LINDEGR

+1

elitetraveler

Since Dougie said the HQ for a combined US/AA would be DFW - one would think the AA culture would perhaps dominate. I am sure there would be lots of the HP/US tricks such as tray table ads, etc. but if you look at US A330 J - it is actually the seat copied by CX and now AA.

isle-hawg

I think I am in the minority here as I welcome a AA/US merger. This is predicated on them not shutting down US' current East Coast hubs. If they were to shut them down (like Delta did with MSP post NW merger) then there is no benefit to us paying customers in a merger ever.

For those of us who live in a east coast city other then NY or MIA (or have one of these two east coast cities as our final destination) it is impractical to fly AA. US & Delta provides the most convenient options for this by far. A merger for me would mean more flights on AA since much of my travel is up and down the east coast.

gemac

3Cforme

You need to study up on domestic hub facts. Delta operates about as many flights from MSP as US does from PHL: about 470 on a peak day to ~120 destinations.

There would surely be a hub rationalization plan with a combination of US and AA. It would not be pretty. PHL would be at risk from JFK for TATL flights. CLT could not compete with MIA for S America and Caribbean flights.

isle-hawg

In my case by far most of my travel is domestic it originates from VA and much of it is to other east coast cities not named NYC or MIA. I can't get there from here conveniently on AA with the hubs they currently have.

I end up flying US mostly, sometimes B6 or Delta because for my east coast business trips due to their hub locations. From DCA (one of my two home airports) I can currently fly pretty much anywhere I need to go on the east coast direct on US so this is the airline I usually choose for these flights even though I have no status with them (these miles don't add up enough to get there). However if they were merged with AA these flights would help me maintain mid-tier status with AA and have status on these flights, enabling me to choose exit row seats.

elitetraveler

If that happens it will be messy and unpleasant, but there is also the possibility of compensation.

gegarrenton

lol.

FWAAA

Yes, there are numerous media reports that AA and US may combine. Tell us something we didn't already know.

AA is in bankruptcy primarily for one reason: Its recalcitrant employee unions stonewalled AA's attempts to negotiate cost-competitive labor agreements over the past several years. After years of fruitless negotiations, AA filed a Ch 11 petition so that it could bring resolution to its stalled labor negotiations.

Your logical skills are deficient, at least as written in this post. In your opinion, failure to merge while AA is in bankruptcy is stupid and leads to a second Ch 11 filing (ala the old US). On what do you base your opinion? As you know, UA waited until it emerged from Ch 11 to merge with CO. DL and NW both waited until they emerged from Ch 11 before merging. Yes, US and HP merged as US exited from Ch 11, as US had no exit financing available to it without the merger with HP. AA has no need for exit financing and thus won't need US to "save" it.

Ahh, more of Doug Parker's talking points - he recently said that he needs the ability to review AA's fleet plan and reject leases on unwanted airplanes, as if Horton and the rest of AA management was incompetent to do so.

OK, let's take your airport gate example: Unless Doug Parker's plan is to cut back substantially, a combined AA-US won't have surplus real estate at "50 or 75 common airports" as you claim. Can you name half a dozen (or even one) where the combined AA-US would have eight gates but need only six?

At the airports where AA intends to grow, gate space is at a premium, and there's not a chance that AA would reject leases, like at JFK, LGA, MIA, DFW, ORD or LAX. Sure, a combined AA-US probably wouldn't need AA's current PHX, CLT or PHL gates, but the total rent paid by AA at those three airports wouldn't amount to a rounding error.

At LAX, a AA-US would eventually not need US' current gates at T-1 (as space is available at T-4 and the four preferential gates at TBIT). Whatever gates US uses at JFK would be surplus. US gates at DFW, ORD and MIA would be surplus, but like at LAX and JFK, US gates at DFW, ORD and MIA are not adjacent to the large AA terminals and they would be surplus. Since US is not in Ch 11, there's no way to end those leases if they're at above market rates and if no other airline wants them.

How about SFO? AA isn't moving to the US gates if there's a merger. AA has nice temporary digs with enough space to incorporate the US flights.

There may be a few airports where a combined AA-US might have an extra gate, but like I pointed out above, that's only a problem if AA or US is paying above-market rent and no other airlines want more gates. If a combined AA-US does not slash capacity, it won't have many extra gates.

