Ummm...:D

My thoughts: from an AA elite perspective it mostly sucks. For US elite perspective it mostly is good.

AA is being brought down to US level, while US is being brought up to AA level. They are meeting in the middle.

This is it, in a nutshell. The major issue is that pmAA was unsustainable and found itself in bankruptcy, so things would have changed whether or not USAirways rescued them. So perhaps the comparison shouldn't be with the past but which would have happened otherwise with a bankruptcy. I definitely feel the unhappiness of many of the AA flyers who were used to better quality entrees, linens, etc. and are now getting the USAirways entrees in FC, which really aren't very good.

This is inaccurate as pmAA posted record profits in the first two quarters of this year with its original product largely intact. The problem that drove AA into bankruptcy was far more a component of its labor costs which were through the roof compared with the rest of the industry which had already taken their trip(s) through bankruptcy nearly a decade earlier.

Let's not forget US has also historically tried to 'rescue' UA and then later on DL with no success and those two airlines were able to manage on their own.

I'm of the opinion that this merger should have been handled more like what was done with major European mergers and kept both brands operating separately with their original products under a single parent company.

I disagree. AA had unsustainable labor costs compared to Delta, United, and especially, very low wage US Airways, and filed a Ch 11 petition almost entirely for one reason: so management could force its pilots and FAs to accept the new reality, which was that "restore and more" would not happen.

AA also found itself underperforming in revenue in 2010 and 2011 compared to its historical revenue premiums. Thanks in large part to Jeff Smisek's lunacy in declaring war on elites and the March 3, 2012, "let's adopt Shares rather than UA's systems" operational meltdown, AA overtook UA in yield and unit revenue in 2012, right after AA filed its Ch 11 petition in November, 2011.

Claims that AA's higher service standards were unsustainable and contributed to its bankruptcy are absolute nonsense and reflect a complete lack of understanding of the facts surrounding AA's financial performance in the past few years.

Not only did AA's yield and unit revenues outperform UA in 2012, but in 2013, standalone AA (not counting US Airways) earned almost as much profit as much-larger UA (excluding special items in all comparisons). Not surprisingly, AA's 2013 profits were much larger than US Airways profits in 2013.

Nobody knows whether standalone AA would have cut its service standards absent the merger with the "ugly girl" - the airline that served meals only on flights in excess of 3.5 hours. Nobody knows.

What we do know is that Parker and Co felt it was more important to save a few million dollars by cutting AA's meal standards to the post-September 1 crap than simply moving US to AA's existing standards. That much we know, since that's what actually happened.

Even with AA's "unsustainable" overly-generous meals, the combined AA+US earned $1.9 billion in the first half of 2014. UA, on the other hand, reported first half profits of $430 million.

AA frequent flyers have endured a persistent, nonstop and repeated drumbeat of "Parker won't make the mistakes Smisek did and learned his lessons from his own mistakes from 2005-09" (as he brought US Airways down toward the America West service levels) and now we see that's not actually true. Parker and Co have already backtracked on some of the ridiculous September 1 changes. Not all of them and not sufficiently, IMO, but some of them. Lots of people here and elsewhere ridiculed Parker and Hector Adler for the changes and in part, the critics' views were vindicated when Parker and Co reversed course, restoring some of the cuts on the AA side.

US "rescued" AA? Nonsense.

Parker convinced the creditors to give him control of a more-efficient, higher-yielding AA. He did a masterful job, convincing employees that he was the key to their long-term success. Rescued? Uhh, Nope.

I flew F and Y and Y+ on AA pre-9/1.

I was not terribly impressed. Sure, there was one segment where I got a meal I wouldn't have had on US, but it's not like there was a Michelin-star chef up in the galley; it was pretty standard bland reheated airline food.

MCE didn't impress me much either, and thanks to spending almost (but not quite, since then they'd have had to let us get off the plane) 3 hours sitting on the tarmac in an MCE seat, I had plenty of time to get to know what it felt like.

And that's without getting into the rude and downright useless AA staff I encountered both at hubs and at my destinations; one bad agent is one bad agent, but consistently bad agents at multiple locations are a worrying pattern.

All of which leaves me, like others, wondering just what it was that made AA so "premium" in the eyes of people here. It was an airline. It didn't strike me as really all that different from the other US legacy carriers, and I have experience flying (both Y and F) on all of 'em in order to compare.

