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

Statement from United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby (on potential AA merger)

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Statement from United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby (on potential AA merger)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Today | 5:16 am
  #1  
Original Poster
Moderator: United Airlines
2M
Community Builder
Active Streak: 30 Days
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA LT Plat 2MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 72,957
Statement from United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby (on potential AA merger)

Statement from United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby
Photos(1)

CHICAGO, April 27, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Over the last two weeks, there's been a lot of commentary about a potential merger between United Airlines and American Airlines. And to be direct, here's what happened: I approached American about exploring a combination because I thought we could do something incredible for customers together. I always knew that the only way any merger could be successful (and approved) is if it was great for customers and with a willing partner that shared my big, bold vision. I was confident that this combination, which would have been about adding and not subtracting, creating a truly great airline that customers love, could get regulatory approval. I was hoping to pitch that story to American, but they declined to engage and instead responded by publicly closing the door. And without a willing partner, something this big simply can't get done.

In the past, airline mergers usually have been about two struggling airlines coming together to cut costs, flights and headcount. My aspirations could not be more different. The bold idea I wanted to pursue was about growth that would usher in a brand new era of leadership by U.S. aviation. After all, flight was born here and the storied names of the past, including both United and American, set the standards that the rest of the world aspired to. By combining our airlines and using that scale to revolutionize our customers' experience, we'd create a new, thriving U.S. airline that would be the very best in the world for customers – full stop.

While American's public comments make it clear that a merger like this is off the table for the foreseeable future, I do think it's worth taking the time to describe in some more detail what this could have looked like.

To start, it's clear the strategy United has been implementing over the last several years is winning: building a brand loyal airline by de-commoditizing travel, investing in the customer experience and creating value for every customer no matter where they are sitting.

In the simplest terms, combining United and American could: 1) scale and grow that winning, customer-focused approach, 2) unlock incredible, new opportunities for both airlines' customers, employees and the communities we serve and 3) create a great, new U.S. airline with the scale to compete and lead around the globe.

Here are some of the benefits the combination could produce:
Fly an airline that customers love to even more places: United is already changing what it means to be an airline by having the best service, technology, reliability, and products – for every customer – so that flying on United feels better than other airlines. And, we have big plans to do even more. Bringing those benefits to even more people gives customers of both airlines more choice and more value, including best-in-class products, technology and experiences as well as a more valuable loyalty and rewards program that offers more opportunities to earn and use miles. The combined airline would have been about growth – especially internationally and with expanded service to smaller communities – both of which are mathematically enabled by having a larger network.

Create even more value: Price and affordability are important, but unless you think air travel is just a commodity, 'value' matters too. The truth is that in 2025 ticket prices were 29% cheaper than they were pre-pandemic (adjusted for inflation). And in that time, United has focused on providing ever more value to customers by investing in our product: newer, more modern aircraft with bigger bins, screens in every seat, Bluetooth connectivity, free Starlink Wi-Fi and an award-winning mobile app, just to name a few things. A merger of United and American (and the growth that would have come with it) would have dramatically increased the total number of economy seats in the marketplace, offering cost-conscious customers more affordable ways to fly to more places and greater choices across all price points, while still delivering industry-best value to all customers. We wouldn't propose a combination that would cause prices to rise for customers.

Create a truly globally competitive airline – based in the U.S.: Today, there's a big trade deficit with foreign flagged airlines – they fly about 65% of the long haul seats into our country even though only 40% of the customers are foreign citizens – and the combined scale of United and American would be a better way to compete with foreign carriers. A larger US global airline would deliver U.S. jobs and economic opportunities. This U.S. airline would set the standard for the next century just like U.S. airlines used to in the first century of passenger flight. And this would be a great U.S. airline that is the best, whether you're a customer from Chicago, Des Moines or Dubai.

