Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 6_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10B143 Safari/8536.25)

If so why didn't he run the old airline that way? This sounds a bit like " I'm sure after we're married they will be a totally different person."

The European Commission has just rejected for the second time RyanAir's proposed takeover of Aer Lingus. Hopefully they will be pro-consumer enough to also reject the US takeover of AA.

From my review of the schedules, MH doesn't fly nonstop to the US from KUL. Perhaps the 787 will change things, but for now, ultra-longhaul flights are on the wane.

As I posted before, I don't think anybody thinks that AA can sit back and rest on its current Asian presence - it must expand to the far east. But that will likely be more flights to ICN, Tokyo, mainland China, perhaps TPE and probably HKG sometime in the future. And for AA-US-Oneworld passengers headed to the very distant cities of KUL, BKK, SIN, etc, connections are in their future.

Biggest winner would clearly be the labor unions.

Biggest loser would be the passengers, particularly frequent flyers.

to the person who thought building back a hub in PIT was in the cards, you have to realize if the new merged airline needed additional capacity somewhere it has many airports to choose from that would LOVE to have a hub come back. Columbus, Memphis, Cincinnati as well as Pittsburgh. Bottom line is it's not going to happen. The cost per enplanement was too high in PIT and there are airports that have a lower cost to the airline if a new hub was ever needed. Dream on.

Because US's route structure, hubs, customer base, and revenue stream called for something different - a point that Doug Parker has clearly articulated.

I know that most of the posts on this board are against the merger, but if done right this merger can work out well for passengers and frequent flyers.

1. Prices - For the most part, this should stay flat. AA/US will still be competing against Delta and United for almost all major routes, which should keep prices in check.

2. Flight map - Regardless of the merger, AA was going to start adding routes. A merger with US should add new direct flights, and higher flight frequency (this may not last, but the early stages shouldn't see too many flight cuts). AA will probably focus on more profitable international routes and leverage the oneworld alliance to fill those planes.

3. Frequent flyer program - This gets tricky, as US Air's Dividend Miles as a stand alone ff program is subpar (IMHO) to AAdvantage. The AAdvantage program is a gold mine for AA, and the profit from the sale of AA miles to businesses is something that needs to remain after this merger. There are so many different ways to consolidate the programs that I can't even begin to speculate about the ramifications. History indicates that elites may be in for some pain when the programs are finally merged.

Are you suggesting that 3 class service out of PHX (a market that supports a grand total of ONE longhaul carrier, BA) would be a bad idea? What a shock! :eek::eek::eek:

Exactly. The yields available in PHL, PHX, and CLT just can't compare to the yields in NYC, LAX, and ORD, and AA uses it's MIA and DFW fortress hubs to dominate the travel between North and South America - also high yield. So AA has 5 high yield hubs and US has none, unless maybe you count DCA.

If anything, Doug will reduce the low yield US routes (and accompanying bottom feeding) and strengthen the high yield routes that AA has. AA has been doing very well fighting the 2 big guys for high yield passengers despite being at a competitive disadvantage because of weakness on the coasts. With the stronger combined network AA has to potential to do very well stealing a lot of high yield passengers from UA and DL, but not if they have a crap product.

It already hurts........

Doubt that will happen since the combined airline would not increase its European footprint by much. Not sure what the combined JFK/PHL-Europe situation is like at UScAAre, but JV w/ BA/IB doesn't really do the type of business in destination cities that would warrant a shedding routes. I can see a possible loss of slots at LHR, MAD, BCN and maybe CDG. That's about it.

There will be a grand total of zero slots given up. BCN, MAD and CDG are not slot constrained. Even if they were, adding US to the equation doesn't create an antitrust issue.

US operates a grand total of one daily flight to Heathrow. It will have two daily starting next month, but the second flight uses an AA/BA slot.

Euro Commission is fine to intervene with two European airlines merging. Not going to have any say so about two American airlines merging. Completely invalid comparison.

Thanks. Yeah, the DoJ, that's what I meant...

If these two documents are any indicator, this merger should easily get through the DoJ...

At the time of their merger:

DL/NW
"Delta, based in Atlanta, is the third largest airline in the United States. In 2007, it collected $19.1 billion in revenue for carrying 73 million passengers more than 126 billion miles. Delta and its domestic regional affiliates offer service to more than 300 destinations in 58 countries.

Northwest, based in Minneapolis, is the fifth largest airline in the United States. Last year, it carried approximately 53 million passengers 72 billion miles for total revenues of $12.5 billion. Northwest serves 239 destinations in 21 countries in North America, Asia and Europe."

UA/CO
"United Airlines, based in Chicago, is the third largest carrier in the United States by revenue. In 2009, it collected $16.3 billion in revenue carrying approximately 80 million passengers. United and its regional affiliates offer service to more than 230 destinations in the United States and 30 other countries throughout the world.

Continental Airlines, based in Houston, is the fourth largest carrier in the United States by revenue. In 2009, it collected $12.6 billion in revenue carrying approximately 67 million passengers. Continental and its regional affiliates offer service to 265 destinations in the United States and over 50 other countries throughout the world.

Southwest Airlines, based in Dallas, is the sixth largest carrier in the United States by revenue. In 2009, it collected $10.4 billion in revenue carrying approximately 86 million passengers. Southwest serves 69 cities in the United States."

(Southwest included because they are the company that UACO transferred 'takeoff and landing rights' aka slots to.)

"The transfer of slots and other assets at Newark to Southwest, a low cost carrier that currently has only limited service in the New York metropolitan area and no Newark service, resolves the department’s principal competition concerns and will likely significantly benefit consumers on overlap routes as well as on many other routes. "

The unions? That could be interesting, given how Parker has not been able to resolve Pilot and FA issues with the "East-West" divides in seven years, and now adding AA (and some TW) employees is going to fix it? So far, I've heard words and offers, but if it's not engraved in stone (or board endorsed contractual agreements) I am not a believer they're actually automatic winners in a US - AA reverse takeover.