America West FlightFund (Discontinued Program) - MERGER: Analyst reports possible America West/US Airways deal

From today's Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0409amwest09.html):

MERGER: Is US Air in America West's sights?

America West Airlines CEO Doug Parker has repeatedly said the Tempe airline wants to be a player in the expected consolidation of the troubled industry.

One industry analyst said Friday that America West may have bankrupt US Airways in its sights.

JP Morgan airline analyst Jamie Baker said in a report that there is "early speculation" on a proposed America West/US Airways "linkage." He provided no details.

This is not the first time America West's name has come up as a possible partner for the struggling East Coast carrier, but Baker's wording and the fact that he included the speculation in his report seem to suggest it's more than just idle chatter.

America West spokeswoman Elise Eberwein reiterated Parker's comments that a shakeout is inevitable for the industry's long-term survival. But she said that at this point any talk of an America West deal with US Airways is "only speculation," and that the company does not comment on speculation. US Airways did not return calls for comment.

America West made a run at another struggling airline, ATA Airlines, late last year but decided against making a formal bid for the because it couldn't put together a deal that made financial sense. A big obstacle was the cost of acquiring the Indianapolis carrier's planes. ATA ended up in a deal with Southwest.

At the time of the America West-ATA talks, one analyst who was opposed to that deal said a merger with US Airways would make more sense.

A key attraction, observers say, is the marriage of America West's West Coast-heavy operations and US Airways' East Coast emphasis.

Given the industry's fuel price and airfare woes, however, most see more challenges than benefits to any significant deal at this stage.

The most immediate obstacle is money. America West and most other airlines are losing millions right now and need every penny for their operations. In the same report, Baker says America West will face a crash crunch by the end of the year. He said America West, which ended 2004 with unrestricted cash and investments of $306 million, could be down to as low as the $60 million range. It needs to raise a minimum of about $100 million, but Baker added it should be able to do that.

Robert Mann, an airline industry consultant in Port Washington, N.Y., said the economics don't seem right at this point. If anything, a code-sharing deal would seem to make more sense. Under code sharing, airlines link their networks and feed each other passengers. It enables them to increase their business without the added costs of new cities or the hefty expenses of a merger.

Another possible player in any deal could be Phoenix-based Mesa Air Group. . . (continued) (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0409amwest09.html)

I have not followed the US Airways saga closely enough to know how feasible such a deal might be, but purely from a route perspective, I've always thought these two airlines would be a great fit.

Just think of all East Coast and International routes and destinations. :) It would make HP an entirely different airline.

But how would HP make USAirways' assets profitable? I'm not saying a deal won't happen, just that I can't imagine it would help HP's profitability.

I remember rumors of an HP-US merger in 1998.

The UA almost bought HP purely for the planes, they were going to throw most of 'em at USAirways at IAD.

Then UA tried to buy US but the unions scuttled the deal (so UA didn't put up a fight with regulators, allowing the Justice Department to kill it which got UA out of heavy breakup payments to US).

So then UA-US still linked up and US joined the *A.

What would happen to the UA-US/US-Star relationship under HP ownership?

Boggles the mind.

Yes, a different airline indeed. But, Doug will NOT do anything that would jeopardize HP, the 12,000+ employees and especially our stockholders. If the deal makes sense, look out! If not (see TZ), HP will back out gracefully and decline.
Doug also recently said that something needs to happen in the industry. It makes sense for US to be taken over (parts of them not the whole airline). That would free up some capacity in the air.

Just think of all East Coast and International routes and destinations.

Yes, we'd gain PHL-CDG/FCO/AMS/MAD/FRA/LGW/MUC/SNN/DUB/DUS.

Exciting to think about the possibility ,as long as these new european routes don't cost us the BA & VS partnerships. I'd be seriously upset if it did.

I won't even try to list all the Caribbean destinations HP would gain. Not to mention the added routes to CUN/CZM and central america.

Yes, we'd gain PHL-CDG/FCO/AMS/MAD/FRA/LGW/MUC/SNN/DUB/DUS.

Exciting to think about the possibility ,as long as these new european routes don't cost us the BA & VS partnerships. I'd be seriously upset if it did.

I won't even try to list all the Caribbean destinations HP would gain. Not to mention the added routes to CUN/CZM and central america.

