilots kill US Air's bid for a merger?

http://wtvr.com/2012/11/10/american-airlines-and-pilots-union-come-to-an-agreement/

Does American Airlines reaching an agreement with Pilots kill US Air's bid for a merger?

http://wtvr.com/2012/11/10/american-airlines-and-pilots-union-come-to-an-agreement/

I don't think it kills it completely, but if AA can get an agreement ratified by the pilots' union, it makes it more likely (IMO, at least) that they will exit bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier. That, in turn, will make an AA-US merger less likely, at least one that will be on US's terms, as AA will (theoretically, at least) be on stronger financial footing. And if that happens, I think Dougie will walk away from any deal, as it's pretty obvious that he wants to be in charge of the combined carrier.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong (sorry, Dennis Miller).

I don't think it kills it completely, but if AA can get an agreement ratified by the pilots' union, it makes it more likely (IMO, at least) that they will exit bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier. That, in turn, will make an AA-US merger less likely, at least one that will be on US's terms, as AA will (theoretically, at least) be on stronger financial footing. And if that happens, I think Dougie will walk away from any deal, as it's pretty obvious that he wants to be in charge of the combined carrier.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong (sorry, Dennis Miller).

Makes total sense to me. For whatever that's worth!

As someone who uses both AA and US in their current forms and likes the fact that they are my primary sources of elite status in TWO alliances, I'll keep rooting for them to stay separate. But I had long given up hope that it was possible...I'd sort of assumed we'd have a merger announcement by now.

That, in turn, will make an AA-US merger less likely, at least one that will be on US's terms, as AA will (theoretically, at least) be on stronger financial footing. And if that happens, I think Dougie will walk away from any deal, as it's pretty obvious that he wants to be in charge of the combined carrier.

It's not entirely obvious to me that Parker wouldn't still be in charge -- my understanding is that AA execs are mostly holding out for the massive bonuses they'd receive on an exit from BK. They might well want to exit stage left at that point.

Horton has always struck me as a placeholder -- much like Steenland was at NWA. He's a finance guy, who can be a magnet for all the ill will caused by the bankruptcy and any subsequent merger, and then make a tidy exit.

When employees start using up all their vacation sick days. For the answer just ask a rank file worker based in PHX Tempe

When employees start using up all their vacation sick days. For the answer just ask a rank file worker based in PHX Tempe


I guess I don't follow. I don't profess to know the fiscal year for the US employee, and when they have to use up/lose vacation each year, but if US were to acquire AMR I don't understand why that would impact how/when US workers decide to use their vacation.

Unless they think there is going to be a vacation freeze during the integration? Or if they think they might lose their job in a combined company?

Well, then?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-13/us-airways-said-to-detail-merger-plan-to-amr-creditors.html

US Airways Group Inc. (LCC), pressing to take over AMR Corp. (AAMRQ)’s American Airlines in bankruptcy, made its case for a merger to the company’s unsecured creditors committee, three people familiar with the matter said.

The panel’s session yesterday with US Airways will be followed by a meeting today with representatives of American, which seeks to exit court protection as a stand-alone carrier, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. The meetings are in New York.

American Chief Executive Officer Tom Horton has advocated waiting to evaluate merger options after leaving Chapter 11, while US Airways CEO Doug Parker has championed a merger since shortly after AMR’s Nov. 29 bankruptcy filing. The creditors committee has a say in important decisions as AMR restructures.

“From the creditors committee perspective, whatever the two parties are proposing has to be finalized at some point, and the sooner the better,” said Bob Mann, president of aviation consultant R.W. Mann & Co. in Port Washington, New York.

American reached an accord with the nine-member panel in May to study strategic alternatives against which the carrier’s stand-alone plan would be vetted. The committee represents some of those owed money by AMR and is charged with maximizing the amount of debt recovered. The members include American’s three largest unions as well as bondholder representatives.
Regular Meeting

“American is participating this week at the committee’s regularly scheduled in-person monthly meeting, at which various business matters, including the strategic alternatives process, will be discussed,” Jack Butler, an attorney for the creditors committee, said in a statement. He declined to comment on yesterday’s meeting.

Todd Lehmacher, a spokesman for Tempe, Arizona-based US Airways, declined to comment about the talks, as did Andy Backover, an American spokesman.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane in New York gave his approval on Nov. 8 to American’s request for an extension until Jan. 28 of the airline’s exclusive right to file a reorganization plan. That has kept US Airways from making a formal merger offer in court.

“Maybe we are not going to have to wait until the end of the first quarter to find out what the plan is here,” said Fred Lowrance, an Avondale Partners LLC analyst in Nashville, Tennessee. He said the discussions suggest that creditors “want to feel comfortable that they have all the information to make a comparison.”
Bonds Rally

AMR’s $460 million of 6.25 percent convertible notes due October 2014 rose 4.7 percent to 70.3 cents on the dollar at 9:46 a.m. in New York, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The notes traded at 17.75 cents after AMR’s bankruptcy filing.

US Airways fell 0.4 percent to $12.54 as the 10-carrier Bloomberg U.S. Airlines Index also declined. The shares have more than doubled this year on speculation that a merger would succeed.

A combination of US Airways, the fifth-biggest U.S. airline, and No. 3 American would create the world’s largest carrier by passenger traffic, surpassing United Continental Holdings Inc. (UAL) and Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL)

American has been working to reach a new contract with its pilots union, the last holdout among the carrier’s major work groups, to ensure predictable costs at a restructured airline. It secured an agreement in principle with the Allied Pilots Association on Nov. 9. The union’s board will decide on Nov. 16 whether to send that deal to members for a vote.
Labor Agreements

The airline won money-saving agreements with other major work groups in recent months, after US Airways reached conditional accords in April with unions for American pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and baggage handlers.

“They’ve been inviting themselves to that party for a long time,” Mann said of US Airways. “To get the doorman to part the velvet ropes and let them in is a bit of a victory. Ultimately it will come down to economics, but you have to get an audience before you can talk economics.”

The case is In re AMR Corp., 11-15463, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

The Wall St Journal reports that Parker thinks that LCC shareholders should get 30% of the equity of the combined company while Horton and some unsecured creditors think that AMR creditors should receive more than 70% and perhaps as much as 80%:

While not spending too much time on specific figures, Mr. Horton made it clear that American, the No. 3 U.S. airline by traffic, expects its creditors to receive more than 70% of the shares of a combined airline, the people said. US Airways lately had roughly 70% in mind for American creditors after previously viewing the equity split as a more even one, some of the people said.

US Airways has told creditors it has come to a view that American creditors should receive roughly 70% of a combined company and US Airways shareholders 30%, though serious negotiations on the exact contours of a deal haven't yet begun, this person said. Some American creditors believe they should get as much as 80% of a combined airline, according to people familiar with their views.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578119521954984806.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

To read full article, go to Google News, search AMR and WSJ article is viewable in its entirety.

Given the labor cost uncertainty at US (since pilots aren't integrated and FAs have rejected two TAs this year) compared to the six year contracts that are in place at AA (pilts will likely vote to ratify their concessions within a few weeks), I have to agree with Horton that the LCC shareholders should bear the risks of that cost uncertainty.

AA management has nothing to gain and much to lose from the merger, so they will fight against it until their last breath. Creditors position will depend on distribution of equity among the stakeholders. Employees position will depend on concessions they will expect to get in case of merger as compared to those they have now. So, with one no and two maybe's, I think the merger is not very likely.

What will survive US Airways Club & US Airways Dividend Miles, or Admirals Club & AAdvantage?

What will survive US Airways Club & US Airways Dividend Miles, or Admirals Club & AAdvantage?

The names AAdvantage, Admiral's Club, and American Airlines, would go forward - that's already been stated.. The actual policies of these is anyone's guess.

What will survive US Airways Club & US Airways Dividend Miles, or Admirals Club & AAdvantage?

Personally I'm hoping for a blend of the two:

Swoosh/ flag livery retained with "American Airlines" in place of "US Airways" (I'm not a fan of the AA aluminum livery)
"American Airlines Dividend Miles"
"Gold Preferred (GLD), Platinum Preferred (PLT), Executive Platinum Preferred (EXP) and Chairman's Preferred (CMN)"
Lounges under both the Admirals Club and US Club names (sort of like BA with Galleries and Terraces)
(and assuming three class international service is retained) Flagship (F) and Envoy (J)

IMHO, there's way too much brand equity in the AAdvantage, Admiral's Club, and Executive Platinum names, especially compared to the US counterparts, to do anything but use AA's names. I think the same is true of the AA logo for the planes, though the US stripes with the AA logo instead of the flag could work.

IMHO, there's way too much brand equity in the AAdvantage, Admiral's Club, and Executive Platinum names, especially compared to the US counterparts, to do anything but use AA's names. I think the same is true of the AA logo for the planes, though the US stripes with the AA logo instead of the flag could work.

Possibly, but change is inevitable

IMHO, there's way too much brand equity in the AAdvantage, Admiral's Club, and Executive Platinum names, especially compared to the US counterparts, to do anything but use AA's names. I think the same is true of the AA logo for the planes, though the US stripes with the AA logo instead of the flag could work.

Weren't the same things being said about the United Tulip a few years ago?

Possibly, but change is inevitable

http://s7.postimage.org/z4cgb2se3/aa_faux.jpg

My crude representation in MS Paint of what it could look like, but for some reason I don't have a hard time picturing this becoming a reality.

