Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > American Airlines | AAdvantage
Reload this Page >

Qatar Airways nixes plan to buy 10% stake in American Airlines

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Qatar Airways nixes plan to buy 10% stake in American Airlines

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 3, 2017, 9:15 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,956
Originally Posted by MarJon
From my recollection.... 90% Yes or 10% heard it directly from someone who was there....
Read the discussion in the thread I linked to (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...solidated.html). This --- some form of the claim that PHL-TLV was the most profitable routes in US's system --- was conventional wisdom on FlyerTalk and elsewhere, including amongst some very knowledgable posters (including, if I remember correctly, JonNYC). However, that conventional wisdom turned out to be completely wrong, as Doug Parker detailed (see, eg, post 448 in that thread and the discussion thereafter) and some of the posters with the strongest track records here (including YTravelF and JonNYC) confirmed.

The claim that AA cutting PHL-TLV was somehow tied to QR (the way this discussion resurfaced in this thread), makes no sense whatsoever. To make that claim, you need to make two completely unfounded assumptions:
  1. QR cares if AA flies PHL-TLV.
  2. QR has any ability to prevent AA from flying to TLV.
On 1, DOH and TLV are, as far as I know, completely disjoint markets. I would guess that there is absolutely no overlap; someone wanting to go to or through DOH does not have TLV as an option or alternative, and vice versa. So I don't see how QR has any economic incentive to care one way or the other about AA serving TLV. So the only reason I can see that QR would have to want AA not to serve TLV is open anti-Semitism. I have my issues with QR the airline and Qatar the country to be sure (though I don't claim to be at all knowledgable about either), but I don't see any reason to believe that the corporation would act that way.

On 2, QR has no ownership stake in AA (the topic of this thread) and no joint venture with AA. They're just an arms-length partner through oneworld, not even any longer a codeshare partner. And even if QR did buy 10% or the maximum 25% of AA, they would be legally prohibited from having any control over AA decision-making under US law.
ashill is offline  
Old Aug 3, 2017, 11:47 am
  #32  
Moderator: New York City and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Programs: AA PLT, Natl EC
Posts: 10,855
Folks, let's reign in the personal comments and focus on the Qatar Airways topic. Any discussion of the PHL-TLV route should be directed to the thread provided by ashill above:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...solidated.html

/Moderator
dstan is offline  
Old Aug 3, 2017, 5:06 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA (BOS)
Programs: AA PLT Pro 2MM, DL Gold, UA Silver, Marriott Ambassador + LT Plat, COFC Venture X, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 5,587
QR should go awAAy and stAAy awAAy...they have enough issues on the home front; besides isn't Akbar's time better spent publicly shamming suppliers in a confrontational manner?
AAerSTL is offline  
Old Aug 3, 2017, 9:35 pm
  #34  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
Originally Posted by leungy18
Profitable? Really?

American lost $20 million on that route in 2014 alone. In the summer of 2014 there was a seven-week war between the IDF and Hamas...tourism was probably hit hard.

It's hard to justify keeping a route with 8-fig losses to shareholders.
I heard the profitability thing was a load of garbage. Apparently, AA had some dispute with some employees or former employees in Israel from when they flew JFK-TLV (inherited from TWA, later cancelled for apparently the same reason). So it was cheaper and easier for AA to cancel the flight right after acquiring US instead of going through a potentially expensive legal battle in Israel.

Back to the topic of the thread... I think QR realized there was no chance of improving ties with AA and that their proposed investment only made their existing relationship worse. AA wants to keep their employees happy and all of the unions hate the ME3, so Parker's popularity among employees went up after he openly commented on their proposed investment and scaled back ties with EY and QR.
DA201 is offline  
Old Aug 3, 2017, 9:44 pm
  #35  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
Originally Posted by DA201
I heard the profitability thing was a load of garbage. Apparently, AA had some dispute with some employees or former employees in Israel from when they flew JFK-TLV (inherited from TWA, later cancelled for apparently the same reason). So it was cheaper and easier for AA to cancel the flight right after acquiring US instead of going through a potentially expensive legal battle in Israel.
Nope.
JonNYC is offline  
Old Aug 4, 2017, 10:47 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Beverly Hills
Posts: 713
Originally Posted by MarJon
One of the FA's that I spoke with
you mean one of the the loudest, unionized voices against OpenSkies?
tigerhunt2011 is offline  
Old Aug 4, 2017, 8:08 pm
  #37  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: AA (EP), Hilton (Diamond), Marriott Bonvoy (Titanium)
Posts: 8,937
Originally Posted by perseus11
I'm done, but remain very skeptical that Israel was dropped solely because PHL-TLV wasn't profitable (enough). I believe that AA (Parker) just decided that AA couldn't compete in the U.S. - Israel market (from any Hub) and ceded it to UA and DL and on a different level, ELAL.
What's the difference between "not profitable enough" and "couldn't compete"? Seems like the same thing to me.

As for QR dropping their intent to purchase a stake in AA, do we know why they wanted to do so in the first place? Given the fight between the Middle East Three and U.S. carriers, the idea that QR wanted to invest somewhere that would improve their relationship with U.S. airlines and generate return seems reasonable. There seems to be a pattern with the Middle East Three of forming partnerships by investing in other countries' airlines.

Last edited by anabolism; Aug 6, 2017 at 1:25 pm Reason: Fix typo ("IW" instead of "W").
anabolism is offline  
Old Aug 5, 2017, 10:45 pm
  #38  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by DA201
I heard the profitability thing was a load of garbage. Apparently, AA had some dispute with some employees or former employees in Israel from when they flew JFK-TLV (inherited from TWA, later cancelled for apparently the same reason). So it was cheaper and easier for AA to cancel the flight right after acquiring US instead of going through a potentially expensive legal battle in Israel.

Back to the topic of the thread... I think QR realized there was no chance of improving ties with AA and that their proposed investment only made their existing relationship worse. AA wants to keep their employees happy and all of the unions hate the ME3, so Parker's popularity among employees went up after he openly commented on their proposed investment and scaled back ties with EY and QR.
A 10% stake would've given QR a seat on the board. QR has a history of buying up little chunks of airlines here and there, and the only reason I think QR let it go this time is because of the current political situation there. QR might need more cash reserves if the diplomatic crisis escalates.

AA and QR's relationship is already pretty bad, but neither of them can afford to leave oneworld. You don't have to like someone to work with them.
leungy18 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.