AA's merger with TWA: any more mergers in the future?
 

(It looks like I'm still learning FlyerTalk etiquette because I resurrected an old thread which I thought was pertinent to this discussion. I will try starting a new one instead.)

Since I'm not as well-versed as some of you about TWA, I'll postulate a little here, but I'm guess the only thing they really got was a larger JFK presence, routes to the Middle East that they'll never use, and a (now greatly reduced) STL hub.

Was it worth it??? I'm thinking 'no', but would love someone to argue otherwise. As much as 9/11 affected the industry 5 months after this merger the industry was prime for some realignment and due for losses regardless.

Some have said that we inherited loyal TWA customers and some aircraft, but I think those both to be red herrings. And considering how much the airline industry should colsolidate, would AA consider any additional acquisitions... I'm thinking no.

Is there supposed to be some sort of punctuation mark bewteen "TWA" and "anymore"? Because I don't understand the question as posted.

Yep, the OP probably could have put in a colon or hyphen to make it a bit clearer, but the two best bets to figure out his intentions are to 1) post a reply asking him about the title or 2) read his post. I think he was pretty clear about asking will/should AA consider future airline mergers. And a common answer to that is that if government regulators weren't involved, that probably would be economically wise. As they are, however, the prospects/wisdom of such a decision are neutral at best.

Adam

How about:

AA's merger with TWA: Any more in the future? :)

I don't claim to be an expert on this either, but wasn't the enhanced presence at JFK worth a lot to AA? It's no longer an airline where, in order to fly to Europe, you have to think in terms of first getting to ORD or DFW. For someone in the northeastern U.S., that's a boon.

Whether an STL hub was a boon for AA or not -- and probably not, positioned between Dallas and Chicago -- I enjoy connecting there, especially as an alternative to ORD. You still get a decent selection of flights, even it's way down from its TWA heyday.

I'm thinking yes. It seems to me that they'll be forced to. I just can't see AA just sitting on the sidelines while the other legacy airlines merge and create super carriers with strong Asia and Europe networks.

I'm still of the opinion that there are only two targets that matter most to AA, and those being either NW or UA.

As a complete AA-UA merger would prove too large to pass with govt approval, there would have to be either a spinoff of United-lite or selling of market share to competitors. A UA purchase comes with massive benefits for AA.

-Increased market share in ORD, IAD, SFO, LAX, and DEN.
-Western network
-Established carrier status to SYD
-Asia network
-Increased India presence(If allowed to keep UA's routes)
-Increased European destinations.

It's an airline - so over the years I have seen American Overseas Airlines, established to compete against Pan Am and sold to Pan Am, not to mention more recently the purchase of Air California / AirCal, Reno Air and TWA... with not much to show for any of it, for the airline or flying public.

The crystal ball for discerning the future is pretty murky, like bad fog at SFO...

Yup. Wrote this before taking a well needed nap. It should read:
"AA's merger with TWA: anymore in the (relatively near) future".

Of course, I understand that forecasting decades into the future, is idiotic on anyone's part. :eek:

I just questioned the purchase of TWA when it happened. It was an airline that was doomed to disintegrate into thin air. Hindsight being 20/20, it's easy for me to say that, but the UAL/DL merger is much more sensible as both airlines are viable in their own right.

TWA was different in that it was an acquisition and not a merger. AMR bought TWA assets. It's anyone's guess what the future holds. It's impossible to know how AA would look today if AMR hadn't purchased many of the assets of TWA, though it is an interesting topic on which to speculate!

Good point. AA's last successful strategy involving an outright purchase or acquisition seems to be their Latin American route network resulting from Eastern's demise. Reno Air and TWA... not so much.

Here's another way to look at the issue. Imagine that AMR hadn't acquired those assets, but a competitor had--wiith this scenario, who would be the biggest threat to AMR today?

Uh, thanks but 1.) I did ask about the title and I also stated I didn't understand the question and 2.) I did read the post. If that had cleared it up for me I wouldn't have asked about the title.

Well, it seems the meaning was clear to everyone but me. Maybe I should take a nap. :)

I'm one of those "red herrings" that AA aquired. THerefore I think AA did great!

Weren't the LHR gates a huge asset that AA acquired?

TWA herring
 

Acquired b/c of your loyalty to TWA? If I may ask, what city are you out of, and if TWA disintegrated, who would you have flown? (All conjecture, I realize, but there are other threads that spend pages on route predictions, so...).

I am from STL. At the time I thought the merger was a very good one.

Yes, TWA was in trouble. The main reason was the deal made with Carl Ican about discounted tickets, IMHO. However, after 9/11 many things changed.

TWA had some fantastic FA's. I flew a lot with them and never met a FA that was not friendly. I am very happy some of them are being recalled.

Could TWA make it now? I do not know. But I do know there was no more dedicated employees than the ones at TWA.

Carl Ican sold off many profitable gates at LHR and others, making TWA basicly a domestic airline.

At the time, it made sense to buy TWA, so others could not get it, but after 9/11, many things changed and I think that AA would have been better not to buy them. But that is hindsight.