I think the same is true of the AA logo for the planes, though the US stripes with the AA logo instead of the flag could work.

While I agree, the new AA 77Ws sitting outside at Paine Field have some kind of gray paint on them, and the consensus in the AA forum is that their delivery in January will be the debut of the new AA livery. There's a huge thread in the AA forum with pictures and speculation.

Makes sense, since the 787-9s that AA ordered don't come in polished aluminum and thus, those would have to be painted anyway. Plus, emergence from bankruptcy has typically been one of those times that most of the other airlines introduced new livery, so it's to be expected that AA is planning the same. And after 40+ years, change is inevitable.

Given the costs of developing that new livery and painting the planes, there's one thing of which I'm fairly certain: even if US and AA combine, the planes won't feature any design elements of the currrent US livery (which itself doesn't resemble the America West livery).

Even if US and AA combine, the planes won't feature any design elements of the currrent US livery (which itself doesn't resemble the America West livery).

I thought "Swoosh" was a compromise between the old US and HP liveries.

News today reports that US has proposed a merger where LCC shareholders would get 30% of the combined company and AMR's creditors would split the remaining 70%:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-air-makes-amr-merger-204438188.html

I give this a very low probability of success. By time it's signed, LCC shareholders may get 15% of the new company.

Here's what Reuters said 40mins ago

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/07/usair-amr-idUSL1E8N7BVK20121207

Crying crocodile tears.....:(

From the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-report-us-airways-makes-bid-for-american-20121207,0,1991026.story

Crying crocodile tears.....:(

This. :(

Should we be opening AA credit cards with the anticipation a merger will allow us to combine programs? Easy miles...

Weren't the same things being said about the United Tulip a few years ago?

There most certainly was, because they were correct. Then you got a CEO with an inflated ego making branding decisions behind a closed door. In true Continental fashion, he went with the cheapest possible option. Pentagram, Fallon, Robert Redford, Saul Bass, Cynthia Rowley - all dumped immediately by Houston penny pinchers who never saw value in a world class brand. UA now has absolutely no identity, went from award winning advertising, to low class trash, from arguably one of the most matured and sophisticated airline brands in the world, to a tired 20 year old abomination. Don't take my word for it, go ask any competent branding professional for confirmation.

Don't ever underestimate the arrogance of a "we know best" attitude, even when the "best way" is clear cut. Continental has slowly destroyed United with this cowboy logic.

And, more importantly, would Citi or Barclays be the cc moving forward? ;)

If Dougie runs the show, he'll probably put the CC rights up for bid and give them to the highest bidder like he did with the US/HP merger. Then the loser would sue for violating their "exclusive" rights and you'll have two CC's giving miles.

Jim

If (and I stress the word IF), US Airways and American merge, would all of the existing hubs for both airlines remain as hubs? Anyone's opinions on which may disappear? The scariest thing to me, living in Philly, would be if that one disappeared in favor of American's JFK hub. I'd be curious to hear people's opinion on this.

Hard to imagine maintaining an international hub at PHL and JFK and CLT (toward Europe). But what do I know? Nothing, I hope, because losing non-stops from PHL to Europe would make me sad.

PHL is a huge metro area, and an airline isn't stupid enough to make everyone drive 100 miles to JFK.

I would generally think PHL is fine. PHL has a large population base and a good amount of O/D. AA/US cannot have a similar size hub at JFK/LGA due to slot restrictions. The combined company would need a hub at PHL to compete with UA at EWR.

Any thoughts on whether PHX would stay a hub?

I think PHL and CLT are fine. I think PHL would lose some of its heavy lift in favor of JFK - not dissimilar from what we see in EWR/IAD fro UA.

I think CLT is fine except I see virtually all of the Caribbean flying going bye-bye and being consolidated at MIA.

PHX. Not sure. LAX is a minihub for AA, and I do not know how much AA can expand LAX. Although, face it, the PHX operation is almost as small in terms of flight count as DCA. In a merged entity, I would think that LAX would be much more preferable.

Any thoughts on whether PHX would stay a hub?

I doubt PHX will stay a hub. Too many options with LAX and DFW very near it. LAX may receive a few of the flights but I don't think there's too much room for expansion there. DFW would probably get a brunt of the flights. While I doubt it will stay a hub, I cannot see what they will do with it as an alternative to a hub such as where they would put all of those aircraft.

If Dougie runs the show, he'll probably put the CC rights up for bid and give them to the highest bidder like he did with the US/HP merger. Then the loser would sue for violating their "exclusive" rights and you'll have two CC's giving miles.
Jim
Even better way to get AA EQMs - Citi + Barclays + BofA - total 6 cards!

PHL is a huge metro area, and an airline isn't stupid enough to make everyone drive 100 miles to JFK.

...because NYC isn't a huge metro area? :confused:

I doubt PHX will stay a hub. Too many options with LAX and DFW very near it. LAX may receive a few of the flights but I don't think there's too much room for expansion there. DFW would probably get a brunt of the flights. While I doubt it will stay a hub, I cannot see what they will do with it as an alternative to a hub such as where they would put all of those aircraft.

AA's going to have additional gates once the TBIT expansion is complete at LAX.

AA's going to have additional gates once the TBIT expansion is complete at LAX.[/QUOTE]

How many more?

...because NYC isn't a huge metro area? :confused:

No, because JFK needs to serve NYC, not PHL. It would be idiotic to tell 6 million people "drive 100 miles or take shuttle flights into a slot-restricted airport, we are shutting your perfectly good airport down".

If a merged AA/US entity can't make money serving large metro areas like PHL and PHX, they might as well liquidate. A lot of people need to fly to cities of 3-6 million. If you can't figure out a way to serve populations like that profitably, you're doing it wrong.

No, because JFK needs to serve NYC, not PHL. It would be idiotic to tell 6 million people "drive 100 miles or take shuttle flights into a slot-restricted airport, we are shutting your perfectly good airport down".

If a merged AA/US entity can't make money serving large metro areas like PHL and PHX, they might as well liquidate. A lot of people need to fly to cities of 3-6 million. If you can't figure out a way to serve populations like that profitably, you're doing it wrong.

But why must PHL and PHX continue to be hubs? Just because they serve large metropolitan areas? BOS serves a population that falls between the sizes of Philly metro and Phoenix metro -- but BOS is not a hub.

How many more?

Four preferential use gates in the new TBIT.

If (and I stress the word IF), US Airways and American merge...

After reading the recent articles out from Bloomberg, I'm fairly sure it's not an "if" anymore... looks like a basically done deal and now it's just a matter of hashing out all the details.

I think CLT is fine except I see virtually all of the Caribbean flying going bye-bye and being consolidated at MIA.


People keep saying this, but yet if you remove all of the Caribbean flying from CLT, and replace it for flights at MIA, people from places like ALB/BUF/SYR/ROC/PVD/PWM/MHT for example will have to double-connect just to get there.

I see ANU, UVF, SKI, STX being discontinued from CLT.

But why must PHL and PHX continue to be hubs? Just because they serve large metropolitan areas? BOS serves a population that falls between the sizes of Philly metro and Phoenix metro -- but BOS is not a hub.

It is for B6 now- which just goes to show you that if you don't want to make money giving a few million people nonstop domestic air service (AA drew down from there), someone else will be happy to do it. It's just too many people who won't want to always funnel through a hub to not appeal to some airline.

I doubt PHX will stay a hub. Too many options with LAX and DFW very near it.
:confused: I'm from DFW and now PHX based. The two are not close to each other.

PHX can never be the Intl powerhouse that DFW is.
And it's too far south to be much of an intra- west coast connector.
But it can take DFW/ORD/JFK/PHL/CLT/MIA and connect to a lot of the smaller west coast cities where nonstops aren't always feasible.
Not to mention mid-west to west coast where connecting thru DFW/ORD isn't always the most logical routing.
That's how PHX served America West and the long defunct CO relationship connecting IAH to small/medium sized west coast airports.
Not to mention that the west is where AA is weakest. Anything helps, even if not best positioned for east/west and western north/south flows.

Having said all that ....
If AA ends up being in control of the alleged merger (personally, I expect HPdbaUS to be in control) then historically, only the AA hubs will survive.

Trans Caribbean - SJU - hub dismantled, reinstated years later and dismantled again
Air Cal - strong intra-Califonia/west coast presence re-grouped as a hub at SJC. Since dismantled.
Reno Air - RNO and SJC - RNO dismantled asap. Tried SJC again at old facilities, but soon dismantled.
Trans World - STL - outright lied to Bankruptcy Court as to how they needed STL hub as reliever to DFW/ORD. The "merger" was a joke. STL/TWA/employees dismantled.


My personal bias against AA aside, I wonder how PHL would last.
I see it as a strong northeast domestic hub/focus city but bet it would lose a lot of it's TATL flights (LHR and maybe a couple others remaining).
But if tthe TATL connections were removed, is the hand writing on the wall ??
I see CLT remaining as the hub that RDU was supposed to be.

I would generally think PHL is fine. PHL has a large population base and a good amount of O/D.

While PHL is a pretty large metropolitan area, I doesn't have the O&D that it's population would indicate. Hence Parker saying that PHL doesn't produce the revenue that DFW, ORD, MIA, etc generate.

