Apparantely they said CP employee wasn't expecting it. They had to ask for details from reporters.

Regards,
Empress

JFK - PEK is about 7K Miles. The 777-200ER can do about 8.8K Miles. So it is possible to fly JFK - PEK depending on the routing that the airlines decides to take.

Thank you, Jakeryan1!!

DL is actually planning on using an MD-11 on the route.

leroy, here is AA's stance as of 12/7/99 on the ORD-China issue from Don Carty, CEO:

Source: AMR Corp

Thanks, Burkey!!

------------------
Cheers.

Leo.

Confusion reigns. All previous stories said that Cdn will move into the STAR Alliance and Cdn+ would be wound down into Aeroplan. This morning there is a quote in the Financial Post by an AMR spokesperson, the final paragraph in their lead story on the takeover goes: "Spokespeople for both AC and Cdn were unable to say what the future of Cdn and Oneworld will be. But Al Becker, a spokesperson for AMR, said Canadian will remain in Oneworld as long as it continues to exist".

More waiting to see...

OneWorld has only itself to blame for losing a Canadian partner. They had the opportunity to save Canadian but declined to do so...unlike Lufthansa and United's efforts a few months ago when Onex was beckoning.

Most industrialised nations have at least one partnership....

UK - BA-1 world. BD-Most likely STAR.
Australia - QF-1 world. AN-STAR.
US - AA-1 world. UA-STAR.
Japan - NH-STAR. JL-Most likely 1 world.

Looks like Canada is losing out again.

Shareholder: My guess is that CP will leave Oneworld ASAP. Oneworld doesn't seem to want CP in the first place, but took them as part of AMR. AA will get to keep their code-share and FF with CPlus, so they don't lose out either.

Before everyone here start to predict gloom and doom, raise your hand if you believe an Onex/AMR controlled Air Canada would have treat the consumers differently.

What I find somewhat interesting is the AMR/AC deal lasts for 10 years. Who's to say that AC wouldn't join Oneworld at that time, when their Star Alliance "lock-in" expires. AMR would be wise to keep on the good side of AC, there could be a bigger turkey here in the future.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Look at the way AC has treated its passengers, employees and even shareholders, with competition, and then add in their behaviour over the last few days with the apparent collapse of competition. During the snow storms, AC basically told passengers "you're on your own" while CP extended their reservation lines to 24 hours, brought in extra staff to help keep customers in the airport more informed, and generally tried to accomodate passengers. During the flight attendants "almost" labour action this past fall, AC pretty much refused to negotiate, then settled a few minutes after the strike deadline, agreeing to the FA's initial demands. They were quite happy to disrupt passengers flight plans, often at great expense, and subject the FAs to as much stress as possible, in the hopes that they would "blink" first, even though AC obviously, in the end, thought the demands were fair. Look at the way AC handled the increased fees at YYZ earlier this year, refusing to pay them, until an Ontario court ordered them to. And what Canadian airline keeps tresspassing on TSB crash investigation sites to tamper with the evidence. Finally, look at AC's behaviour during the Onex attempt. While CP was demanding, and getting, assurances that passengers, FFers and employees would be properly taken care of, AC was threatening its shareholders with being struck from the share register if they tendered their shares.

And look what's happened in just the last couple of days, since they determined they probably had a monopoly. They've increased domestic fares, tacitly admitting that they only did it because there was no competition in Canada. They dramatically cut back, almost eliminating, upgrade opportunities for mid-tier Elites (which up until about two years ago, were their top-tier elites.) And they've begun a PR campaign trying to convince everybody in Canada that it would be a bad thing for passengers to let American carriers compete with them in Canada. And I suppose they will now start talking about the "discount" airline they want, that pretty much everyone except Colinette sees as a new attempt to crush the remaining 20% of carriers in Canada.

Onex, on the other hand, has a history of "building" better companies, that seem to have fewer labour problems and more satisfied customers, without requiring a monopoly. Onex made no indication that they would make a move on the discount carriers. And while Schwartz may have done himself a disservice in the way he conducted his campaign, I think most agree that his pride in his Canada was partly responsible for his attempt on AC and CP.

AC always seems to be finding out just how much it can abuse its passengers, employees, and suppliers. Fact is, I think we'd all be better off, even if someone like Northwest Airlines got control of both AC and CP.

And if all that's not enough, go to the AC forum, and look at AC's response to complaints, especially Dorian's, regarding Arrivals Lounge access for a Super Elite in YVR. Does that really look like an airline that has any concern for its passengers?

All those good things that CP was doing to it's customers, could it be that they were #2, and struggling to survive ?

You're nuts (What kind of drug are you on) if you think an AMR controlled monopoly airline would treat you differently than what AC would do now. This is why a monopoly airline is so valuable, they can screw the consumers.

And with regards to "pissed off" CP employees, by all accounts, they are happy to join "Air Monopoly". The only pissed off people near CP are their VFF.

