OT: How do people feel about the creation of a sub-forum dealing with merger issues?
 

Posted this earlier in ORP and curious to see what y'all think:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=792697

I never said ConU should dump IAD as a hub, I just think that having 2 duplicate international hubs at EWR and IAD is operationally ineffective.

Sure IAD can maintain a token international presence to *A hubs, but I think that EWR and ORD should be the only TATL powerhouses...

I had this thought this am too, if the NW pilots balk, then Delta and UA join up. leaving this...

The UA pilots will do anything to dump their horrible mangement, and both DE and UA want a deal. The difference though is that DE/UA deal would have a strong presence everywhere in the US (west and east cost shuttles) pacific routes out of SFO, LAX and ORD, and Atlantic out of ATL and JFK and IAD. What it would lack, and would try to bulk up, is more Latin American routes.

CO and NW however, would lack any presence on the West Coast, have no East Coast shuttle, and would be trying to serve Asia from DTW, which is not a good spot to do this from for about 60% of the US, including where the bulk of the asian passangers are - the West Coast.

Could happen, but if this is plan B, and I were the NW pilots, I would think twice about scuppering a Delta deal...



A

great idea!

If DL goes after UA now, will CO necessarily go after NW?
Does NW really have that much to offer besides for crappy labor relationships?

I would much rather CO go after AS than NW in that scenario...

A couple of things...

You state CO and NW would have no East Coast shuttle. While it's not called "shuttle," CO operates a large number of flights daily to BOS and DCA/IAD.

Also, Delta Air Lines' two-letter code is DL.

That aside, I do agree with most of your other comments - as nice as DTW is, it's not a great place for an Asia hub.

It is not the same.

The DL (and to a lesser extent US) Shuttle operations at LGA/DCA/BOS are a license to print money in many ways. Plus they are incredibly flexible and accomodating for the passengers. On top of that, it is almost all O/D traffic (at least for DL) which makes it even easier for them to operate (dedicated terminal at LGA, among other things) and to do so effciently. CO's "shuttle" operation is almost an afterthought and is not operated with anything approaching the same priority nor efficiency as the DL one. Looking out 6 months where CO plans on switching the service to Q400 props, it looks less and less like a Shuttle with each passing moment.

All this talk of abadoning IAD really makes me laugh. Washington is the Nation's Capital, so are you (and others who support the downsizing of IAD) saying that a merged carrier should just cede all the hugely lucrative international routes ex-IAD to foregin carriers? There is an enormous amount of international premium traffic generated in IAD, and reducing service to a "token" amount of flights to *A hubs would be leaving quite a bit of money on the table. Most DC-originating premium passengers do not want to connect in EWR/JFK, just as most premium traffic generated overseas does not want to connect in EWR to get to IAD. The private sector in the VA suburbs now employs more people than the federal government and others in DC and generates more premium traffic. There is a very large finacial institution in town whose employees constantly travel, mostly in paid J and F. Let us also not forget the number of diplomats and others from foreign countries who travel to DC and whose companies or (corrupt) governments pay of J and F travel (there are more foreign government officials who travel in J and F than one would think).

IAD-CDG? Who needs that? IAD-PEK - total money-loser. IAD-LHR - not really much demand to LHR - BA only has three flights per day and VS only has two. Just leave one 767 a day to FRA to connect with LH and make everyone connect in EWR to go to western-European cities. :rolleyes:

Exactly. I can see some folks on this board in an imaginary merger scenario in England, with airlines with hubs in Manchester and London.... OMG ditch London, why the hell keep a hub there, we have Manchester, it's sexy!

Seriously some domestic frequencies would be changed... but I can't fathom even a minor overseas reduction of service in our nation's capitol from a combined entity. I'm sure there are many companies that would love to be able to have an overnight or 2 in IAD to do business on the way to Peking or Shanghai from European cities (not to mention the middle east). The same would hold true with EWR on the return possibly! And I doubt those folks are on V class tickets. @:-)

No way...the NRT hub is way more valuable than anything that AS could offer. What CO sorely lacks is an Asian gateway.

I have no interest in seeing CO add domestic capacity. I don't think CO has that much interest either.

You live in Denmark, I wouldn't expect you to have interest in CO adding domestic capacity.


As for CO, AS would give them a sorely-lacking west-coast presence and a SEA hub.
SEA can also easily be used for Trans-Pac flights.

On a side note: many of you pro-merger folks out there are severely underestimating the messy business of merging with an airline that has a terrible labor relationship (NW, UA, et al)

Why would anybody stop in IAD/EWR on the way from the Europe or even the Middle East to Asian cities like Shanghai and Beijing? Would you fly LAX-PVG-FRA-IAD just to show you how strange such a routing would be? :confused: DXB-PVG = 3980 miles, DXB-IAD-PVG = 14490 miles. We are not talking about Mileage Runner, we are talking about business folks that value their time over miles flown.

Believe me, if CO/UA merges, Lufthansa invests some good chunk of money in it, you will not see IAD go away as a HUB of this new CO/UA (Star Alliance member). If I had the money to play around, I would even bet on CO/UA keeping IAD as a HUB. There might be changes but it will not just be a focus city.

IAD stays, esp with all the changes they have planned.......3 new terminals possibly.......
once c/d go away with just C then a D terminal......IAD will be one of the busiest on the east

I agree. At the very least, IAD would have to remain some sort of "heavy focus city" for international flights. As it stands, UA actually is not growing international flights to the extent it could and foreign carriers are moving in to pick up the slack.

Qatar now has two flights a day to DOH that capitalize on premium traffic to the middle east and South Asia. I think EK is either moving in or is considering it (not certain about which). As previously stated, BA has three flights a day to LHR (two in low season), and VS has two flights a day in the high season (and one in the low season). UA has three per day to LHR. NH and UA each have one flight per day to NRT. UA has the much discussed PEK flight. AF has two flights to CDG (and three in the high season, I believe), while UA has one. OS has a daily VIE flight. UA has daily FCO, BRU, and ZRH flights. UA has thrice-daily service to FRA, plus one daily LH flight. UA and KL have one flight per day to AMS. KE has a flight to ICN. Aeroflot has once-weekly service to SVO. Aer Lingus has daily service to DUB; Saudi Arabian has a flight to Riyadh; South African has a flight to Johannesburg; and Iberia has a flight to MAD. Even Ethiopian has service to Addis Abbaba.

A merged CO/UA would be beyond foolish (indeed, insane) to eliminate most of the UA international destinations in favor of EWR and cede the traffic to foreign carriers, who would eagerly swoop in to fill the void.