US does not serve DUS, but they do serve (in summer) BCN and VCE.

I think now that US has a lower cost structure, a combination with HP might not be out of the question. Both airlines provide similar onboard service and so long as the new airline could remain in Star Alliance, would be beneficial to both's FFs.

Wow! I'm keeping my fingers crossed on this one and hoping that IF it does go through that the new entity retains *A membership.... then I could dump all of my miles into my UA account!! :)

From a pure route geography perspective it makes a lot of sense.

US does not serve DUS,

Oops, my bad. My fingers were going faster than my eyes.

Both airlines provide similar onboard service and so long as the new airline could remain in Star Alliance

I had my heart set on HP in OW.

then I could dump all of my miles into my UA account!!

Wouldn't it be funny if UA folded, and HP became the main member in *A.

Wouldn't it be funny if UA folded, and HP became the main member in *A.

Not really!

Programs: UA UGS 1K MM

Probably not for you.

Probably not for you.

Yep - probably not for me :D

Yep - probably not for me :D

... or the 60,000+ employees of UA, the UA customer base in SFO, LAX, ORD, and DEN where neither US nor HP have a significant presence, the Star Alliance which is highly reliant on UA's Asian routes, or ME who is shooting for the 1K mark in 2 more weeks!! :)

Now, what I would really like to see would be a merger of HP and US (assuming *A membership is maintained) along with a decrease in UA's domestic operations (favoring international expansion). If done right that could help pull UA into the black and provide for an actual use for my HP miles.... ahh, pipe dreams....

Now, what I would really like to see would be a merger of HP and US (assuming *A membership is maintained) along with a decrease in UA's domestic operations (favoring international expansion). If done right that could help pull UA into the black and provide for an actual use for my HP miles.... ahh, pipe dreams....To expand on this concept, I'd really like to see a three-legged approach to this -- UA, US and HP:

UA takes over US' international operations
HP takes over US' domestic operations
UA cuts back on domestic routes that HP has coverage on
HP becomes, and UA remains, a member of the Star Alliance
UA discontinues TED, and HP ensures coverage on any previous TED routes
This, I believe, provides the best opportunity for as many people as possible to maintain their current or equivalent jobs, maintains reasonably priced airfares, and strengthens both HP as a low-fare domestic carrier and UA as a mainline transcon and international carrier. I don't think HP should even consider taking on significant international operations, and UA has already indicated it wants to cut back on domestic operations. This is a win-win, even for the US folks.

UA takes over US' international operations



In the long term I disagree. If US can fly to Europe then HP should have the chance eventually. Maybe HP takes over the PHL-Europe routes, but UA flies them until HP is able.

HP should also keep US' Caribbean and Central American routes, as well as it's original Mexico routes.

Everthing else I can live with.

To expand on this concept, I'd really like to see a three-legged approach to this -- UA, US and HP:

UA takes over US' international operations
HP takes over US' domestic operations
UA cuts back on domestic routes that HP has coverage on
HP becomes, and UA remains, a member of the Star Alliance
UA discontinues TED, and HP ensures coverage on any previous TED routes
This, I believe, provides the best opportunity for as many people as possible to maintain their current or equivalent jobs, maintains reasonably priced airfares, and strengthens both HP as a low-fare domestic carrier and UA as a mainline transcon and international carrier. I don't think HP should even consider taking on significant international operations, and UA has already indicated it wants to cut back on domestic operations. This is a win-win, even for the US folks.


^

After further consideration I was going to edit my previous post to reflect something similar to this, but it looks like you beat me to it.


In the long term I disagree. If US can fly to Europe then HP should have the chance eventually. Maybe HP takes over the PHL-Europe routes, but UA flies them until HP is able.

HP should also keep US' Caribbean and Central American routes, as well as it's original Mexico routes.

Everthing else I can live with.


How 'bout this...

All of the above...plus...


UA takes over US's European routes and possibly moves them around in order to accomodate better traffic flow through it's existing hubs.

UA surrenders rights to most of the Latin American routes to HP in order to focus on Europe, Asia, and (wishful thinking) Africa. With the appropriate metal from US HP could easily cover Central and South America. UA doesn't seem to be too interested in that market anymore with the reductions in South America and the Tedification of the Mexican routes. I'm fairly certain that they are sitting on a number of landing rights that they aren't using... in fact I think that AA is trying to get the FAA to re-allocate them.