The real issues are all those gates in PHX, CLT and PHL that might not be necessary once the combined network is rationalized. No longer would the combined airline need to fly 13 daily flights between LGA and PHL (or LGA and CLT). That schedule isn't justified by the O&D - both of those pairs represent US offering connecting flights for NYC passengers to help fill the CLT and PHL international flights - if anything is reduced following a combination, it would be some of the European schedules out of PHL and CLT. For NYC passengers, AA would fly them nonstop from LGA or JFK, not fly them to CLT or PHL.

I found one airport where AA currently leases two gates and US leases five: IND. IIRC, that's about the same number both airlines used at the old IND terminal before the new terminal opened.

AA has right-sized its facilities expenses while in Ch 11. If US did not do so, that's US' problem, not AA's problem. Yes, US has no chance to fix its cost problems unless US files yet another Ch 11 petition. Given the high costs at US, have you considered that a Ch 11 filing might be the best solution to the problems at US?

Since the 2005 merger, US has an aggregate net annual loss 2006-11 of over $1 billion. Yes, US has had some profitable years, but the losses overshadow the profits. In every year except for one (2010), AA has paid less per gallon for jet fuel than has US. Parker's number maximization skills has certainly led to higher fuel costs than at AA.

If the numbers demonstrate that a merger of AA and US makes sense, that's what will happen, regardless of your baseless assertions that Horton's actions are stupid. The creditors will make that decision, not Doug Parker.

nall

I disagree. We fly people in and out of Florida routinely, and MIA is great for connections from other Florida cities.

FWAAA

One of the analysts pointed out RIC-JAX as an example of a route that doesn't work with AA's currrent network. Or BUF-JAX. Well, you get the idea. MIA doesn't offer efficient connections to quite a number of routes.

Most airlines have gaps - US doesn't connect people around the Pacific Northwest as effectively as does Alaska. US offers nothing to the Upper Midwest (DL covers that with MSP, UA and AA with ORD). And with the LGA slot giveaway to DL, US now offers almost nothing at LGA compared to DL or AA. And US, with its inefficient and ridiculous barbell hub system, offers double connections for Southeast US to Southwest US passengers (AA offers single connections at DFW, UA at IAH).

elitetraveler

Well then why is AA sending out NDAs and actively engaging US and others in merger discussions within 11?

The reason Parker has been shouting and stomping his feet was at least the initial appearance Horton was going to try and rush through 11 without giving mergers serious consideration.

As to airports where lease/real estate agreements might be renegotiated, you could count virtually every spoke served by both airlines - IND, STL, MCI, TUL, OKC, MEM, FLL, SJC, SEA. It's not just gates, but offices, storage and other facilities.

isle-hawg

I should of said some of us. It all depends on where we travel from/too regular. AA does not fly to PVD anymore, and no longer flies direct from DCA to BOS. AA does not fly from RIC to NYC and only 1 flight a day to MIA. MCO & JAX I can get direct on US from DCA saving significant travel time (vice x-fer in MIA) and not even an option for me due to cost for work related travel to choose AA.

I started my earlier post saying I am in the minority. I was not looking to change anyone's mind, just trying to make a data point that if the merger happened and they do not shut down current US hubs (especially DCA) that I would fly AA more then I already do.

LINDEGR

I am in the same boat and not sure why people are so negative on the merger. There are way too many markets where AA does not have any reasonable connection options for me that a US merger would solve. I remain hopeful.

I_Can_Fly_US_Airways

You sir, are only 100% correct! My sense is that the objectors fall into 2 basic categories;

1. Legacy AA flyers(elites) that are somehow worried their benefits will be diluted. This is completely false thinking. Doug Parker has already stated that the Adantage Program will supersede the Dividend Miles Program. Period, end of story.
2. AA flyers that once flew US Airways in "1970 something" have bad experience, and decided to simply trash USAir for life ( really objective don't you think)?

The group you don't hear complaining (and probably on some level have a right to complain a lot more than AA Flyers do) is US Airways Silver, Gold, and Platinum members. My reason for saying this, is that they have been used to the free upgrade system for many, many years. Since the Advantage Program only gives upgrades to Platinum Executives, (everyone else but US Airways Chairman's) are going to be in for a little "sticker shock" (pardon the pun).

Yet, every single US Air flyer I talk to, is in favor of the merger. Yes, we would lose the ability to pull reward tickets on*A carriers. But, the benefits of the much larger route system, would more than offset this loss.

On a personal basis, I would much rather be in 1W than the Star alliance due to my own travel pattern.

Of course, all this may be moot as only time will tell (-;