What would help secure PHL's hub status are the capacity constraints at JFK. Take away those constraints and you could kiss PHL goodby but while capacity is constrained there will be a place for PHL. However, two hubs serving the same role so close together is costly so I'd expect some changes at PHL.

CLT is pretty certain to remain - a mid-Southeast hub is the big hole in AA's network. PHX is more problematic - too big to move completely to LAX but low yield thanks to WN's presence (about 1/3 of enplanements - nearly as many as US when counting mainline only).

Jim

While PHL is a pretty large metropolitan area, I doesn't have the O&D that it's population would indicate.

Yes, Philly metro is weird like that. The people here in Philly traditionally don't travel as much as people in other large cities do. (My Philly friends are always far more amazed/impressed with my travels than are my friends in other large cities.) That said, the culture here in Philly has been changing, with more and more people traveling. I don't know the latest numbers and I don't know if the increase is enough to maintain PHL as a hub several years from now. But consider how VX continues to provide three PHL-LAX nonstops daily -- in addition to the five daily PHL-LAX nonstops US provides as well. It wasn't long again when there were a total of five possible PHL-LAX nonstops.

...the planes won't feature any design elements of the currrent US livery (which itself doesn't resemble the America West livery).

The "new" US paint scheme very specifically carries over some concepts of the America West livery.

White on fuselage top half, bottom in contrasting accent color, tail same color as bottom

HP - turquoise (a blue that's commonly associated with the western USA)
US - navy (a blue that's commonly associated with the USA)

White portion of the fuselage is actually two-toned white and very subtle light gray.

HP - a zig-zag representing Native American Tribal patterns
US - a swoosh representing the stripes of a USA flag blowing in the breeze

Tail carries on the two tone concept with a very subtle complimentary color

There's always a delay in the reporting of traffic data, but in the 4th quarter of 2010 PHL ranked 16th in O&D traffic. For the 4th/5th largest metropolitan area that's significant. PHX had more O&D traffic - # 8 rank - but a slightly lower yield (16.4 cents vs 17.4 cents). CLT was ranked 28th in O&D but offset that with a 22.35 cent yield.

Jim

The "new" US paint scheme very specifically carries over some concepts of the America West livery.

White on fuselage top half, bottom in contrasting accent color, tail same color as bottom

HP - turquoise (a blue that's commonly associated with the western USA)
US - navy (a blue that's commonly associated with the USA)

White portion of the fuselage is actually two-toned white and very subtle light gray.

HP - a zig-zag representing Native American Tribal patterns
US - a swoosh representing the stripes of a USA flag blowing in the breeze

Tail carries on the two tone concept with a very subtle complimentary color


Huh. Somehow I'd never quite noticed those similarities. Another is the accent stripe separating the upper and lower fuselage colors -- orange for HP, red for US. Pity they didn't continue the similar stripe on the engine nacelle.

Is there enough capacity in either AA's or US's system to provide much consolidation in hubs? Specifically in regards to TATL flights from PHL/JFK and Caribbean flights from CLT/MIA. I don't know if there is or not. But if flights are operating near capacity from their respective hubs, it might make sense to keep the hubs. Think DL with DTW/MSP/ATL...I don't think there were remarkable shifts in patterns when NW/DL merged at these cities.

There's always a delay in the reporting of traffic data, but in the 4th quarter of 2010 PHL ranked 16th in O&D traffic. For the 4th/5th largest metropolitan area that's significant. PHX had more O&D traffic - # 8 rank - but a slightly lower yield (16.4 cents vs 17.4 cents). CLT was ranked 28th in O&D but offset that with a 22.35 cent yield.

While you're certainly correct, I've often wondered if the O&D stats are skewed by the smaller population centers that attract outsized numbers of tourists and visitors, like MCO, LAS, HNL, MIA and probably a few others. I'm guessing that even SFO and SAN, parts of huge metro areas, attract far more international and domestic tourists than does the PHL metro area. Could be that PHL does all right with the Origin part of the equation but those other tourist magnets steal the show with the Destination part.

People keep saying this, but yet if you remove all of the Caribbean flying from CLT, and replace it for flights at MIA, people from places like ALB/BUF/SYR/ROC/PVD/PWM/MHT for example will have to double-connect just to get there.

I see ANU, UVF, SKI, STX being discontinued from CLT.

Not to mention everyone who lives near and utilizes the small regional airports in SC, NC, GA, etc.

While you're certainly correct, I've often wondered if the O&D stats are skewed by the smaller population centers that attract outsized numbers of tourists and visitors, like MCO, LAS, HNL, MIA and probably a few others.

You are correct to a degree - LAS & MCO were #2 & 3 respectfully. On the other hand, cities with multiple airports are hurt somewhat by splitting the traffic - who would think that LAX was #1 while the highest NYC metro area airport was LGA at #10. Ranking by metro area would also change the order some.

I'm guessing that even SFO and SAN, parts of huge metro areas, attract far more international and domestic tourists than does the PHL metro area. Could be that PHL does all right with the Origin part of the equation but those other tourist magnets steal the show with the Destination part.

Again you're right to a degree. The data is domestic only so excludes international traffic which could change the ranking of the airports with sizable international traffic.

However, looking at DTW/MSP/ATL for DL, they're not in close proximity like PHL/JFK/LGA/EWR. MEM/CVG have suffered since DL's merger with NW.

Supposedly 10-12% of O&D for cities is to/from Washington and NYC except for 3. As for the obvious - NYC and Washington - they're mainly end points without the air traffic between them there once was. One other city has the same distincetion - PHL. PHL has the train and driving that take O&D traffic off the planes. Just that one thing drops PHL down the O&D ranking.

Jim

Horton has stated there two possible timings for the departure of AA/AMR Corp. from Ch 11 depending on whether any merger happens before or after exiting (if at all).

Basically, the process could be fairly quick if the airline remains independent, but if it decides to merge with another airline as part of the reorganization, the timeline would extend.

Horton: “... it would be customary that the regulatory approvals would have to be completed [with such an event].”

Horton: Heavy lifting on bankruptcy case is about completed (http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/horton-heavy-lifting-on-bankruptcy-case-is-about-completed.html/)

Horton: Heavy lifting on bankruptcy case is about completed (http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/horton-heavy-lifting-on-bankruptcy-case-is-about-completed.html/)

What an exceptionally friendly interview. :rolleyes:

Given the week's news, the softball questions from the reporter are... well... softballs.

What an exceptionally friendly interview. :rolleyes:

Given the week's news, the softball questions from the reporter are... well... softballs.Maybe "Horton" was in a good mood, what with the Pilots agreements being ratified and all ...

The hubs that AA dismantled following previous mergers were pretty dire hubs to begin with. If you had seen SJC in the late eighties, you would quickly realize that it was physically inadequate to compete with the likes of the UA hub at SFO.

CLT doesn't have the same kind of local demand as any of the AA hubs, but it has been a profitable and effective hub for a long time under both Piedmont and US. I grew up in an AA employee family in RDU during the days of the hub there, and all the local AA people back then were somewhat envious of US picking up the CLT hub a few years prior, and couldn't believe that management intended to compete with it with a scrappy RDU operation.

PHL and PHX are tougher calls, but I don't see how AA cuts them out of a post-merger route network without either overloading existing hubs or destroying their ability to compete in a large number of connecting markets (the latter is possible but would negate much of the purpose of the merger).

If AA ends up being in control of the alleged merger (personally, I expect HPdbaUS to be in control) then historically, only the AA hubs will survive.

Trans Caribbean - SJU - hub dismantled, reinstated years later and dismantled again
Air Cal - strong intra-Califonia/west coast presence re-grouped as a hub at SJC. Since dismantled.
Reno Air - RNO and SJC - RNO dismantled asap. Tried SJC again at old facilities, but soon dismantled.
Trans World - STL - outright lied to Bankruptcy Court as to how they needed STL hub as reliever to DFW/ORD. The "merger" was a joke. STL/TWA/employees dismantled.

Good thing I'll make CP this year... 14 more months of US Airways upgrade policy, best in the business. Maybe we'll get to hang on until Feb 28, 2015. But I think it will suck after integration. AA technology and consistency may be better... but overall the system is not as generous to elites and much harder to ensure upgrades (or at least know where you stand) as a top level elite.

Link on latest:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/12_-_December/AMR_creditors_prefer_all-stock_merger_with_US_Air_-_sources/

I don't think I'm going to be happy with the merger (which, incidentally, many of us used to think could never happen due to integration problems!). The upgrades and the wildly creative use of miles for *A travel will be missed. :(

I feel like our US Airways breathen are going to feel what us CO/UA people have been and continue to go through on a daily basis. Godspeed.

I am still really torn priority-wise between loving *A and loving nonstops from DCA. This will be one tough decision!

I don't think I'm going to be happy with the merger (which, incidentally, many of us used to think could never happen due to integration problems!). The upgrades and the wildly creative use of miles for *A travel will be missed. :(

Personally, I'm not thrilled at all with the concept, as I'm no fan of AA and go out of my way to avoid them (based on many incidents over many years, not stomping my feet over the first time something annoyed me), and I like having my little US routines all set. I know how to maximize my earnings, maximize my awards, increase my upgrade chances, and know US' particular warts and when/how they're likely to wart on me. I don't like having to start all over with a new system and new rules, and definitely don't like going from being a big fish in a little pond to being just another 100k flyer in an upgrade queue of 30. But I don't think US or AA will change their plans just to make me happy, and I think, regardless of airline choice, we're all in for some pretty harsh realities over the next few years as airlines translate their smaller number of competitors to a tightening of elite benefits across the board.