HP and UA complete a partnership agreement that allows elite status benefits on both airlines and use of the UA/US "500 milers" on HP at a higher priority than the free HP upgrades (I've got about 50 of those things that I'll never use).


Of course this is all speculation on all of our parts, but I'm sure that there's a way that the 3 players can come to an agreement that benefits the three companies, their shareholders, employees, and (most importantly) their customers

See also MERGER: Analyst reports possible America West/US Airways deal (US forum discussion from US perspective)
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=419983

To expand on this concept, I'd really like to see a three-legged approach to this -- UA, US and HP:

UA takes over US' international operations
HP takes over US' domestic operations
UA cuts back on domestic routes that HP has coverage on
HP becomes, and UA remains, a member of the Star Alliance
UA discontinues TED, and HP ensures coverage on any previous TED routes
This, I believe, provides the best opportunity for as many people as possible to maintain their current or equivalent jobs, maintains reasonably priced airfares, and strengthens both HP as a low-fare domestic carrier and UA as a mainline transcon and international carrier. I don't think HP should even consider taking on significant international operations, and UA has already indicated it wants to cut back on domestic operations. This is a win-win, even for the US folks.


As much as I hate hearing about the demise of US, I'll have to agree that from a common sense standpoint, this really does sound good. Makes the most sense out of anything they could possibly do.

But remember, fleet compatibility will be a big issue. While UA and HP use the same engines on their Airbus aircraft, US does not. US also flies a significant number of 321's, and a few 330's, planes that neither of the other two fly.

Also, don't forget about CLT and PIT. CLT is actually US's biggest hub, and US operates more daily flights there than out of PHL. CLT also has daily LGW and FRA service. PIT, although technically de-hubbed, still provides a significant amount of connecting traffic on US, comparable to HP's presence in LAS (although a further reduction in PIT service would be likely if this deal were to ever go through).

But more than likely this is just a bunch of hot air.

But more than likely this is just a bunch of hot air.

Could it be a trial baloon floated by either of the parties?

I'll admit to having flown, but very much enjoyed, both airlines very little but would venture both could do worse than each other.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05102/486688.stm

Talk about some sort of a combination between US Airways and America West Airlines, the seventh and eighth largest carriers in the United States, continues to surface despite refusals by either company to lend credence to the speculation.

After working for a couple companies (non-airline) that went through the BK thing, the companies that wanted their assets waited until they went C7 and then purchased the assets for a song. While the marriage may look good, HP will not want to assume the liabilities of US and US is in no position to acquire anybody. Also, if they purchase the assets and then hire the unemployed US workers they can start them as new employees and not necessarily have to assume current wages, retirement programs, seniority, etc..

Yes, money will need to be found, but again, HP will be in a better position once US, or any other airline, goes C7 and assets can be purchased at fire sale prices. Financing for that type of purchase will be much more attractive to anyone underwriting the HP purchase as many liabilities, overhead and other, will be excluded. Obviously secured financing on assets they purchase will probably not be; but then again HP can pick and choose what assets (those compatible with their current fleet), routes, etc they wish to purchase. There may be others interested but the bidding process through the BK courts, and resulting cost of ownership, if they are successful in winning their bids will be much better than if they did something now. If UA is still in BK at the time, which they probably will be since they have not moved forward on finding $1.3 B in annual non-labor costs to cut (as of 4 months ago, so it is more now because of higher fuel prices) in order to secure exit financing, they may well not be in a position to bid against HP.

Absolutely right. If all HP wants is aircraft and east coast slots, but not the US managers or workers or debt rating or service reputation, there's no strategic reason to merge. Not when US' collapse seems so likely.

Absolutely right. If all HP wants is aircraft and east coast slots, but not the US managers or workers or debt rating or service reputation, there's no strategic reason to merge. Not when US' collapse seems so likely.


I agree- US would probably be more attractive in pieces that as a whole.

But, since US is the larger carrier, wouldn't it be the one that would actually aquire HP, not the other way around? (this assuming that US does NOT go Ch7)

The only thing that causes me to raise an eyebrow is US's merger and aquisition reputation. Anyone remember Midway? Or PSA? When's the last time anyone has seen a US-operated intra-California flight? I fear that if a deal went through with US the surviving airline, HP would see the same fate.

