USAirways Merger Rumors Resurfacing...
Nov 14, 2009, 6:15 pm
#46
Suspended
Join Date: Apr 2009
Programs: AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 1,615
I'd prefer that AA acquire UA before US.
UA would mean a strong presence on both coasts (SFO and LAX and JFK and IAD). ORD would be dominated but not much more than CO at IAH or DL at ATL or DL at DTW. Some asset divestitures could make the ORD domination tolerable to the antitrust regulators.
UA would bring substantial China and Tokyo frequencies and slots (which AA let get away when DL married NW).
Most importantly, UA would bring a substantial base of high-yielding customers (notably in Chicago, the Bay area and the LA area).
Denver would no doubt get some of what STL has been having, but that's probably a good thing.
Fleet imcompatibility? Solvable with some airplane orders. Star Alliance? They've got CO, US (until they dump US) and now LH has a codesharing arrangement with jetBlue. Star will get along fine without UA.
Before you type "the antitrust reguators would never allow an AA/UA combination," at least be kind enough to explain why, in your opinion, it stands no chance of approval.
UA's not the prettiest girl at the dance, but it is getting late and after a couple of beers, she's not the ugliest thing in the room. AA could do worse.
UA would mean a strong presence on both coasts (SFO and LAX and JFK and IAD). ORD would be dominated but not much more than CO at IAH or DL at ATL or DL at DTW. Some asset divestitures could make the ORD domination tolerable to the antitrust regulators.
UA would bring substantial China and Tokyo frequencies and slots (which AA let get away when DL married NW).
Most importantly, UA would bring a substantial base of high-yielding customers (notably in Chicago, the Bay area and the LA area).
Denver would no doubt get some of what STL has been having, but that's probably a good thing.
Fleet imcompatibility? Solvable with some airplane orders. Star Alliance? They've got CO, US (until they dump US) and now LH has a codesharing arrangement with jetBlue. Star will get along fine without UA.
Before you type "the antitrust reguators would never allow an AA/UA combination," at least be kind enough to explain why, in your opinion, it stands no chance of approval.
UA's not the prettiest girl at the dance, but it is getting late and after a couple of beers, she's not the ugliest thing in the room. AA could do worse.
UA's A320 fleet, could prolly pawn these off to US Air or Delta
UA's 757 fleet, these are P&W compared to AA's RR
UA's 777 fleet, P&W against AA's RR
UA's 747 fleet, though AA may want these on trans-pac or to australia...
UA's 767 fleet, P&W against AA's GE
it seems like UA's entire fleet is incompatible with AA's.
ORD would become a super-hub, a combined American-United Airlines could dominate T1/T2/T3 and force all other non-partner carriers into T5 and then could probably strong-arm ORD into building a FIS facility in T1 concourse C...
SFO, isn't T3 already dominated by UA/AA and UA also owns like half of Intl G?
DFW, i was shocked to find non-AA flights here
, DFW could be re-named OneWorld International Airfield...LAX, AA/UA could have the entire southside of the airport all to themselves (and OW)...
Nov 14, 2009, 9:11 pm
#47
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: DCA, EGE, IAD
Programs: MR LTT, BA Gold, AA LTP, UA Silver
Posts: 6,077
I hate to break it to you but neither of those are viable options IMO. US going Ch 7, and you having to pick an alternate solution is probably a more likely outcome. The only thing I can see AA and the other airlines doing is picking up some gates and routes as a result of a US Ch 7 BK. So if you want to stay with *A then it will probably be UA via IAD for you.
Was thinking that we were discussing *A options out of CLT if US went under.
Nov 15, 2009, 6:09 am
#49
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,601
While I agree that US is likely on life support and "not worthwhile", the same cannot be said of CLT. Check the premiums that US commands on direct flights here. As we say in CLT, "Bless your heart."Which means nothing if you aren't using a point of reference. What's the average age of AA's MD80/757 fleet? The last 757 was delivered in 2001 or so and the last MD80 IIRC, was delivered at the end of 1999 to TW.
Nevermind the fact that US's 330s are quite young as well - the oldest having been delivered in 2006.
That's my point though - some people seem to be claiming AA would never go for the tie-up because of fleet differences, and I would disagree with that.
Nevermind the fact that US's 330s are quite young as well - the oldest having been delivered in 2006.
That's my point though - some people seem to be claiming AA would never go for the tie-up because of fleet differences, and I would disagree with that.
But bottom line from what I was saying earlier is this: merging to get access to additional metal is a non-starter. US's fleet is in no great shape and a good chunk of it would be returned to the leasers and/or scrapped once a purchase was completed. Additionally, as much as you say that combining fleets is no big deal, what's your source? AFAIK, some discrepancy is no big deal but when the entire fleet is incompatible, then suddenly you have an issue. AA is almost pure Boeing. US is trying to be pure Airbus. AA has worked hard to insulate the OPS of their hubs to minimize aircraft types that visit each one and has even worked to keep ORD planes attached to ORD to insulate weather delays to just Chicago. Adding US's planes into the mix would mean that AA would be operating EVERY SINGLE airplane in production except the 747 and the A-340 (although there are the ever-present rumors of a A-340 for US for China flights).
Anyway, we can armchair CEO debate these issues all we want. The fleet issue and hub issues are only numbers 12,213 and 875,127 in the 1,000,000 reasons US and AA ain't gonna happen.
Nov 15, 2009, 6:30 am
#50
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: PHX/SFO/LAX
Programs: AA-EXP (1.7MM), BA-Slvr, HH-Diamond
Posts: 7,784
(although there are the ever-present rumors of a A-340 for US for China flights)
Nov 15, 2009, 7:49 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
AA wouldn't need A340s. Emma Dog's point is that US might add yet another aircraft incompatible with the present AA fleet.