Boost the U.S. economy, create millions of jobs and revitalize and strengthen the U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry: America is stronger when U.S. carriers flow more of the dollars of U.S. consumers to communities, employees and manufacturing right here at home. A combined company would have created tens of thousands of new high paying, unionized jobs with great benefits which would have led to even more career growth opportunities for the 250,000 employees already at United and American. Plus, the combined airline's need for new aircraft would have supported American manufacturing and domestic supply chains and driven even more job creation. And by flying more seats to more places in the U.S., this merger would boost local tourism and business travel, generating billions of dollars in U.S. economic activity and even more jobs.

I recognized from the beginning that a merger this big in our industry would attract a lot of skepticism in the media, including from some government officials. Since previous mergers have been about saving struggling airlines, previous legal and regulatory reviews have always focused on subtraction and what's being lost. But, a different kind of merger proposal – one that's focused on growth, customer investments and global competitiveness – would have been a different proposition altogether. And, while divestitures in certain domestic markets obviously would have been required, I believe regulators would have approved such a deal because they would have recognized the benefits to customers, our shared employees and communities from coast-to-coast and around the world.

While our pursuit of talks with American have ended, our mission to build the greatest airline in the history of aviation at United is well underway. We have a winning strategy, a culture of innovation and 115,000 of the best aviation professionals in the world working together to deliver for our customers. While the airline industry has always been dynamic and unpredictable (it's one of the reasons that I love this business), United's future is brighter than it's ever been.
SPN Lifer and cfischer like this.
WineCountryUA is offline  
Old Today | 5:29 am
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
50 Countries Visited
3M
80 Nights
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS/EAP
Programs: UA 1K, AS MVP Gold, MR LTT, HH Dia, IHG Dia, Amex Plat
Posts: 37,270
wow - bold as always
cfischer is online now  
Old Today | 5:42 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
500k
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Saipan, MP 96950 USA (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands = the CNMI)
Programs: UA Silver, Hilton Silver. Life: UA .60 MM, United & Admirals Clubs (spousal), Marriott Platinum
Posts: 17,928
It is good to hear this from the perspective of CEO Scott Kirby. He makes it sound so reasonable.

Too bad AA said "No."

At least now we know this is not happening, and UA can focus on other strategies.
Infinite1K likes this.
SPN Lifer is offline  
Old Today | 5:45 am
  #4  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: DCA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, DL PM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 6,968
Kirby is delivering results (for now), but I have to wonder about the long-term viability of a CEO whose business strategy often seems to revolve around a desire for revenge against his ex (AA). At some point, the emotionalism is going to cause UA real problems.

As for competing against foreign airlines, maybe Scott should take a look at the product those airlines offer, and start doing that.
KDCAflyer is offline  
Old Today | 6:04 am
  #5  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Programs: JAL Global Club & oneworld Sapphire, ANA SFC & Star Alliance Gold
Posts: 4,535
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
He makes it sound so reasonable.
Indeed he does. But it's all a load of BS. Extreme market concentration never goes well for consumers. I find his statement incredibly insulting. How stupid does he think we are?



Unimatrix One is offline  
Old Today | 6:15 am
  #6  
10 Countries Visited
20 Countries Visited
30 Countries Visited
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: United Premier 1K 1MM; AA Plat Pro; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott Platinum; Avis President's Club
Posts: 2,610
Originally Posted by Unimatrix One
Indeed he does. But it's all a load of BS. Extreme market concentration never goes well for consumers. I find his statement incredibly insulting. How stupid does he think we are?