On the upside, I do think that, after an initial few years of overall suck factor, the pendulum will swing, as airlines try harder to court loyal customers (after first driving them all away).

Will be interesting to see what the industry looks like in 5-10 years, especially in terms of what you get in return for logging 100k miles.

Should I apply credit card from US Airways to earn easy miles? I got AAdvantage Visa Card already.

Besides, anyone know which alliance the merger is going to be? OneWorld or StarAlliance?

I don't think I'm going to be happy with the merger (which, incidentally, many of us used to think could never happen due to integration problems!). The upgrades and the wildly creative use of miles for *A travel will be missed. :(

I predict by 2025 with all the mergers we'll be down to two airlines.

One major international airline: Delta DBA Pan Am.
One major domestic airline: Southwest.

The upgrades and the wildly creative use of miles for *A travel will be missed. :(

IMO, AA oneworld awards > US *A awards (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/02/03/the-amazing-value-of-americans-oneworld-distance-based-awards/comment-page-2/#comment-617993) in some pretty significant respects (unlimited stopovers). So it's not all downside. ;)

(I am also sanguine because I have a decent balance in AA and US. :D)

IMO, AA oneworld awards > US *A awards (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/02/03/the-amazing-value-of-americans-oneworld-distance-based-awards/comment-page-2/#comment-617993) in some pretty significant respects (unlimited stopovers). So it's not all downside. ;)

(I am also sanguine because I have a decent balance in AA and US. :D)

But with the YQ some of the carriers (ahem BA) charge, it's almost cheaper to just buy the ticket outright.

But with the YQ some of the carriers (ahem BA) charge, it's almost cheaper to just buy the ticket outright.

You would have AA/US, AB, AY, and IB to get you to Europe without exorbitant fuel surcharges.

All told, from an award standpoint, given the nonsense on LH/LX F *Net blocking from US, I'll take it. Right now, your realistic options to Europe in premium cabins are UA F (meh), LH/LX/OS/LO/UA/US C. Trading that for AA/US/BA F/C, AB/AY/IB C seems pretty close to a wash, and we'd get QF, JL, EY, CX, MH for TG, (small bits of) SQ, NH, OZ... seems a fair trade to me. BA's F and C availability is pretty good, BTW (in no small part because of their fuel surcharges, I suspect).

But with the YQ some of the carriers (ahem BA) charge, it's almost cheaper to just buy the ticket outright.

Depends what you're redeeming for. If you're redeeming for Y, then yes, you probably would be better off just buying the ticket. But if you're redeeming for J or F, that's different.

Depends what you're redeeming for. If you're redeeming for Y, then yes, you probably would be better off just buying the ticket. But if you're redeeming for J or F, that's different.

As well as upgrades. I've read in the FAQ's at the Executive Club forum that one of the best uses for BA Avios is to UfA from World Traveler Plus to Club World (no increased YQ or UK APD.) Does anyone know offhand if oneworld allows partner upgrade awards like *A does (i.e. could I use AAdvantage Miles to upgrade from WTP to CW or is that limited to BA Avios).

As well as upgrades. I've read in the FAQ's at the Executive Club forum that one of the best uses for BA Avios is to UfA from World Traveler Plus to Club World (no increased YQ or UK APD.) Does anyone know offhand if oneworld allows partner upgrade awards like *A does (i.e. could I use AAdvantage Miles to upgrade from WTP to CW or is that limited to BA Avios).
No.
However the AA/BA/IB alliance might be different.

You would have AA/US, AB, AY, and IB to get you to Europe without exorbitant fuel surcharges.

All told, from an award standpoint, given the nonsense on LH/LX F *Net blocking from US, I'll take it. Right now, your realistic options to Europe in premium cabins are UA F (meh), LH/LX/OS/LO/UA/US C. Trading that for AA/US/BA F/C, AB/AY/IB C seems pretty close to a wash, and we'd get QF, JL, EY, CX, MH for TG, (small bits of) SQ, NH, OZ... seems a fair trade to me. BA's F and C availability is pretty good, BTW (in no small part because of their fuel surcharges, I suspect).
If US is no longer going to allow routings between Australia and the USA via Asia due to MPM, I would prefer the merge. NZ is the only airline that would fit MPMs and they won't release award space at 330 days. AA has more options-QF, HA, FJ and you can ticket one ways, mixed class (Y out, J back) on QF and HA online.

If US is no longer going to allow routings between Australia and the USA via Asia due to MPM, I would prefer the merge. NZ is the only airline that would fit MPMs and they won't release award space at 330 days. AA has more options-QF, HA, FJ and you can ticket one ways, mixed class (Y out, J back) on QF and HA online.

Isn't J space on NZ nearly impossible to find?

IMO, AA oneworld awards > US *A awards (http://boardingarea.com/blogs/onemileatatime/2012/02/03/the-amazing-value-of-americans-oneworld-distance-based-awards/comment-page-2/#comment-617993) in some pretty significant respects (unlimited stopovers). So it's not all downside. ;)


But unlimited stopovers only come in handy when you at least three consecutive weeks of vacation time. That's hard to come by for most people.

Isn't J space on NZ nearly impossible to find?

Dang, you may be right. Two years ago, I was able to book two J seats LAX-AKL-PVG, all on NZ, for my gf and me. And I booked it right about this time and we departed LAX-AKL on 12/24/10 and AKL-PVG on 12/31/2010. (And even after I had booked those seats, the ANA tool still dsiplayed at least two more available J seats on our flights!) The holiday season had been the best time to nab NZ J seats. However, a search just now of December 24-26, 2012 came up completely empty for NZ J.

it sucks. miles will worth less...

If US is no longer going to allow routings between Australia and the USA via Asia due to MPM, I would prefer the merge. NZ is the only airline that would fit MPMs and they won't release award space at 330 days. AA has more options-QF, HA, FJ and you can ticket one ways, mixed class (Y out, J back) on QF and HA online.

or you can colllect miles easily via sign up bonus + checking account.

a lot of good values in US Airways chart will be gone if it merges with AA.
south pacific round trip for 30K.
north asia round trip for 30K
south asia round trip for 30k.
north asia - europe for 80K in J.
it will be terrible if the merger happens.

if AA has more options. u can always collect AA miles, it is pretty trivial to collect it. i dont fly AA at all. and i have over 200K AA miles just by having a checking account.

This question is if the merger happen:

If i accumulate my miles on US starting next year.. and I already have some travel on BA (which I choose to go to American). Can i combine those two accounts for status? Is there a possibility to have this merger (Account merging) happen in 2013?

and i have over 200K AA miles just by having a checking account.

can u share details?

Dang, you may be right. Two years ago, I was able to book two J seats LAX-AKL-PVG, all on NZ, for my gf and me. And I booked it right about this time and we departed LAX-AKL on 12/24/10 and AKL-PVG on 12/31/2010. (And even after I had booked those seats, the ANA tool still dsiplayed at least two more available J seats on our flights!) The holiday season had been the best time to nab NZ J seats. However, a search just now of December 24-26, 2012 came up completely empty for NZ J.

Out of curiosity, is there any J availability in early Jan?

Crap... looks like merger will happen. Feb 28, 2014 the end of upgrades?

Good thing I'll make CP this year... 14 more months of US Airways upgrade policy, best in the business. Maybe we'll get to hang on until Feb 28, 2015. But I think it will suck after integration. AA technology and consistency may be better... but overall the system is not as generous to elites and much harder to ensure upgrades (or at least know where you stand) as a top level elite.

Link on latest:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/12_-_December/AMR_creditors_prefer_all-stock_merger_with_US_Air_-_sources/Maybe not:From this news article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pilots-union-meets-with-american-airlines-ceo-still-supports-merger-with-us-airways/2012/12/13/0b5a9d06-4564-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html) it sounds like AA has decided to push forward with a stand alone plan coming out of bankruptcy. ...

Maybe not:

Yes, it's not looking good right now for a merger announced anytime soon. Probably a smart move on AA's part. Now what the future holds, we'll have to see. Likely left at the alter yet again is US.

But unlimited stopovers only come in handy when you at least three consecutive weeks of vacation time. That's hard to come by for most people.

Most people don't book international awards in longhaul J/F.

I am still really torn priority-wise between loving *A and loving nonstops from DCA. This will be one tough decision! .......
Will be interesting to see what the industry looks like in 5-10 years, especially in terms of what you get in return for logging 100k miles.
+1
Also depends on whether we get to keep our old cards for EQMs or not.
And if they all go to a revenue based elite recognition program

can u share details?

http://www.bankdirect.com/programs/aadvantage.aspx

or you can colllect miles easily via sign up bonus + checking account.

a lot of good values in US Airways chart will be gone if it merges with AA.
south pacific round trip for 30K.
north asia round trip for 30K
south asia round trip for 30k.
north asia - europe for 80K in J.
it will be terrible if the merger happens.

if AA has more options. u can always collect AA miles, it is pretty trivial to collect it. i dont fly AA at all. and i have over 200K AA miles just by having a checking account.

