GadgetFreak

The main differences I expect are lower quality all around, a cheap veneer over the whole operation, poorer customer service, limited or no international upgrades, more difficulty upgrading in advance and the last part, just not seeing the things that indicate they care about EXPs. And I think long term they are likey to reduce non-stops from their non-fortress hubs.

nkedel

What are the alleged benefits of this one?

I can't disagree that emphatically, but I certainly don't see the benefits.

sts603

Those things make current-AA a better airline than current US. It does not make US like WN - especially given that "poorer customer service" was never part of WN. It may be a heffer hauler but their people are nice (even if poorly dressed).

P.S. US's international upgrade policy is more generous than DL and essentially on par with UA other than fewer certs going out to CPs. But in terms of the upgradability using mileage, US is no worse than UA and definitely better than DL.

FWAAA

And a somewhat unpopular viewpoint that the merger may not be the best idea in the world:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...-is-a-bad-idea

grahampros

DL/NW is actually an example i would use. DL has really made a lot of improvements in it's service and facilities post merger. With improved margins, they can afford to invest in the product and still make money. Benefiting the consumer is not always about a lower price.

GadgetFreak

Sorry, I think I was unclear. I meant that the customer service was not as good on US as on WN. I was always pleased with CS on Southwest although I haven't flown them in ages. Upgrade policy on UA isn't great on UA. But policy is only part of the story. I found as a 1K I could virtually never clear an international upgrade before the gate. That is not my experience on AA. I'm talking about with instruments or miles in both cases obviously.

travelinmanS

Reduction in service, higher prices and gutting of their FF program. Yeah, the merger has created a customer nirvana over at DL these days

eponymous_coward

DL gets ripped here on FT because, well, SkyPesos™, plus they're stingy with the longhaul upgrade instruments (they're mostly useless), and it's quite obvious they are trending towards "we value your loyal high-margin business" and away from "fly umpteen gazillion miles on cheap fares and get treated like royalty".

That being said, I'll generally take my business to an airline with nicer planes and nicer in-flight amenities (or customer service) over run-down DC-9s and a very exploitable FF scheme (I've been more than willing to fly VX and WN over the years). And I also find it hard to blame businesses for using measures like revenue and high-margin business to help determine how to hand out the goodies to loyal customers.

grahampros

All depends on what you value. Improved reliability, improved on board and ground products, expanded network, etc. And little evidence of higher prices relative to other carriers. They are still typically very price competitive. It's relatively easy to find DL fares that are the same or lower then most carriers.

grahampros

Despite the complaints, DL's profitability and load factors have only improved. They correctly figured out that the profitable folks dont actually book away because of the changes as much as they may rant on about them.

pigx5

No, this benefit started way before the merge.
1Ks lost 4 RPUs per year.

1K didn't gain any benefit but lost a lot.

MiamiAirport Formerly NY George

Exactly. The kind of heavy flyers that are not on FT value routes, times, reliability. Essentially they want to get wherever they are going as quick as possible. They don't place this uber importance on a smiling FA, or a certain type of liquor available or whether the sundaes are pre made. Yes, they have interests including the inflight experience, the IFE system, lounges, etc. but for them its more a function of get me there ASAP with as many options as possible.

FWAAA

In fact, the publicly available data show that Delta does not get any additional significant revenue per mile above AA's levels despite DL's perceived stinginess with frequent flyer benefits.

In the aggregate, DL's mainline yield last year was all of $.0005/mi higher than AA's mainline yield. In the aggregrate, that yield differential was worth just $85 million to Delta. DL's 2012 pre-tax, pre-profit-sharing profits of well over $2 billion were driven by lower costs and DL's superior regional jet revenues (where AA should begin to catch up with the expansion in 2-class large RJs).

diver858

While competition is preferred in most scenarios, the cost to launch, maintain satellites, content requires a minimum number of subscribers. Neither entity reached critical mass, sufficient revenue to cover costs, ran out of external capital, both entities were fighting a losing battle for survival.

So yes, the consumer benefited; alternative would have been BK7 for at least one of the entities, leaving consumers with a worthless receiver, lost subscription payments.

Some similarities to the airline industry, where excess inventory was sold below cost to gain/hold market share, resulting in billions in losses. Over the past few years, mergers and reduction in inventory have begun to bring supply more in line with demand, prices (and fees) are more in line with cost. So while the customer experience is a miserable one, most of us are able to travel most anywhere in the US - most parts of the world - at prices that have not kept up with inflation over the long term. Sounds like a win for the consumer to me...

dtremit

Ah, but you can book the same flights with US miles for 150k.

US and AA are, as 787fan notes, fairly generous programs for redemption. Moreover, airlines typically have not raised redemption rates significantly during mergers -- it's more common a few years out. And frankly, there's nothing keeping either carrier from following DL if they stay independent.