. . . this assuming that US does NOT go Ch7. . .

Huge assumption.

Smaller companies acquire some or all of larger ones all the time. It has to do with the smaller company's access to capital, which HP seems to have.

HP has the fundamental financial and operational model that would be necessary for survival going forward, especially when compared to US.

I'm pretty sure you don't have to worry; a deal involving the two would not leave US as the "surviving airline."

It will depend on what HP wants - if US goes C7, then the assets will go to the creditors or will be sold to satisfy the creditors - and there aren't that many assets. The planes would be returned to the leasing companies then out to the highest bidder. If HP is serious about this, they're already talking to the aircraft companies about what planes they will and won't keep.

I wouldn't be surprised to see US C11 exit plan make them a greatly reduced company - they can cancel unfriendly leases, get out of bad collective bargaining agreements, shedding unwanted routes, slots, etc. then merge with HP. This reduces the chance of someone like WN bidding for the prime slots places like PHL and CLT, which would happen if there were a C7 sale.

For the person who said "US is a bigger company" - there is a long history of smaller companies buying bigger yet weaker competitors. It's one case where size doesn't matter.

This would have to be a prepackaged bankruptcy. There would also have to be more than HP & US agreeing to it. GECAS/ILFC(or other aircraft lessors), and creditors would have to be satisfied. This would be similiar to how HP was going to buy TZ.

Greetings from the US side.

I agree that the idea of an HP-US merger sounds like an excellent proposition in terms of the route network (especially for me since I fly once a month to SNA which is not served by US but only by UA code share). However, one should always be careful of what you wish for:

1. US does not have enough cash on hand to make it through the summer if things do not turn around. The vultures (in particular WN are circling over PHL and PIT)

2. Much of US's exit strategy from ch. 11 is based on financing provided by Air Whisky and Mesa who wll gain representation on the Board. Any merger that doesn't meet their needs will have a hard time passing.

3. While PHL (US's second largest hub) is excellent in terms of its O&D traffic, as a hub it's a nightmare. The ground crews are marginal at best, bags are lost and never found, the airport is not designed for the current traffic level and has horrible on-time performance and any time a cloud appears in the sky the entire airport goes into cardiac arrest.

4. Even the most junior US employees have well over 10 years senority and are not going to be happy with any additional concessions, loss of senority or work rule changes. These employees are beyond mad at what has happened to their airline.

5. CLT is a true spoke and hub operation. Very little of the traffic out of CLT is O&D.


While an HP-US-UA merger seems like a great idea, I don't think it would get past regulators without shedding a hub or three. US-US never realy made sense as there would be hubs in PHL, CLT, IAD and ORD with major operations at PIT, DCA, LGA and BOS.

If HP were smart they would save their pennies, wait for US to tank and snatch up the assets that fit the HP business model. Buying everything lock stock and barrel will saddle HP with an airline that's broken and heavily dependent on its regional carriers to feed into the mainline operation and expensive and less-than-stellar ground crews in cities like PHL. I do think HP in the *A would make an excellent addition to the network.

Given what I've seen on your board and from looking at the website, it seems like you have a pretty good airline out there in LAS and PHX. Sounds like those of us over here at US would be in for a treat. :D

While an HP-US-UA merger seems like a great idea, I don't think it would get past regulators without shedding a hub or three. US-US never realy made sense as there would be hubs in PHL, CLT, IAD and ORD with major operations at PIT, DCA, LGA and BOS.I don't think anyone has actually proposed a three-way merger. In my case, what I proposed was essentially a split of US, perhaps a sell-off that's not a Ch7 plan. A bankruptcy reorg where US spins off its international operations which merge with UA, and separately merges its domestic operations with HP.

The merger probably only makes sense if HP can significantly downsize US before taking over. I suspect that one of the ways HP could help finance a merger would be to sell some of the assets like the european routes and slots at major european airports... the only question is, outside of NW, can any airline afford them???

Just a heads up from the investment side of this business -- I think it unlikely that there are any serious merger talks going on between UAIR and AWA. This rumor seems to have made it into the media by way of analyst conjecture, not any "inside information" of talks being under way. As noted above, there are many, many good reasons why AWA would not be interested in buying UAIR here as a going entity. Of course, I can't rule out some "creative" financing scheme, but I think such odds are remote. I've got my ears open for actual statements by AWA management, and I'll post them here when I hear them.