Most of those values can be replicated in the UA chart at minimal extra cost (with better routing rules- UA allows TWO open jaws and a stopover on any round trip award), and AA will give us oneworld awards, free stopovers on one ways at a North American gateway (which can be used to give you things like extra free one-way awards- think CDG-JFK(stop)-HNL), and one way awards.

It's not all gloom and doom.

By Roger Vincent, Los Angeles Times
An American Airlines and US Airways merger could be announced as soon as January. Passengers could face short-term hassles if a deal happens, analysts say.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-american-usairways-merger-20121215,0,7202193.story

Charlotte Observer (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/14/3726217/whats-at-stake-if-us-airways-american.html) article on what it may mean for CLT ...

(excerpt)

Whatever happens, it could have a huge impact on Charlotte: US Airways operates about 90 percent of daily flights from Charlotte Douglas International Airport, and more than 7,100 US Airways employees are based here.
So what’s at stake in the merger? It depends on your point of view: ...

The biggest problem with AA is that it's hubs/cornerstones suck for domestic connecting traffic. NYC, MIA, LAX sit on the fringes of the country, ORD has frequent travel impacts, DFW is OK in good weather but has relatively frequent thunderstorms and the occasional ice storm. Seems like it has more than its share of delays.

PHX is a near-perfect hub for ops albeit it is stuck in the SW corner of the country. CLT has some t'storm activity but generally is good for connections. PHL meh, but 2/3 aint bad and it's still arguably better than JFK.

If AA/US could leverage the efficiencies of PHX/CLT connection points this would be a good thing. I suspect that Parker knows this and would continue with this strategy (many don't know this but US ops are really good, the planes generally run on time and baggage makes it to the destination) but I am skeptical that the AA management would pursue this strategy and would instead double down on the cornerstone strategy that has resulted in a dramatic lessening of market share. I suspect DL, UA and the others are pulling for the AA management to stay in place.

Aside this , it is pretty wild that if Doug runs the airline that HP would ascend to be the largest airline in the world.

...Aside this , it is pretty wild that if Doug runs the airline that HP would ascend to be the largest airline in the world.

Mighty oaks from little acorns grow :)

The biggest problem with AA is that it's hubs/cornerstones suck for domestic connecting traffic. NYC, MIA, LAX sit on the fringes of the country, ORD has frequent travel impacts, DFW is OK in good weather but has relatively frequent thunderstorms and the occasional ice storm. Seems like it has more than its share of delays.

And the problem with the US hubs at PHX and CLT is the large number of double connections required to stay on US, such as TUS-JAX. Nobody in their right mind would visit two hubs when AA already connects those cities via DFW. There are plenty more examples. The "barbell" strategy isn't efficient.

If AA/US could leverage the efficiencies of PHX/CLT connection points this would be a good thing. I suspect that Parker knows this and would continue with this strategy (many don't know this but US ops are really good, the planes generally run on time and baggage makes it to the destination) but I am skeptical that the AA management would pursue this strategy and would instead double down on the cornerstone strategy that has resulted in a dramatic lessening of market share. I suspect DL, UA and the others are pulling for the AA management to stay in place.

I'm not sure I understand how the cornerstone strategy (which involved cancelling several non-hub point to point flights, like BOS-SFO) resulted in a "dramatic lessening of market share." AA's costs prior the Ch 11 filing were the highest in the industry, and high cost carriers contract, while low-cost carriers, like B6 and VX, tend to grow at their expense.

Even more telling is the fact that US trumpets the fact that about 99% of its flights touch one of its hubs or the NE shuttle cities - its own version of AA's cornerstone strategy. From earlier this year:

In the short-term, US Airways is focused on proving its viability as a stand-alone carrier for an extended period of time. The crux of that focus is aligning its flying where it enjoys an optimal competitive advantage. US Airways in mid-December completed its slot swap with Delta, meaning 99% of its flights now touch its three hubs, its US northeast shuttle markets between Washington DC, Boston and New York, and Washington National airport.

http://www.flightglobal.com/page/interviews/doug-parker/the-interview/

So at US it's a good strategy but at very high cost AA (prior to the bankruptcy filing) it's a failed strategy?

Parker confirms in that article AA's very high costs (pre-bankruptcy) and confirms US' very low costs. By the way, Parker has promised the AA employees raises (smaller concessions than they agreed to earlier this year) plus will finally have to pay the US employees first-world wages, meaning that the combined US-AA is a money-losing airline all over again right out of the gate. Parker confirms that the US network generates much smaller revenues than UA, DL or AA, but reassures the writer that its much lower costs make it profitable.

Yes, CLT is great for connecting people N-S up and down the east coast, something AA cannot do now. PHL, DCA and the NE shuttle markets are decent. But PHX? WN has half the traffic at PHX and it's not a high-yield market. All in all, LCC is a low-wage airline that has managed to be profitable (largely because of the very low pilot and FA wages). Marrying it to much higher cost AA is just going to produce a much larger money-loser than AA ever was.

LCC is a low-wage airline that has managed to be profitable (largely because of the very low pilot and FA wages). Marrying it to much higher cost AA is just going to produce a much larger money-loser than AA ever was.

This is such an obvious problem that I can't imagine US going through with a deal that didn't tackle it somehow.

The biggest problem with AA is that it's hubs/cornerstones suck for domestic connecting traffic.

OTOH, they're great places for international connecting traffic. How those high-cost, constrained markets fit into US's strategy -- a legacy's domestic route network, operated with LCC cost discipline -- remains to be proven.

Horton's comments to the unions that AA management plans to emerge as a stand alone airline are very welcome.

As someone who watched US ruin a great airline I used to fly, Piedmont, I sure do not want Darth Parker and US getting their hands on AA.

We need to keep AA OUR AA. DL fought off Parker, and AA should, too.

Maybe, Parker should concentrate on merging with a similar airline like Spirit or Allegiant, or maybe when RyanAir's bid for Aer Lingus is rejected by the European Commission, they should find an American partner to take over US. All of those combinations are more fitting to the airlines involved than AA and US would be.

Maybe, Parker should concentrate on merging with a similar airline like Spirit or Allegiant

And then watch as we have to start paying to carry on our rollaboards, and all coach seats become "Choice Seats" requiring a $15-$25 fee.

Or maybe when RyanAir's bid for Aer Lingus is rejected by the European Commission, they should find an American partner to take over US. All of those combinations are more fitting to the airlines involved than AA and US would be.

I have a love/hate attitude regarding Dougie, but keep Michael O'Leary as far away from US as humanly possible...

Horton's comments to the unions that AA management plans to emerge as a stand alone airline are very welcome.

As someone who watched US ruin a great airline I used to fly, Piedmont, I sure do not want Darth Parker and US getting their hands on AA.

We need to keep AA OUR AA. DL fought off Parker, and AA should, too.

Maybe, Parker should concentrate on merging with a similar airline like Spirit or Allegiant, or maybe when RyanAir's bid for Aer Lingus is rejected by the European Commission, they should find an American partner to take over US. All of those combinations are more fitting to the airlines involved than AA and US would be.

This is not even relevant. Piedmont purchase was about when Parker was oh 15 and not involved in the industry. It was that long ago and well before the US you now know was born.

Darth Parker is only part of the problem, but O'Leary and Parker are'' six of one, a half dozen of the other''.

Anyone who has followed the mergers or takeovers between large legacy airlines should be aware of the huge negatives for passengers, especially in the ff programs, that accompany these mergers, and should be joining the battle cry against them. When Air France got control of KLM, they merged their ff programs and the new Flying Blue immediately emerged as a crappy program that was but a pale ghost of what Frequence Plus and Flying Dutchman had been. They have downgraded it further since then.

As a NW elite, I had a frontrow seat for the massive downgrading of both WorldPerks and the old SkyMiles when they were merged into the new SkyPiles, the Zimbabwe dollars of the sky. I moved to CO and witnessed the same thing with the UA takeover. I fled that, and darn well do not want to see history repeat itself with the great AAdvantage program being destroyed as part of a US takeover.

Over the past decade or so, two airlines were leading the race to the bottom in ff programs, US and DL, while two were most consistently standing firm for customers, NW and AA. NW has now been taken over by anti-customer DL, and AA is under threat by US. Actually, I half-way supported the US takeover attempt at DL, as this would have put the two most anti-customer airlines together, which would have been fitting. Then a merger of NW and CO under NW managaement probably would not have hurt their ff program one bit.

Of course the other problem for consumers with mergers is creating an oligopoly in the industry with less competition and therefore higher prices. We need more competition, not less.

This is not even relevant. Piedmont purchase was about when Parker was oh 15 and not involved in the industry. It was that long ago and well before the US you now know was born.

This is not even relevant. Piedmont purchase was about when Parker was oh 15 and not involved in the industry. It was that long ago and well before the US you now know was born.

Piedmont was acquired in 1987 and merged out of existence in 1989. During that period, Parker was an MBA working for AA.

Piedmont was acquired in 1987 and merged out of existence in 1989. During that period, Parker was an MBA working for AA.

Dropping from 6 major network carriers to 3 should be cause for alarm....

Simple as that.

Then a merger of NW and CO under NW managaement probably would not have hurt their ff program one bit.

Of course the other problem for consumers with mergers is creating an oligopoly in the industry with less competition and therefore higher prices. We need more competition, not less.

LOL at seeing these two sentences next to each other.

