GadgetFreak

A hub rather than PIT. One of the reasons I stopped flying them. I was doing 100+ segments a year on them for a while. I remember a flight from LGA to PHL where everyone was connecting and we landed at PHL and just parked. Multiple US1s were calling the Chairmans desk asking for help in getting us a bus to get us to the terminal for our connections. But no.......

GadgetFreak

It is a lot easier to compete on PHL-LHR than NYC-LHR. They seem to me to have downsized their LGA operation as well, although that is just an impression from hanging around waiting for shuttles over the years. I just don't think having gates will help them compete. It is their business model/niche which I don't think will lead them o try to compete in those markets. At least not for long.

elitetraveler

As others have said, I think it has more to do with the four-engine A340, weight restrictions and as I understood it, the floor of the 340 the way SQ had them delivered couldn't take their F seats (weight I think). Ironically, while one would obviously pay for the time savings of a non-stop, those who wanted to fly F had to fly one-stop.

sts603

PHL vs. PIT was an issue 10 years ago under the former US management. It has absolutely nothing to do with the route structure of a combined AA-US. No rationale person things that PIT will be rehubbed. But I do disagree with any idea that AA is going to downsize NYC in favor of PHL. As I've said, I think there is room for both. Most of AA's NYC business is O&D, not connecting. And there is no way to move the US hub operation to NYC.

sts603

And the size of the market is how many times bigger NYC-LHR?? Sure, its easy to compete when you'll be in a JBA with your only competitor (PHL-LHR). But the amount of traffic and most importantly the amount of premium traffic on NYC-LHR is MANY, MANY times higher.

The point is that the US business model and niche wasn't viable. That's why Doug has been hunting for a partner. He did alright over the last few years scraping together some profits but he knows that can't last forever. So he's getting into the big guys game and trying to merge with one of the big guys so he can run a big guy operation. If he wanted to be a niche player, why buy AA.

US downsized their NYC operation not to run away from the competition but because they had a better competitive advantage at DCA and the opportunity to strengthen in via a slot swap with DL. The WAS market certainly isn't non-competitive. In retrospect with he merger, US-AA probably should have kept the LGA presence (though it may have required more divesting to pass anti-trust scrutiny, the current merger will still have the combined entity slightly behind DL's LGA presence). But that slot swap was designed long before AA entered Ch. 11.

uxb

Yeah, I was posting as I went along instead of posting at the end. Kinda jet-lagged.

GadgetFreak

They may still see it to be better to sell those slots to DL than compete with DL. I don't see their product competing in those markets.

sts603

Why do you think that US is buying AA to make AA like US? Doug has been clear that the US hub/route system doesn't generate the revenue that the big guy's systems do. He's created a product to match that. While I'm not a fan of a lot of what Doug has done, he's a pretty saavy guy at the end of the day. Pretty sure he knows that what can fly on PHL-MAN or PHL-GLA isn't going to cut it on JFK-HND/LHR/CDG (though as I said above, US has far more flat J in a spacious herringbone configuration than AA does right now).

Also, I doubt DOJ will allow any sales to DL at LGA.

bubba198

US is not buying AA.

LarkSFO

Does anybody have any links or information into what divestitures / changes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) forced upon DL/NW and UA/CO when they merged? (Or even SW / AirTran for that matter...)

Did the European Trade Commission get involved with DL/NW or UA/CO mergers?

I am looking to get ideas on what might be mandated by the FTC as a part of the US/AA merger...

Somebody up-thread mentioned that WAS is the only area with overlap, so would be the only place where changes might be coming. I have trouble believing this, but I am not an expert in this area. (I do post on FT though, and I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. So I've got that going for me.)

sts603

Realize that. Was using buy as a substitute for Parker's five year quest to find a partner.

GadgetFreak

I missed that.

GadgetFreak

I suspect you're right about about the DoJ. But I think US is looking to expand the buttom feeding. They have cut back before and I would expect them to do so again to focus on non-competitive hubs and use the AA network to feed into that.

ckendall

DOJ and not FTC investigate airline mergers. Delta did not have to do anything, UA had to give some stuff at EWR to WN,

Delta NW http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...008/238849.htm
UA CO http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/A...10-at-974.html

AAClubGeek

As much as I dislike US, I don't think they're looking to expand the bottom feeding. AA's hard fought contracts with the pilots and FAs still pay more than US is paying and simply won't allow for profit as a bottom feeder. On top of that, there are strong indications that the pilots and FAs will get even more money in the merged airline, and that US employees would be brought up to AA pay levels rather than AA dropped to US levels. Parker may have run an airline with the worst customer service I've ever experienced, but I hope he's smart enough to realize that that model just won't work on the new airline.