Let's drop this Onex<->Canada bull. It was quoted few years ago that Onex publicly said "We're an US company that happens to based in Canada", or something to that effect. As far as Onex "building" better companies, you're just reading the takeover PR way too seriously. If this was the truth, institutional AC shareholders, which are all very intelligent people, would have backed the Onex bid. Their lack of support, and their comment on how Onex planned to own Air Monopoly by just putting up < $250 million of their own money "Was just not right".

If Onex really wanted to build a better company, and be the saint that they projected themselves to be, they would have purchased CP on their own and "serve" the consumers by competing vs. AC. That didn't happen, did it ?

Uh...this is a public forum, so rude words towards fellow FTers are not permitted.

We are all a little tense now with what is happening with the airline industry in Canada. But hsi.chang, why didn't you voice your opinion to your local MP before the takeover happened?

AMR could NOT take over CP entirely. It couldn't even take over more than 25% of what it has without Ottawa's approval. CP employees just needed a guarantee of a job, just like everyone else. Trust me, the employees at AC didn't want this merger to go through either. They are just as worried about their jobs. In fact, should the two airlines merge right now, AC would face the brunt of the most layoffs because their inflight crews are more junior than CP's and thus would be laid off first. CP employees have in general a longer seniority than AC's.

Take a look at Australia's air industry. Other than Qantas, which is 25% owned by British Airways and the government stated that Qantas being the 'flag carrier' could not sell more than 25% of its shares to a foreign owned company. But yet, Ansett, being privately held 50% by News Corp and the other 50% by Air New Zealand could be 100% foreign owned.

Pity Canada couldn't look beyond its own shores for ideas.

It's too bad people are still believing that AC-instigated canard about the ONEX deal being a "wolf in sheep's clothing" ploy by AA to take more control of Cdn. ONEX partners in some cases (like with LH in SkyChefs) but pretty much lets local management run the show. What they would have done was bring some accountability to AC's senior managers, something that is very much still needed, and will now never happen as long as the single voting shareholder limit remains at 10% or even the 20% being proposed by the House committee.

As for increasing foreign ownership levels, we've seen AA may not have even been interested in putting more money into Cdn, and who else would take on its heavy debt load at this stage? I'd say increase it, but just like cabotage and some of the other "solutions" being offered to ensure there is real competition after the merger, only on a reciprocal basis.

I doubt the US government will ever lift their 25% ownership limit, because they still see airlines as strategic companies which need to be "American owned" for national security and defence reasons: if a major conflict occurs, airlines can be "drafted" to fly troops and supplies to the front. Remember WWII? The Berlin Airlift? And the US government will never permit a foreign airline to pick up and fly local boarding passengers between two US cities to compete with US carriers domestically.

Free Trade is a great concept to throw around but it often hurts on the local scene. And the airline and telecommuncations industries are still seen as special cases by even the US government. Remember how Rupert Murdoch had to become a US citizen in order to own Fox?

And this lies behind the reason Australia has raised their foreign ownership of airlines, to accommodate Murdoch [after he became a US citizen] since nobody else was waiting to buy NewsCorp's position in Ansett. [They also wanted to give up some of their position in Qantas, and floating the whole company would have been too much for the domestic stock market, so they let BA take a position.] If they hadn't adopted these changes, Murdoch would have shut the airline down and they would have had their own competition crisis. Like Canada, there are not that many multi-billionaires who have the cash to throw around on money-losing, second place airlines. [The Australian government have also adjusted their foreign ownership rules in newspapers and broadcast media to permit Murdoch's "grandfathered" status, even though he is no longer an Australian citizen.

So it wasn't totally liberalization of trade which made the Australians change their foreign ownership rules...

Otherwise, I do agree with Ken's comments.

C340: Sorry if I came across as rude, but with regards to the "drug" comment, it was held-over from a different conversation in r.t.a. It was not meant as rudeness, but a on-going "joke".

Shareholder: My point was not to critize AMR or not, but rather point out a Monopoly airline industry controlled by a single entity was bad for the consumer. I don't blame what AC will do to screw the consumer, but the rubbish that a different "master" would have prevented this from occuring. The first rule of business is to maximize shareholder value, and offering free upgrades when none is required to get the business totally violates this rule. Why be "nice" to your customers when you don't have to ? I believe both US Post and Canada Post can serve as a shinning example, with respect to their non-courier business. Ontario residents will recall prior to the government hinting at liberize liquor sales, it was very inconvenient to purchase booze. Now LCBO are open late, and even offers Air Miles. Similiarly, Bell Canada, Ontario Hydro, Consumer Gas, etc.

C340: Everyone should take note that the "takeover" is not complete, but either AC completes the takeover or not, the Canadian consumers are screwed. The focus here should be how to provide competition to AC, with or without CP. Everyone is talking about Australia and how Virgin is going in there, perhaps someone can give us a detailed lesson on this issue. Complaining to your respective CPlus/AeroPlan VFF call centers is rediculus, why would they listen to you when you won't have a choice soon ? What are you going to do, take the bus between Edmonton and Halifax for a business meeting ?

The travelling and tax paying public should also have a say in things. Leaving it to the hands of an equally useless government (I didn't vote in the last election) is no better than doing nothing about it.

What about the competition bureau? Don't they have a say?