And anyone who doesn't see the value available in Dividend Miles as a program as currently constituted is willfully ignorant- there are many who find it quite useful. I'm pretty sure you can't use Spirit, Ryanair or Allegiant to fly in one of these (http://www.usairways.com/en-US/traveltools/intheair/envoyfirst/envoysuite.html) or these (http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/travel/inside-thai-airways-first-a380-superjumbo-20121001-26v38.html).

And as for airlines that degraded the experience for passengers- remind me, who was the first AAirline to institute baggage fees? Oh, and you might ask a resident of STL or SJC how past mergers with AA that didn't involve Darth Parker as a CEO went as far as their ability to fly out of their airport. Your favored airline is hardly as pure as the driven snow here.

Dropping from 6 major network carriers to 3 should be cause for alarm....

Simple as that.

No it is no cause for alarm. It's the market finally clearing itself after deregulation. Would have happened long ago other then all the other regulatory and labor issues in the way. 3 competitors in such a capital intensive business is actually more then usual. It's normally 2.

No it is no cause for alarm. It's the market finally clearing itself after deregulation. Would have happened long ago other then all the other regulatory and labor issues in the way. 3 competitors in such a capital intensive business is actually more then usual. It's normally 2.

Well, no, it would be the triumph of the same anti-competitive forces prevalent in the banking industry, and a real disaster for consumers, especially frequent flyers who have been consistently screwed in the recent mergers of legacy carriers.

Piedmont was acquired in 1987 and merged out of existence in 1989. During that period, Parker was an MBA working for AA.

Set up a straw man, and knock it down. I never said Parker was involved in that merger / takeover, but that US was. Even before Parker, US was a force that destroyed what was good in other airlines.

No it is no cause for alarm. It's the market finally clearing itself after deregulation. Would have happened long ago other then all the other regulatory and labor issues in the way. 3 competitors in such a capital intensive business is actually more then usual. It's normally 2.

And why would a duopoly represent a good thing? After all, we know that airlines never price gouge on monopoly routes....

And why would a duopoly represent a good thing? After all, we know that airlines never price gouge on monopoly routes....

It's not really about good or bad per say. It's about sustainable markets and of course we will pay more. But we have to. If airlines don't earn cost of capital at the min, none will exist. Fares when you look at inflation adjusted are still very low.

There will also still be airlines to keep things in check. Spirit, etc. Also Southwest is still there so we really now have 4 larger carriers. That's more then enough to keep pricing discipline. Also, as proven time and time again, air travel is a highly elastic good..meaning if folks dont like the price, they dont fly. It's an easy thing to cut out of budget if needed.

There will also still be airlines to keep things in check. Spirit, etc. Also Southwest is still there so we really now have 4 larger carriers. That's more then enough to keep pricing discipline. Also, as proven time and time again, air travel is a highly elastic good..meaning if folks dont like the price, they dont fly. It's an easy thing to cut out of budget if needed.

There are lots of people who have to fly.

I was wondering when and if the merger takes place will Priority Pass members be allowed access to the Admirals Club? If so this would be a great addition as the Admirals Clubs would allow one access to showers etc.

There are lots of people who have to fly.

They only "have to fly" if the price is right. Otherwise they find other ways. It's why air travel is so price sensitive.

It's not really about good or bad per say. It's about sustainable markets and of course we will pay more. But we have to. If airlines don't earn cost of capital at the min, none will exist.

We have a winner.

And if you think things are "customer unfriendly" now, just wait until airlines REALLY get revenue-based FF programs going.

I think it's inevitable we'll all end up there, the same way bag/change/award fees infest the industry.

We have a winner.

And if you think things are "customer unfriendly" now, just wait until airlines REALLY get revenue-based FF programs going.

I think it's inevitable we'll all end up there, the same way bag/change/award fees infest the industry.

i agree other then "infest". The fees are for the most part fair and reflect what folks are either willing to pay for or not. It's a good model to recoup the cost and those that charge the fees happen to be the most profitable generally, so they figured out a good business model

i agree other then "infest". The fees are for the most part fair and reflect what folks are either willing to pay for or not. It's a good model to recoup the cost and those that charge the fees happen to be the most profitable generally, so they figured out a good business model

So, how does it cost less to book the award of someone who flies 100,000 miles a year as opposed to someone who flies 10,000 miles a year? How does it cost less to fly the luggage of an überelite as opposed to a kettle? Are elites not willing to pay change fees, but Joe Q. Public will?

I mean, really, if it was fair, it would be fair for elites to pay the same fees to talk to human beings and check luggage, right? They could get a flat rebate on their purchases, like B6 or WN... ;)

So, how does it cost less to book the award of someone who flies 100,000 miles a year as opposed to someone who flies 10,000 miles a year? How does it cost less to fly the luggage of an überelite as opposed to a kettle? Are elites not willing to pay change fees, but Joe Q. Public will?

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective, really. The marginal cost of the services you mention (award booking, individual bags, change fees) are almost zero. The airline is weighing the best way to wring the most money out of each individual passenger despite an environment that often makes it almost impossible to increase fares.

The 10k flyer has no reason to be loyal to any carrier. They will typically pick the cheapest route. As such, it makes sense for the airline to compete on price (thus capturing the customer) and then maximize revenue through fees and add-ons.

The 100k flyer, on the other hand, is typically somewhat less price sensitive, and more likely to book the most convenient route. With the exception of hub passengers, any one airline is unlikely to be that most convenient route a majority of the time. The "perks" of status are designed to maximize the amount of fare revenue from these passengers by making them prefer the carrier in all instances. (That often includes paying a price premium -- what elite flyer hasn't spent the equivalent of a bag fee in additional fare to stay on a preferred carrier?)

It's better (at least for now!) to get the base fare on 100,000 miles of flying than it is to get fare plus bag fees on 60,000 miles.

Besides, there are other supplementary revenue streams that frequent travelers provide -- they're more likely to join an airline club, for instance, or to sign up for an airline credit card.

If the ACs are not a PP member, then I would say it will probably mirror the UA/CO merger where they allowed PP members up to a certain point then they discontinued the program.

May be in the thread but if they merge what will the airline be called.

Most of those values can be replicated in the UA chart at minimal extra cost (with better routing rules- UA allows TWO open jaws and a stopover on any round trip award), and AA will give us oneworld awards, free stopovers on one ways at a North American gateway (which can be used to give you things like extra free one-way awards- think CDG-JFK(stop)-HNL), and one way awards.

It's not all gloom and doom.

you are wrong. i am 1k with over 500k in my UA account. US breaks out what UA considers as central asia to north or south asia.

asia to euopre is much cheaper in US vs UA.

May be in the thread but if they merge what will the airline be called.

I'd be willing to be it would be called American Airlines as that has worldwide name recognition unlike US Airways.

...if they merge what will the airline be called.

Parker has said (http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20121207report-us-airways-made-formal-merger-bid-american.html) it will be called American Airlines.
... In a meeting with The Republic this summer, Parker said that any merged carrier would take the American Airlines name, recognizing its better brand awareness, and that the headquarters would move to Texas. ...

Au contrare! EasyJet and RyanAir, whether you like their policies or not, are some of the most profitable airlines in Europe. EasyJet just posted a record profit. Much as I dislike a lot of what Michael O'Leary does, if there is an AA/US merger and a resulting oligopoly, then I hope O'Leary fullfills his ambition to jump the pond and set up a RyanAir US. That would really shake up the cosy oligopoly!

Maybe a takeover of US by O'Leary would be one way to go, but the 3 ring circus that Darth Parker has created would not be a good vehicle, so they would be better to start fresh.


It's not really about good or bad per say. It's about sustainable markets and of course we will pay more. But we have to. If airlines don't earn cost of capital at the min, none will exist. Fares when you look at inflation adjusted are still very low.

There will also still be airlines to keep things in check. Spirit, etc. Also Southwest is still there so we really now have 4 larger carriers. That's more then enough to keep pricing discipline. Also, as proven time and time again, air travel is a highly elastic good..meaning if folks dont like the price, they dont fly. It's an easy thing to cut out of budget if needed.

We have a winner.

And if you think things are "customer unfriendly" now, just wait until airlines REALLY get revenue-based FF programs going.

I think it's inevitable we'll all end up there, the same way bag/change/award fees infest the industry.

That's the point where many of us give up on loyalty and just fly price. Suddenly Icelandair looks attractive for my TATL flights if the alternative is a legacy carrier with higher prices combined with a crap ff program.

Charlotte Observer article (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/20/3739012/jan-9-may-be-key-in-airline-merger.html) - Jan 9 may be key in airline merger

US Airways Group Inc. and American Airlines parent AMR Corp. are moving closer to a merger, and a decision could come early next month, people familiar with the matter said.
Teams from each carrier are discussing how to combine departments, including personnel, compensation and severance, said the people, who asked not to be identified because details are private.
AMR’s board will meet Jan. 9 to decide whether to go ahead, with an announcement possible within days, said the people. The talks may yet be scuttled or delayed, they said. ......

We have a winner.

And if you think things are "customer unfriendly" now, just wait until airlines REALLY get revenue-based FF programs going.

I think it's inevitable we'll all end up there, the same way bag/change/award fees infest the industry.

That's the point where many of us give up on loyalty and just fly price. Suddenly Icelandair looks attractive for my TATL flights if the alternative is a legacy carrier with higher prices combined with a crap ff program.

