I'm not pro-merger. I just accept it as inevitable. The EU and Asian carriers are better financed, more profitable, and getting bigger by the day. The US carriers need scale to compete, and mergers are the quickest way to get there. For CO, which is plane-poor, this is especially true.

100% correct on both counts. I see AS being swallowed by AA after the CO/UA/DL/NW mergers shake out.

Yep. Many seem to forget that one of the things that UA has that CO does not is a large widebody fleet. UA has 52 772s, 30 744s and 35 763s while CO has 20 772s, 16 764s and 10 762s and the 762s are real fuel hogs. The most efficient plane for a majority of long haul international flights is the 777 and with high fuel prices, they are critically important to keep heavily traveled long haul routes profitable. CO is in a bit of a pickle with the long thin 757 Transatlantic routes, as the fuel burn per passenger is comparatively high.

That combined with the LHR and NRT slots, China and Australia route authorities and west coast hubs to support Pacific operations represent most of UA's value. The ORD hub, although flawed, has value as well.

bingo, no one is going to turn SEA into a pacific gateway, the local pop (2.5 Million) vs. 9 for SFO is just too small, and YYV is a bigger gateway and AA will want to bulk up to compete in the West and will either try to buy AS or try to get a closer link in (AS now partners with almost everyone in SkyTeam and OneWorld).

What I can't predict is what DOJ is going to do. I guess that they will see powerful foreign carrier, LCCs at 30% and allow the mergers, but I could be wrong.

[QUOTE=AADC10;9285645]Yep. Many seem to forget that one of the things that UA has that CO does not is a large widebody fleet. UA has 52 772s, 30 744s and 35 763s while CO has 20 772s, 16 764s and 10 762s and the 762s are real fuel hogs. The most efficient plane for a majority of long haul international flights is the 777 and with high fuel prices, they are critically important to keep heavily traveled long haul routes profitable. CO is in a bit of a pickle with the long thin 757 Transatlantic routes, as the fuel burn per passenger is comparatively high.
QUOTE]

Interesting re the 757 on Transatlantic routes, what is the sourse for this? I had always understood the 757 to be a very fuel efficient plane per passanger mile. That said, I have chosen not to fly CO on a number of occassions so as to avoid the time cramed in one in their Y class, no upgrade possible.

I think integration is more complex though than counting planes. Many of the 52 772s are "classic" not ERs, they are not suitable for overseas flights, and UA's 763s are very old, as are the 752s (anyone flying PS might have noticed they hid the airworthiness cirtificates out of view) Also if my memmory is right, much of the UA metal has PW engines, not the RRs that CO uses.

I would be interested if anyone knows the relative differences in economy (I have heard it is the 772 ER which is particulary economical, not the classic) but - with the exception possibily of the 772 ERs, I think that the airlines will have to be run seperately for a long while as they swap equipement, etc to try to get a mix of compatable planes.

I would expect UA/CO to drop the A320 and 319s over time, put the CO 757s back on transcons, consolidate the Europe and some Latin traffic on bigger planes, order more 787s and a few more 738/9s.

[/QUOTE]I would expect UA/CO to drop the A320 and 319s over time, put the CO 757s back on transcons, consolidate the Europe and some Latin traffic on bigger planes, order more 787s and a few more 738/9s.[/QUOTE]

From successive posts in the CO forum, hasn't there been a general consensus that CO 757s are not favored on the transcon routes due to the lack of personalized IFE in the Y cabin and the general state of disrepair of the aircraft? I'd envision a strong push by UA/CO to regain business on the USA-Europe corridor by placing aircraft with amenities that can compete with foreign carriers.

I can't speak to the fuel efficiency, but the classics still have range for almost the current European destinations (plus CAI) or the major airports in S. America (including SCL/GIG/GRU) out of NYC

CO's 752s are in very good shape, and they are being retrofit with nose-to-tail AVOD + in-seat power. I don't think that the implication that CO doesn't compete to Europe today is at all accurate. They do not offer a full lie-flat option, but that doesn't preclude them from competing on many, many routes.

Well, I know that, for example, CO beats the competition out of FCO between Delta and Alitalia. But if you consider the NYC-LON routes, there are the British and Virgin premium cabins to compete with (not to mention others). And then you also have WAS-LON.

There are more dimensions to going after for business customers than product.

Schedule and price are two that come to mind.

LON, FRA, MUC and CDG all have a carrier with real lie-flat. Any others that CO competes with? CO serves ~25 destinations in Europe. Even if there are 10 that have a non-stop with a real lie-flat there are ~15 that don't, and CO can compete just fine with those. And I think that CO competes OK with the lie-flat crowd, too.

772A's can make TATL just fine. they don't have the range that 772B(ER) do, but they are quite capable aircraft. Perfect for US-LON/PAR.

I think you can let out a breath now, I'm not challenging you. But of those 25 destinations, aren't the 10 non-stops with the real lie-flats the ones that are most heavily frequented? And yes, there's GVA that you forgot to mention.

Folks who say dump IAD and keep CLE need to lay off the Blue CO Kool-Aid :D (This is not saying that one has to go.)

Source?

CO/UA will have 8 China route authories, DL/NW 3, AA 2, and US 1. Will this create problems with approval or is it a non-issue?
UA ORD-PEK
UA ORD-PVG
UA SFO-PEK
UA SFO PVG
UA IAD-PEK
UA SFO-CAN
CO EWR-PEK
CO EWR-PVG
NW DTW-PEK
NW DTW-PVG
DL ATL-PVG
AA ORD-PVG
AA ORD-PEK
US PHL-PEK