That's my thinking too. Also, despite this Administration's contempt for consumers (and love of big business) I still wouldn't have seen such a merger occur. Explaining the benefits to consumers of this tie-up just ain't there.
halls120 and fender5787 like this.
mh3265a is offline  
Old Today | 6:39 am
  #7  
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: IAD
Posts: 6,445
He's going to push that trade deficit aspect until he gets something.
whlinder is offline  
Old Today | 6:51 am
  #8  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
1M
50 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 71,786
Originally Posted by mh3265a
That's my thinking too. Also, despite this Administration's contempt for consumers (and love of big business) I still wouldn't have seen such a merger occur. Explaining the benefits to consumers of this tie-up just ain't there.
Kirby claims that a merger between United and American would allow this new entity to better compete with foreign carriers but he doesnt really explain why United or American cant compete with the product that those carriers currently offer. And I think we all know the answer, which is most of those foreign carriers have no competition within their own countries - and that is the secret Kirby doesnt want to discuss. He doesnt want to admit that a United and American merger would call all the shots domestically on fares flights and services, because there would be no domestic competition.
halls120 is offline  
Old Today | 6:51 am
  #9  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
20 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
25 Years on Site
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: TPA
Posts: 16,169
Originally Posted by SPN Lifer
It is good to hear this from the perspective of CEO Scott Kirby. He makes it sound so reasonable.

Too bad AA said "No."
Can't tell if sarcasm but in case not, did you really fall for all that?

Kirby wants as close to a monopoly as he is allowed to get away with so UA can jack up fares, reduce options and so he can personally get even richer. Period. (That's not necessarily a criticism, BTW. It is entirely rational human behavior given his motivators.)
Bear96 is offline  
Old Today | 6:53 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 25,562
Originally Posted by Unimatrix One
How stupid does he think we are?
Extremely. See, for example, Base Business.

Steve Jobs was famously said to have a "reality distortion field," allowing him to believe this most audacious ideas (and then to convince others of them). At times it feels like Kirby purchased it from the Jobs estate.

Originally Posted by halls120
Kirby claims that a merger between United and American would allow this new entity to better compete with foreign carriers – but he doesn’t really explain why United or American can’t compete with the product that those carriers currently offer. And I think we all know the answer, which is most of those foreign carriers have no competition within their own countries - and that is the secret Kirby doesn’t want to discuss. He doesn’t want to admit that a United and American merger would call all the shots domestically on fares flights and services, because there would be no domestic competition.
While I'm not particularly in favor of the idea of a AA+UA merger, I don't think it would create that much of a stranglehold on the US market -- you'd still have DL, AS, and WN, and you'd probably see one or two new entrants try to move in. And I don't think that the fact that most foreign airlines have little domestic competition is really a particularly big problem for the US3 -- except for China, no other country has a domestic market that even approaches the US market. SQ doesn't have a position of market leadership because it lacks competition in the domestic Singapore market.

Last edited by jsloan; Today at 6:58 am
jsloan is offline  
Old Today | 7:19 am
  #11  
10 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM, Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 5,166
I must be the stupid one because I don't understand most of what he wrote.

Fly an airline that customers love to even more places:
How many places does AA fly to that UA doesn't? Sure, there are some places in the Caribbean but how many more? Can't be many.

Create even more value:
Nothing is stopping UA from creating more value. More important, nothing is stopping their competitors from creating more value.

Create a truly globally competitive airline based in the U.S.:
Excuse me... isn't UA already the largest global airline in terms of intercontinental travel? If you aren't "truly competitve" now, how is being even bigger going to matter? Maybe the problem lies elsewhere or is this just a move to neuter Oneworld?

Boost the U.S. economy, create millions of jobs and revitalize and strengthen the U.S. aircraft manufacturing industry:
That's Boeing's job, not UA's. If they can't solve their own issues then no one else can or will.

This whole thing about expecting a merger of this size would be approved is foolish at best and perhaps worse. Does Mr. Kirby not listen to the news? President Trump publicly stated months ago that he's in favor of airlines mergers but opposed to mega-mergers. How could that not be more clear?