+1 And for some of us who accrue some of our miles and points through credit card spending anyway, it becomes that much easier to use them to splurge for occasional upgrades and award travel vacation rather than constantly chasing BIS miles and status. I'm not saying this calculation would work for everyone, but the more the FF programs deteriorate the more sense it makes for lots of folks to move in that direction.

We have a winner.

And if you think things are "customer unfriendly" now, just wait until airlines REALLY get revenue-based FF programs going.

I think it's inevitable we'll all end up there, the same way bag/change/award fees infest the industry.

I don't know why you guys think that the airlines will remove the current miles-based tiers. UA and AA have had the spend-based tiers for years (GS and CK) - it's not like the concept is new. If they wanted to get rid of the miles-based tiers, they could and would have done so a long time ago.

And, by the way, if the miles-based tiers are removed, this will only benefit the kettles, since the vast majority of people will stop being captives, and will start making choices based mostly on price, and the airlines will then be forced to compete on price, which is not gonna be great for them.

burlax is right. The airlines make far too much money selling their FF miles to credit cards and other vendors that should those miles become truly unusable we would see a quick move away from status flying and towards price-decided flying. The legacies loose this one quick so we won't see it any time soon.

Charlotte Observer article (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/20/3739012/jan-9-may-be-key-in-airline-merger.html) - Jan 9 may be key in airline merger

Interesting that "severance" is mentioned in this article. Obviously there will be blood--most likely from the AA side.

Obviously there will be blood--most likely from the AA side.

What do you base that on?

Parker has said from the US side's perspective that the HQ would stay in Dallas. It's hard for me to imagine how most of the blood wouldn't be on the US side, so I'm curious why you think it's the opposite that is "obvious."

I know that the merger is still very much up in the air, and there are other threads to talk about that. But I am particularly interested in what people think will happen to Dividend Miles if the two airlines merge? Will the program more resemble AAdvantage or Dividend?

It will be AAdvantage in name in USAirways in practice.

At least you can take comfort in knowing you can sell your Dividend Miles FF card on Ebay for $5.00

So what are your thoughts on the potentials for the USAir stock related to the potential merger.

Yes to the merger, will stock go up due to revenue potentials or down due to the potential risks?

No to the merger, stock down due to the fear of failure as a standalone? Stock up? no idea why It would go up with a no.

I know that the merger is still very much up in the air, and there are other threads to talk about that. But I am particularly interested in what people think will happen to Dividend Miles if the two airlines merge? Will the program more resemble AAdvantage or Dividend?

It will be AAdvantage if the merger happens. What the terms will be who knows yet. Most FF programs are in flux these days as airlines switch the business models.

So what are your thoughts on the potentials for the USAir stock related to the potential merger.

"New AMR" stock will be exchanged for current US stock. So far Parker has only made one offer - AA creditors will get 70% of the new stock while US stockholders and execs will split the other 30%. I haven't seen how many shares of new stock would be issued but that would determine how many new shares each US share was exchanged for.

A value would be assigned to the new stock prior to it's issuance - necessary to determine how many shares each creditor would get for their claim- but value would be determined by the stock market when the new stock started to trade, although it wouldn't be unusual for the new stock to trade higher at least initially because of the "everything's gonna be great" PR put out in conjunction with the merger. As I recall, the new US stock rose from a valuation less than $20/share used for distributing the shares to in the $30's after the US/HP merger, but eventually came down to earth since US hasn't produced a cumulative net profit since the merger (due to the 2008 jump in fuel prices and 2009 recession).

Jim

So what are your thoughts on the potentials for the USAir stock related to the potential merger.

Yes to the merger, will stock go up due to revenue potentials or down due to the potential risks?

No to the merger, stock down due to the fear of failure as a standalone? Stock up? no idea why It would go up with a no.

Darth Parker, in his ego and power driven scheme, is playing Santa Claus to the unions to buy support. This would undo everything Horton has gained in bankruptcy to put AA on a sound financial footing, and be a huge negative for a merged airline going forward. Parker is just on an ego and power trip, and seems disconnected with issues that are key to building a financially solid airline going forward. If the incoming AA shareholders outside the unions are thinking, they will give a firm no to any merger under Parker's conditions. An AA takeover of US, under the much better management of AA might be a possibility but under far different terms.

Hi Everyone,

The merger talk seems to be heating up between AA and US. Currently, I'm platinum out of ORD on AA but we are moving to IND in the Spring and I'm trying to plan accordingly so I don't lose out much on my status.

I'll be flying most frequently to PIT and it seems like US is going to be the airline of choice because DL's elite benefits simply aren't as good. Does anyone have any idea if I'm better off trying to get status on United right now out of ORD and being able to use it on US when we move?

Or, should I stick with AA out of ORD and then go right to US when we make the move to IND? Will they merge all miles & segments in 2013 and the combined total will result in a new status?

I realize there are some grey areas here but would appreciate any feedback you may be able to lend.

Thanks

While the media rumors fly with every new tidbit that comes out as the talking heads try to read the tea leaves, realize that most of those tidbits come from someone with something to gain. So far, it seems that Horton wants AA to remain separate at least until after emerging from BK when a merger would be on his terms and Parker is trying everything he can to get a merger agreement prior to AA emerging so he can run the show.

Regardless of that, even with a merger agreement the actual corporate merger won't happen till AA's emergence from BK, so nothing will happen as far as blending together the two operations until then. That's looking more and more like next spring/summer at the earliest. So any decision you make now has the possibility of being wrong to some degree.

Depending on what comes from official sources, make your decision on what's best for you regardless of a merger. If belonging to AA's program will cause inconvenience after your move to IND, but AA is the better option from ORD, wait till closer to time for the move to make your decision. US generally doesn't do status matches, preferring status trials for a fee instead so until you start flying US there's no need for you to jump off the AA ship. If there's a merger, the miles you have in the two programs will be consolidated at some point anyway so no reason to jump ship there either - and that consolidation might not happen till 2014 anyway.

Jim

Hi Everyone,

The merger talk seems to be heating up between AA and US. Currently, I'm platinum out of ORD on AA but we are moving to IND in the Spring and I'm trying to plan accordingly so I don't lose out much on my status.

I'll be flying most frequently to PIT and it seems like US is going to be the airline of choice because DL's elite benefits simply aren't as good. Does anyone have any idea if I'm better off trying to get status on United right now out of ORD and being able to use it on US when we move?

Or, should I stick with AA out of ORD and then go right to US when we make the move to IND? Will they merge all miles & segments in 2013 and the combined total will result in a new status?

I realize there are some grey areas here but would appreciate any feedback you may be able to lend.

Thanks

First, welcome to FlyerTalk!

Second, BoeingBoy gave you (and collaterally, the rest of us) some great advice about thinking about the merger and our own behaviors ....

Third, the specifics of your case. Wow, years ago when I flew out of IND, PIT was still a hub and IND-PIT a familiar route. (I remember once getting an extra 500 bonus miles for making a bizarre plane change in, of all places, PHL). But IND-PIT is no more (and neither is IND-ORD, or IND-LGA), so while I personally am a great fan of US and got started on it in my IND days, is IND-PHL-PIT or IND-CLT-PIT the best you can do for yourself? I guess there really aren't any good choices for this route anymore...

Third, the specifics of your case. Wow, years ago when I flew out of IND, PIT was still a hub and IND-PIT a familiar route. (I remember once getting an extra 500 bonus miles for making a bizarre plane change in, of all places, PHL). But IND-PIT is no more (and neither is IND-ORD, or IND-LGA), so while I personally am a great fan of US and got started on it in my IND days, is IND-PHL-PIT or IND-CLT-PIT the best you can do for yourself? I guess there really aren't any good choices for this route anymore...

It's looking pretty yucky. The only hub really in between IND and PIT anymore seems to be CLE. Most routes in between there seem to look like RJ hell too. Yuck!

I don't know why you guys think that the airlines will remove the current miles-based tiers. UA and AA have had the spend-based tiers for years (GS and CK) - it's not like the concept is new. If they wanted to get rid of the miles-based tiers, they could and would have done so a long time ago.

And, by the way, if the miles-based tiers are removed, this will only benefit the kettles, since the vast majority of people will stop being captives, and will start making choices based mostly on price, and the airlines will then be forced to compete on price, which is not gonna be great for them.

Competition, and in fact, they have. You can be a fairly senior elite on UA, US or DL without putting your butt in a seat, just by credit card spend or writing US a check.

The process is only going to continue to accelerate as mergers reduce options. You seriously think nobody is paying attention to WN or VX making things very clearly all about the revenue, and not caring about the miles flown to derive that revenue?

As for it being all about price, that cheap fare that double connects and saves you $20 might sound good, until the $200 in baggage fees gets added on, and the delays from a double connect makes you miss a meeting. Remember, for a lot of places NOT labeled Los Angeles or New York, you might not have a lot of great options if you are a frequent traveler and place some value on your time and convenience. Oddly enough, a lot of non-FTer types care about things like schedule and convenience over how many miles does this fare earn...

So is it worth getting status on United this year? I have a TATL flight on United then two cross-country flights in the first month of this year. I know that United does a status match for non-*A carriers, but maybe they will consider US fliers now. I got 140k miles last year to be Chairmans so I can probably make that again this year and still get to *A Gold on UA so when US goes to One World.....

Thoughts?