The merger probably only makes sense if HP can significantly downsize US before taking over. I suspect that one of the ways HP could help finance a merger would be to sell some of the assets like the european routes and slots at major european airports... the only question is, outside of NW, can any airline afford them???

With the exception of Heathrow, it is not difficult to obtain European route authorities. The days of selling route authorities are over (for the most part).

Just an update: A post by lowecur on the AWA yahoo board suggests that there may be a factual foundation behind this rumor, so I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand (even though a UAIR/AWA merger still strikes me as unlikely). Holly Hegeman, who has somewhat of mixed record on these things, is apparently reporting in her subscription newsletter that aircraft lessor GECAS is trying to broker a deal and that the discussions are "serious." GECAS apparently has about 120 aircraft leased to UAIR, and half that number with AWA. Holly reportedly said that we should hear something concrete in the next 10 days.

Just a minor correction concerning US's financing indicated by Sobe er doc. Air Whiskey and Republic are involved so far in the financing of US. Mesa, who flys for both US and AWA, has said they will help US, so far has sat out.

Hearing about GECAS and AWA's cash crunch later this year makes me wonder if GECAS is trying to work something out proactively with Mesa to finance both similar to the Air France/KLM merger non-merger, where the back office operations are consolidated, but they still would be run as two closely related but independent airlines. Code share everything.

Just a heads up from the investment side of this business -- I think it unlikely that there are any serious merger talks going on between UAIR and AWA. This rumor seems to have made it into the media by way of analyst conjecture, not any "inside information" of talks being under way. As noted above, there are many, many good reasons why AWA would not be interested in buying UAIR here as a going entity. Of course, I can't rule out some "creative" financing scheme, but I think such odds are remote. I've got my ears open for actual statements by AWA management, and I'll post them here when I hear them.

Today, I heard from a US Senior Manager (old work pal of mine) who would indicate very differently than you. Stay tuned. He advised we all may well be hearing and reading something within days......

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28e46e0e-b12b-11d9-9bfc-00000e2511c8.html

America West, the low-cost airline, is in advanced talks to merge with US Airways, the bankrupt carrier.

Here are two other articles:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stocks/transportation/10218507.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&guid=%7BF97103F9%2D2C1D%2D4B09%2DABF5%2DCF955F6089 05%7D

I don't think this is just speculation anymore. I am not saying it will happen just that I think they are really talking.

I wouldn't push US Airways out the door just yet. I would be willing to bet that the US Airways name stays for the combined entity, if a combination ends up being what happens. The name has a broader marketing appeal. What I read in the WSJ this morning seems to point to that very idea.

Amazing how early FT knows things. Check this old post: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=349840&highlight=Charlotte

Bob

Another report has been published, this time by USAToday. US Airways, America West in talks (http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2005-04-19-usair-americawest_x.htm) . Interesting code name for the merger: "Project Barbell". I know many are worried about how this merger can mess things up for HP. However, this is HP's best shot to grow into new markets. Think about it, USAirways is in a bad shape like HP was in the early' 90's. It has continued to survive and like USAir is the airline that wont die. The mere fact that they can hold their own againt Southwest in Phoenix and Las Vegas shows that they have the will and the talent to stand up and not run from them. USAir greatly needs this talent and many have underestimated the costs that USAir has shed in bankruptcy court. The problem is not that there have been enough cuts, but that many believe that US management is not up to the task of making it useful. Even after the 747 debacle and other problems HP is still the only major airline created after deregulation that still exists. The past is paved with how bad legacy airlines are at mergers, but now for the first time we could see a low cost carrier take over a "legacy airline". This is quite frankly a new chapter in airline history and hopefully the new USAirways will dominate the west like it should have been with the PSA takeover, and all it took was just about 20 years. :D

Even after the 747 debacle and other problems HP is still the only major airline created after deregulation that still exists.

Are you limiting your analysis to just hub-and-spoke airlines? Several low-cost airlines have been successfully created after deregulation, most notably JetBlue.

Are you limiting your analysis to just hub-and-spoke airlines? Several low-cost airlines have been successfully created after deregulation, most notably JetBlue.