I see very little value in asking what could have been. Simple fact Parker outwitted AA management and won the upper hand. If you don't like his changes there is DL and UA. If the FF market rejects what he does, not FTs, he won't be CEO over the long run.

It is what it is, not what we'd want it to be. There will be bumps and oscillations as the merger progresses, and perhaps if we provide kudos and complaints in sufficient quantity and volume some "race for the bottom" strategies will be reconsidered, as the food has been.

The new AAdvantage FFP will have some surprises; some will approve, others will vociferously not. Status is likely to come with a price as well.

I've been through so many airlines no longer with us, including EAL, WAL, MX, PAA, TWA et al, as well as mergers and changes, I'm going to accept there are things I have no control over, learn what I do have control of and exercise control / rights where they are. Or as Reinhold Niebur said,

I guess that leaves Doug Parker out of my circle of influence. ;)

And if we collaborate, Pre-Merger AA and US members, we'll get it figured out and find the sweet spots. That's what FT has been about and what it'll continue being, if we don't take out our frustrations on the nearest and most available - each other.

Experts would tell you to make a merger quickly. Otherwise clients are left wondering and employees take their eyes off the job and jockey for positions. At the same time Jeff at United assumed everything Continental did was better than United and it was a total Cluster.

My concern is that Doug ran a low cost carrier. Meanwhile the industry is changing away from real loyality programs towards credit card programs built around a FF program. Will Doug not only follow the lead but take the it to the next step? Or will he have the courage to buck the trend and realize that the cost of customer acquisition is real. Take care of those who go to any extent to fly your airline and you'll do better than an extra $50 from Ma And Pa Kettle once a year.

While I agree with MOST everything stated above, the last paragraph begins to approach one of 2 realities: US Airline consolidation has created 4 mega carriers, where the focus is on profits, shareholder value over customer service.
Even WN has gone down this road; Gary Kelly has not been shy about their minimum 15% margin - even if it means alienating FAs, who have been without a contract for more than 14 months, undercutting their once industry leading customer service - now worst on-time performance for all of 2014, horrendous baggage handling stats. Not to mention giving up their low fare leader status.

The other requires most of us to look in the mirror.
1. Most American consumers, employers are willing to endure increasing levels of pain and suffering to get a good deal. Airlines know us better than we are willing to admit, simply giving us what we ask for.
2. It is interesting to note how many were complaining this/last year about the lack of upgrades due to the increasing number of elites are now complaining about the anticipated move to revenue-based qualification, which will thin out the herd, make upgrades more accessible to those paying the freight. Many of those who gamed the system with cheap mileage runs, elite qualifying bonuses to achieve status are making the most noise, will soon be weeded out.

Yes - he did run a LCC but he also worked at AA early in his career. I am hoping that how he ran US was playing the cards he had (which, given the cards, he did reasonably well). And I am also hoping that he knows that he has a different hand now and is savvy enough to play them accordingly.

I've been CEO of two companies (one public and one private) over the last 19 years and I can definitely say that more of how I ran each company (particularly early on) was driven by what they were rather some notion of what I thought the company should be. As time went on, and I had the chance to change the company, I was able to move the company to what I thought it should be but, in many ways, how one runs a company is dictated by what it is.

Honestly, the few changes i've seen (ie miles and upgrades on US, now more club access) other then the meal situation has been positive so far. But we have a LONG way to go yet in this merger. Some time yet before we will have the full picture.

And, i haven't found US that bad at all on short hauls out of DCA etc. Actually get me there more on time then AA tends to and so far nothing but positive crew and agent interactions.

I think you have articulated this so well and what I have been saying, its no longer about your customer, its about profits and shareholder value. We as Americans seem to have accepted this proposition, look at the number of companies booming but low on service. Also, corporations are jumping on the cheap, cheap train. I had to put together a travel budget for myself and one other consultant spending two weeks in Europe in February, You would have thought we were two backpackers by the pressure I was getting to bring the cost down-despite a very healthy profit margin on the engagements.

United is a perfect example of this not happening. Smisek should have been tossed to the curb years ago.

US: offers round trip awards with stopover that allow for RTW routing (North America-SE Asia-Europe-North America).

AA: killed the OW Explorer award, no way to do awards with stopovers now, has completely ridiculous routing rules like "published fare must exist" and "cannot transit LIM to get to SCL from MIA without second award".

Advantage: US ;)

You describe one of the sweet spots JDiver might have been describing.

I'll point out it was under Parker in April 2014 that AAdvantage killed the OW Explorer award, not pre-merger AA.