So is it worth getting status on United this year? I have a TATL flight on United then two cross-country flights in the first month of this year. I know that United does a status match for non-*A carriers, but maybe they will consider US fliers now. I got 140k miles last year to be Chairmans so I can probably make that again this year and still get to *A Gold on UA so when US goes to One World.....

Thoughts?

Highly doubt it would happen.

UA really isn't much about status matches these days, instead offering challenges similar to US. However, is stingier in that you can't move up and down depending on what you fly.

With US, you can buy a gold trial, fly more and become a platinum or chairman. Or fly less and drop to silver if you don't make the cut. You at least get recognized for the level of effort you get. With UA, it's an all or nothing thing. You have your target. If you don't meet it (i.e. could fly enough to meet what a gold challenge would be, but not a platinum), tough luck - you're a kettle. If fly more than your challenge (get a gold challenge, but fly enough to meet a platinum) - tough luck, you're still gonna be a gold. You also can't challenge to 1K either, except maybe in some very rare circumstances.

If you credit to UA, with transcons and a TATL, you'll be close to silver or may even hit it, depending where you fly from and your COS. However, the first 50k miles to gold and getting any real perks on UA is pretty painful.

For now, US is still *A so I'd find it highly unlikely to get anything out of UA as *A carriers don't poach from each other.

For now, US is still *A so I'd find it highly unlikely to get anything out of UA as *A carriers don't poach from each other.

I managed a UA Gold match last year from my US CP. Seemed pretty routine when I did it, but it was through corporate sales contacts.

I managed a UA Gold match last year from my US CP. Seemed pretty routine when I did it, but it was through corporate sales contacts.

I think if you have an in like that and your company has some contracts, it may do it.

However, just for the average person coming in and asking for a status match, it's a lot less likely.

US more or less gets around it by requiring people to pay for a trial and making it available to anyone.

There's a guaranteed layover between IND and PIT so it's a matter of whether I want it to be ORD/DTW/ATL/CLT/MEM. There don't seem to be many CLE flights so that's likely out of the question.

I'd prefer to avoid O'Hare since I'll now have that option. Additionally, I don't want to go to Delta because I'm probably going to be around 30K miles or 45 segments and their 1st tier elite status is brutal. I normally only use status for security, boarding and standby and Delta fails miserably for their 1st tier on that front.

Thus, I think US is going to be the choice, especially if the merger goes through.

First, welcome to FlyerTalk!

Second, BoeingBoy gave you (and collaterally, the rest of us) some great advice about thinking about the merger and our own behaviors ....

Third, the specifics of your case. Wow, years ago when I flew out of IND, PIT was still a hub and IND-PIT a familiar route. (I remember once getting an extra 500 bonus miles for making a bizarre plane change in, of all places, PHL). But IND-PIT is no more (and neither is IND-ORD, or IND-LGA), so while I personally am a great fan of US and got started on it in my IND days, is IND-PHL-PIT or IND-CLT-PIT the best you can do for yourself? I guess there really aren't any good choices for this route anymore...

Pulled this link from the US/AA merger thread over at AA.
Interesting-
http://firedougparker.org/

From a US Release today. . .

American Airlines and US Airways, with participation of committee counsel for the Unsecured Creditors Committee, are pleased that they have completed discussions with the Allied Pilots Association and US Airline Pilots Association intended to develop a framework for the terms of employment for pilots, as well as a process for pilot integration, in the event of a merger between AA and US during restructuring. This memorandum of understanding was approved by the Allied Pilots Association's Board of Directors and by USAPA's Board of Pilot Representatives. This memorandum of understanding will assist all of the stakeholders, including the Boards of AMR and US Airways, in making an informed decision as to whether a merger should ultimately be pursued. The MOU is one of several elements to be considered before a decision on a merger can be made. Details regarding the MOU are still covered by the terms of a non-disclosure agreement so they cannot be further disclosed at this time.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/joint-statement-of-us-airways-and-american-airlines-185710142.html

Pulled this link from the US/AA merger thread over at AA.
Interesting-
http://firedougparker.org/

What an absolute crybaby .........

Flew PHX-MCO yesterday and pulling my carryon out of the overhead above 1D I saw what I assumed to be FA's bag up there next to mine. It was adorned with a baggage tag that said "Come fly with us" on the top and "fly with the best" on the bottom. It had a picture of a male and female FA and behind them the tailfins of both US and AA...I guess the FAs are all set for the merger with the officially sanctioned merch?

Go Gators

Flew PHX-MCO yesterday and pulling my carryon out of the overhead above 1D I saw what I assumed to be FA's bag up there next to mine. It was adorned with a baggage tag that said "Come fly with us" on the top and "fly with the best" on the bottom. It had a picture of a male and female FA and behind them the tailfins of both US and AA...I guess the FAs are all set for the merger with the officially sanctioned merch?

Go Gators

I'm not one to typically believe rumors, but it seems things are heating up. Flying BHM-CLT and the FA mentions to me that there will be an announcement on 1/9 that the merger will happen. Take it for what it's worth!

[QUOTE=Superguy;19959209] You also can't challenge to 1K either, except maybe in some very rare cirumstances.../QUOTE]

Has anybody ever heard of it happening?

I'm not one to typically believe rumors, but it seems things are heating up. Flying BHM-CLT and the FA mentions to me that there will be an announcement on 1/9 that the merger will happen. Take it for what it's worth!


It's worth bubkis. Seriously, an FA? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Superguy;19959209] You also can't challenge to 1K either, except maybe in some very rare cirumstances.../QUOTE]

Has anybody ever heard of it happening?

In addition to the corporate contract we have with US, my company is one of UA's top volume customers in spite of pulling back a bunch of spend in 2012 due to their integration and service issues. We get a tranche of UA Global Services status memberships what we can assign to people, and they have offered some limited number 1K matches, as well as challenges for lower levels that we can more broadly use. Outside the context of corporate contracts though this is probably best asked on the UA board.

Not sure if someone else has already mentioned this, but US moved over to concourse C in STL with AA. I don't see why they needed to move unless they are prepping, there are plenty of empty gates on both concourses. Concourse C was the main concourse for TWA before AA took over and pulled out of STL.

Not sure if someone else has already mentioned this, but US moved over to concourse C in STL with AA. I don't see why they needed to move unless they are prepping, there are plenty of empty gates on both concourses. Concourse C was the main concourse for TWA before AA took over and pulled out of STL.When did this happen or when did you first notice? Thanks.

When did this happen...

Oct 18, 2012 (http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2012/10/16/us-airways-moves-relocates-to.html) - US moved over to Concourse C in STL.... "a change that will result in shorter security checkpoint wait times in Concourse A, according to airport spokesman Jeff Lea."

It's worth bubkis. Seriously, an FA? :rolleyes:

Nice to see the high regard you have for flight attendants.

Perhaps you may want to do an internet search. If you bother, you will see that both pilot groups have agreed to the terms of a transition agreement and the AA board is scheduled to meet on the 9th.

Wonder what they will be talking about at the meeting?

Nice to see the high regard you have for flight attendants.

C'mon and get serious. My comment was in regard to a rumor mongering FA and I've no idea how you equate that with FAs in general.

Nice to see the regard you have to comprehension. :D

C'mon and get serious. My comment was in regard to a rumor mongering FA and I've no idea how you equate that with FAs in general.

Nice to see the regard you have to comprehension. :D

My comprehension was just fine, thank you very much.

Your post, it's tone, and the rolling eyes you added very clearly demonstrated the low regard you hold for flight attendants.

Rumor mongering? You mean like people on this board? Well, we certainly can't have that.

Your position is particularly suspect since, in this case, the flight attendant had a legitimate basis for their statement.

Or perhaps you would just have us all believe they are all bimbos and nitwits with no understanding of the issues that will affect their jobs going forward? Nah. How could I possibly infer that from your post when I apparently lack even rudimentary comprehension abilities?

Your position is particularly suspect since, in this case, the flight attendant had a legitimate basis for their statement.

Flyin,

You are taking this way too seriously.
1. If it had been a pilot, FA, GA or ground worker it would not matter. They have NO knowledge about the process other than RUMORS they hear. As for the unions, everybody that cares to know about it knows, it is not secret.

2. The ones who know (AA board) are not going to start telling everybody what they are going to do. They are under threat of severe penalties from SEC if they "leaked" info that could affect stock.

3. All of us like to predict, but there are probably only 30-40 people in the world who really know how this is going to turn out. I may be wrong but I am betting they are not saying anything to others.

Flyin,

You are taking this way too seriously.

I agree - the US internal rumor mill has been calling this a done deal for 4-6 months and un-named sources "in the know" are saying don't expect a firm announcement from this week's AMR BOD meeting.

The AA FA's and pilots have been pushing for a merger since shortly after AMR filed bankruptcy - not exactly breaking news that they've for anything that would make a merger easier and get rid of Horton.

As for the US pilots, the east is positive that AA will welcome them and a date of hire integration with open arms (putting those upstart west pilots on the bottom where they belong) and the west is just as positive that the integration will be done using a combination of the AA seniority list and the arbitrator's award from the US/HP merger (keeping those double-crossing east pilots where they belong). Plus the US FA's and pilots will get a nice raise in a merger - AA's initial demands were better than what US pays and both FA's and pilots have negotiated improvements from there.

So no rank and file employee on either side knows what will happen. Only what they want to happen.

Jim