Last edited by 3Cforme; Nov 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Nov 15, 2009, 8:27 am
#52
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Peon Gold
Posts: 2,915
But bottom line from what I was saying earlier is this: merging to get access to additional metal is a non-starter.
US's fleet is in no great shape and a good chunk of it would be returned to the leasers and/or scrapped once a purchase was completed. Additionally, as much as you say that combining fleets is no big deal, what's your source? AFAIK, some discrepancy is no big deal but when the entire fleet is incompatible, then suddenly you have an issue. AA is almost pure Boeing. US is trying to be pure Airbus. AA has worked hard to insulate the OPS of their hubs to minimize aircraft types that visit each one and has even worked to keep ORD planes attached to ORD to insulate weather delays to just Chicago.
With the 75L fleet, AA has also shown a willingness to utilize subfleets, so I'm not sure that argument holds any water either.
Anyway, we can armchair CEO debate these issues all we want. The fleet issue and hub issues are only numbers 12,213 and 875,127 in the 1,000,000 reasons US and AA ain't gonna happen.
Nov 15, 2009, 9:35 am
#54
Formerly known as I_Hate_US_Airways
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Just South Of North
Programs: My Loyalty Programs? I now VOTE with my wallet!!!
Posts: 2,568
Hold On A Second
Nov 15, 2009, 9:56 am
#55
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,601
And US's 321s have roughly the same average age as AA's 738s, and that is an apples to apples comparison - which is why I didn't bother bringing either of those types up in my original post. I would venture to guess US's narrowbody fleet is on average younger than AA's.
Airplane / Seats as utilized
A321 / 183 seats
737(1) / 148 seats
737(2) / 160 seats
757 / 188 seats
And your guess about fleet age is incorrect. Using data from airfleets.net, US's fleet age including A319/20/21 + 757 + 737 is 16.13 years. AA's using 738 +MD80 + 757 is 15.8 years. US does have some 320s on order to replace their 737s but statistically this pales in comparison to the impact AA's 737 order for MD80 replacement will have on their average fleet age.
Well, as I said earlier, DL and NW have been able to make it work with nearly incompatible fleets, while DL plans on keeping every NW bird except for the 40 year old DC9s in the near term. AFAIK, the only types NW and DL had in common were the DC9s/MD80s and the 757s.
With the 75L fleet, AA has also shown a willingness to utilize subfleets, so I'm not sure that argument holds any water either.
With the 75L fleet, AA has also shown a willingness to utilize subfleets, so I'm not sure that argument holds any water either.
Nov 15, 2009, 12:34 pm
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,560
Nov 15, 2009, 12:46 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,560
The fleet difference issue is really not a big deal.
There are plenty of maintenance products out there for both the airframe and the engines that can take the task of managing the complexity out of the combined carrier's hands, including spares inventory management, on-wing and off-wing engine maintenance, fleet planning, etc.
There are plenty of maintenance products out there for both the airframe and the engines that can take the task of managing the complexity out of the combined carrier's hands, including spares inventory management, on-wing and off-wing engine maintenance, fleet planning, etc.
Nov 15, 2009, 2:19 pm
#58
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: los angeles, calif.
Programs: Alaska Airlines Gold MVP
Posts: 7,170
Nov 15, 2009, 6:06 pm
#59
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Gold, *wood Gold, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 928
The only reason ever 12 months or so I find a way to add a few miles to my US Air miles is the thought they might be acquired by AA or DL some day. I wouldn't want to lose the miles otherwise. But I have no desire to ever ever fly US again. The only good thing is they introduced me to LH.
Nov 15, 2009, 10:41 pm
#60
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ORD / MDW / FLL
Programs: DL DM/1MM, AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,295
AA would be ABSOLUTELY INSANE to attempt a merger with US. The incompatible fleet issues are the least of their worries. US has been in labor turmoil since the merger with HP. The pilots union (they are still operating under two separate contracts) just asked the USLRB to declare an impasse and impose mediation to try and get a single larbor contract. Just this week the US-west FAs were holding an information picketing at PHX complaining they are paid significantly less then their US-East counterparts. AA has enough labor issues that they do not need this mess.
The only hub working for US is CLT. They've bagged hubs / focus cities in PIT, LAS, BOS, and LGA and are in the fight of their lives at PHX and PHL a la WN. PHL ops are still a mess owing to the airport's lousy runway configuration and the TATL product is the worst in the air today.
AA and the other carriers would be smart to wait to US to liquidate (it's coming) and then pick the bones off the carcass. AA or CO "might" want to make a run for the CLT hub if they can keep it a fortress hub. PHL could be up for grabs just because of its large O&D traffic. WN has too much of a hold on PHX...doesn't make sense to try and fight them...especially since it's a lousy hub for int'l flights.
The only hub working for US is CLT. They've bagged hubs / focus cities in PIT, LAS, BOS, and LGA and are in the fight of their lives at PHX and PHL a la WN. PHL ops are still a mess owing to the airport's lousy runway configuration and the TATL product is the worst in the air today.
AA and the other carriers would be smart to wait to US to liquidate (it's coming) and then pick the bones off the carcass. AA or CO "might" want to make a run for the CLT hub if they can keep it a fortress hub. PHL could be up for grabs just because of its large O&D traffic. WN has too much of a hold on PHX...doesn't make sense to try and fight them...especially since it's a lousy hub for int'l flights.