I think the original poster was referring only to major airlines, or airlines that have annual revenues of over $1 billion. I am not sure, though, whether or not B6 or any others are considered "major" airlines.

While speculating about merged seniority lists the following might be useful:

From US Aviation

Note that there is NO MENTION of DOH.

Here are the ALPA list integration goals from the ALPA Administrative Manual

SECTION 45 – MERGER AND FRAGMENTATION POLICY 10/31/02

5. The merger representatives shall carefully weigh all the equities inherent in their merger situation. In joint session, the merger representatives should attempt to match equities to various methods of integration until a fair and equitable agreement is reached, keeping in mind the following goals, in no particular order:

a. Preserve jobs.

b. Avoid windfalls to either group at the expense of the other.

c. Maintain or improve pre-merger pay and standard of living.

d. Maintain or improve pre-merger pilot status.

e. Minimize detrimental changes to career expectations.

I think the original poster was referring only to major airlines, or airlines that have annual revenues of over $1 billion. I am not sure, though, whether or not B6 or any others are considered "major" airlines.

According to JetBlue's 2004 Annual report (released a few days ago and available here: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/jblu/annualreports/200410k.pdf ), the Department of Transportation began considering JetBlue as a major airline on 1 January 2005. I am not sure how the DOT goes about determining what constitutes a "major" airline, but certainly in terms of market capitalization, JetBlue is major. I have not done the math to multiply the share prices of the various US airlines by the number of shares they have outstanding, but I am sure JetBlue would be hightly ranked by that metric, almost certainly higher than US Air!

Are you limiting your analysis to just hub-and-spoke airlines? Several low-cost airlines have been successfully created after deregulation, most notably JetBlue.
What I meant is that for a startup created after the 1978 deregulation HP is the only airline to survive for a considerable length of time. Jetblue and Airtran may be sucessful, but so was People Express and numerous others in their early years. I simply meant to distinguish the fact that HP breaks records everyday they exist - the record for survival.

P.S. Major airline status is given if an airline has revenues over $1 billion. Size has nothing to do with "major" or the lower "national" status. FYI, Jetblue has about 68 airbus A320 jets, US airways has over 282 aircraft which is a mix of similar and larger aircraft, interms of sheer size Jetblue is much smaller.

In terms of sheer size Jetblue is much smaller.

For now. :D

What's interesting is that a combination of HP and US would be larger than Southwest. This would be a very large airline with far greater reach and scope. In addition to existing int'l service, I would expect PHX to get European and Hawaiian service with US' equipment and certificate.

Alas, the America West name would be history. It would be quite ironic to see "USAirways" live on, possibly to become an industry leader!

But don't count your chickens yet. CEO Parker said today that he still thought it was "very likely" that AWA would stay independent and not acquire US or anyone else. I will say that, if a deal goes through, it will be a great one for AWA's shareholders, employees and customers. If the numbers don't work, AWA will simply walk away, just like they did with ATA.

... from a few months ago ?

So far, only AZ_MISMAN has made a reference to them.
Supposedly, HP was looking to go big in CLT. I just wonder if the current alleged talks are only for some planes and facilities for a CLT hub ??

In general, I'd think it makes more sense for HP to just go for a piece of US and not the whole thing.

Another personal thot...
Why not just a marketing agreement. Maybe HP (along w/Mesa and Air Wisconsin) making a major investment to get an east coast foothold. Travellers have grown more accustomed to alliances/code shares so you really don't have to have your name all over the place to get a larger market share.

Steve

I think the most likely sort of deal would be HP taking an equity stake in US, in exchange for some assets (CLT hub?) and a codeshare. It's basically the same thing WN did with TZ. The codeshare essentially pays back for the original investment, but the assets are insurance, which would be necessary given US' perilous condition.

My guess is HP also would somehow get "dibs" on some other US assets (again, a la WN/TZ), but who knows?

CLT will probably be the last thing to get pried from US cold bankrupt hands - at least in its entirety. For some stupid reason, US is apparently considering selling 1 gate at CLT to WN... dumb, dumb, dumb... don't give them a foothold!

With US in bankruptcy protection, if HP wants to merge with a tremendously downsized US, now would be the time to do it... they can choose what they want to keep and jettison the rest as part of the bankruptcy plan...