If anything, prices will increase in most markets after a CO/UA meger.

Only three major US carriers remaining after these mergers = less competition. Less competition + high oil prices = higher fares and poor customer service with little recourse for the passenger.

So, yes, you will be able to avoid the DEN stop on your way to SYD, but you will pay much more for the privilege and still have to fly a ratty UA 744.

I can't see why CO would want to buy UA. You would have to realign your whole route schedule, fire thousands of employees, figure out how to placate the unions, have to take on different aircraft which means problems with maintenance crews and parts, merge two different cultures, put a huge amount of orders for new planes and the list goes on and on. As far as cash flow, interest and other financial implications - UA could force CO into a cash poor position and if the economy changes, bankruptcy. Its not like two dogs NW and Delta merging - the new company will still be a dog. The merger could make CO a dog.

Better, imo, is to grow one route at a time, buy new planes when needed, and watch cash flow. You think UA, AA or the combined NW/Delta dogs can compete with CO? The haven't done too well at it singly - I can't see them doing well at it merged.

CO should buy UA for the sum of its parts - much needed widebody aircraft, lucrative routes, new hub options, a clutch of loyal customers and a small number of good employees who can be integrated into the CO culture. A merger? No thanks.

Many of the aircraft would need cabin refurbs, and there is the issue of engine commonality, but that is less pressing than overall fleet commonality.

We can take their 733s, refurb them and replace our 735s which are going off lease soon. The 757s can get refurb'd cabins and add domestic seat lift - swap out the engines and add winglets, and they can go tatl/hawaii as well. The 767s are old, old, old - but with a cabin overhaul, they are still useful, although not all of them. We desperately need all their 777s, and the 744s can add valuable lift to Asia, which we would need to fill with those routes.

Add in PS service for JFK transcons and perhaps toss those refurb'd 757s into a PS TATL fleet from JFK, and we're good to go.

Would a combined CO/UA have reason to keep a significant presence at JFK? I would think they would do all their transcon and TATL from EWR.

Why not? There is quite a bit of demand for transcons ex-JFK, and a merged CO/UA would simply cede market share to AA, DL, and others should it abandon PS at JFK. EWR probably could not sustain a PS operation, but JFK can and does. So, why make CO/UA compete with its regular mainline transcon out of EWR when it can just keep the status quo at JFK? (/armchair CEO hat off)

There is a strong premium market presence at JFK for transcons - currently, most of that market is owned by AA, but UA's PS has a good share of it as well. Delta gave it a try with their ex-Song aircraft, but it appears that experiment died with many of their transcons going to 737-800 equipment. I think leaving the PS product at JFK would be a better strategic move, in my opinion, especially if CO expands PS to TATL.

As much as it pains me to say, I'd guess one of the first things Larry & Co. would cut would be p.s. and international F. <shrug>

International F - probably; PS - maybe.

Even on ultra longhauls such as SFO-SYD? Could they do that and stay competitive against QF?

Wow, you're telling me first thing to go wouldn't be E+? Maybe there's hope!

I think E+ is a goner for sure - I'm really disappointed CO didn't snatch up the new seat-suite that Delta grabbed, but there is nothing stopping CO from designing its own version of that format. They could make the entire aircraft Y-suite, adding more legroom and personal space for customers, while fitting in more seats, which we know is something they love to do.

Then E+ becomes moot.

Yes.

Don't tell them I said so but a major failing of the UA board is in their understanding of what truly drives yields. (I'm not any better, but at least I'll acknowledge this concept exists)

The canned response to the comment of international F going away would be:

• No, corporate contracts won't stand for it.
• Full fare C/D paying customers (those who have the ability to upgrade to F) won't stand for it.
• UA will loose customers who want to buy paid F.

...and all are false.

The majority of corporate contracts care about price, network scope, and timing. There would be no mass exodus if UACO axed int'l F and remained competitive on the three criteria I mentioned.

Full fare paying C/D customers are not choosing UA for the product, they're choosing UA due to discounting, timing, and routes. While those who are attune to upgrades may consider UA above others, I'd argue a combined entiy could lure more full fare paying C customers over with stronger overall product, even if it meant the canabilization of F.

And for those poor souls who pay for F on UA...hmmmm. Let's think about this one. Like their full C/D counterparts, such individuals are not choosing UA for the product, they're choosing UA for the convenience of the flight. I seriously doubt any American airline can compete with QF, SQ, EK, CX, etc. in offering an over-the-top F cabin that flies often with empty seats. It's just too expensive.

...and if C's brought up to J, it won't matter from the customers' perspective that they did not get the upgrade!

<but what about that one person who might buy that $15,000 F ticket?!>

What about him?

Let him go to someone else and focus on capturing consistently the 2 $6,000 C/J customers with the space used for that F seat.

The $$$'s in the C/J market. An airline that offers a competitive product on this front will be in a good position and have a much larger market to tap. Let the QF's, SQ's, etc. fly around half full, over-the-top F cabins...it's not worth going after these customers, especially when it stands to jeopardize the C/J cabin.

I don't have your dedication to researching the issue but from what I can see I have yet heard of a widespread phenomenon of companies paying for international F travel. International C is reasonably common on FT if you use it as a microcosm of the general business traveller population with many poor souls who are required to fly international Y but can upgrade on their own if they have the means.

From that viewpoint it makes perfect sense to eliminate "wasted space" in terms of a relatively unimpressive F cabin and use that space to sell more C space to companies or individuals willing to foot the bill. CO has done a reasonably good job of selling BF even to individuals by pricing the product within reach. You're going to have a really hard time convincing a corporate travel department that your product is really so much better that they should spend $1,000 extra per traveller at the corporate discount rate for C travel.

While we all love to complain about how BF is lagging behind the competition, most of us with jobs will still pause and think very, very hard if the choice is between BF for $3,000 or something "better" (you may insert your favorite airline that you wish to compare) for $5,000. And really the same goes for upgrade instruments. If you know you have the possibility of travelling long-haul in Y wouldn't you save your SWU for that trip to upgrade to C vs. spending it on a C to F upgrade? Of course at the end of the year you may decide to use it on that upgrade because you have no additional travel planned but the incremental benefit of the Y to C upgrade is much more significant than going from C to F. After all how much gluttony and sloth can you really indulge in over the course of a 12-18 hour flight in F?

That point is even stronger lately, given that many carriers now offer true lie-flat in J. Once a carrier offers a lie-flat J seat, the incentive to upfare or upgrade to F greatly diminishes for the average traveler.

I agree. Once a truly flat bed comes to business class, I don't think it would be so bad to get rid of F. Especially if it means the new UA/CO would price their C class as well as CO does. Perhaps taking the new C from UA and adopting the pricing structure of CO would be a good thing IMO.