Lastly:
We've seen an airline like this one being proposed before. By all accounts, Aeroflot should have totally dominated global aviation. For some reason (well, many) it didn't.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Today | 7:19 am
  #12  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
1M
50 Countries Visited
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 71,786
Originally Posted by jsloan
While I'm not particularly in favor of the idea of a AA+UA merger, I don't think it would create that much of a stranglehold on the US market -- you'd still have DL, AS, and WN, and you'd probably see one or two new entrants try to move in. And I don't think that the fact that most foreign airlines have little domestic competition is really a particularly big problem for the US3 -- except for China, no other country has a domestic market that even approaches the US market. SQ doesn't have a position of market leadership because it lacks competition in the domestic Singapore market.
Once UA and AA are allowed to merge, what's the argument for stopping other mergers? DL and AS, for example? WN and the remaining budget carriers? How would new entrants fare any better than Spirit, Allegiant and JetBlue have?
moondog likes this.
halls120 is offline  
Old Today | 7:22 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 10,074
Originally Posted by jsloan
While I'm not particularly in favor of the idea of a AA+UA merger, I don't think it would create that much of a stranglehold on the US market -- you'd still have DL, AS, and WN, and you'd probably see one or two new entrants try to move in. And I don't think that the fact that most foreign airlines have little domestic competition is really a particularly big problem for the US3 -- except for China, no other country has a domestic market that even approaches the US market. SQ doesn't have a position of market leadership because it lacks competition in the domestic Singapore market.
He's not wrong that, by comparison, the U.S. airline industry is materially less concentrated than others on an objective basis (e.g., HHI as a metric), and by no means is that a recent phenomenon.

I'm not a fan of further airline mega-mergers, either, but even with wave after wave of post-deregulation airline consolidation, airfares over the long term have continuously declined in inflation-adjusted terms. Kirby admits this in his letter. To be sure, there are routinely year-over-year spikes, mostly driven by exogenous factors (war, pandemic, fuel costs, etc.) but the long term trend continues to point downward. Perhaps one final round of mergers would be "the one," but it's hard to say.
EWR764 is online now  
Old Today | 7:33 am
  #14  
10 Countries Visited
Community Builder
All eyes on you!
10 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM, Marriott LT Plat
Posts: 5,166
Originally Posted by EWR764
He's not wrong that, by comparison, the U.S. airline industry is materially less concentrated than others on an objective basis (e.g., HHI as a metric), and by no means is that a recent phenomenon.

I'm not a fan of further airline mega-mergers, either, but even with wave after wave of post-deregulation airline consolidation, airfares over the long term have continuously declined in inflation-adjusted terms. Kirby admits this in his letter. To be sure, there are routinely year-over-year spikes, mostly driven by exogenous factors (war, pandemic, fuel costs, etc.) but the long term trend continues to point downward. Perhaps one final round of mergers would be "the one," but it's hard to say.
Inflation is what's measured on prices across all kinds of goods and services. To say airfares are too low by this measure ignores the corresponding fact that there must by a whole bunch of things where the price is too high. Neither case may be true. The better measure of US airfares is to calculate airfare changes in the US domestic market vs intra-Europe and intra-Asia markets. If those have fallen even more on an inflation-adjusted basis then that whole argument goes out the window.

Last edited by JimInOhio; Today at 7:38 am
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Today | 7:41 am
  #15  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
All eyes on you!
20 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 10,074
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
Inflation is what's measured on prices across all kinds of good and services. To say airfares are too low by this measure ignores the corresponding fact that there must by a whole bunch of things where the price is too high. Neither case may be true. The better measure of US airfares is to calculate airfare changes in the US domestic market vs in intra-Europe and intra-Asia markets. If those have fallen even more on an inflation-adjusted basis then that whole argument goes out the window.
Apples/oranges. I would categorically disagree with the notion that such cross-market benchmarking (US airfares vs. EU or Asia) over the same period of time has any value whatsoever. Whether or not prices rose/fell, for instance, in Asia amidst its own series of market liberalizations 20 and 30 years after our own, or concomitant with the growth of HSR in Europe, is immaterial to the US aviation consumer.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it does not at all undermine inflation-adjusted average US airfare as the relevant benchmark if we are talking about purchasing power of the American aviation consumer.
whlinder and jsloan like this.
EWR764 is online now  


Contact Us - 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 © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.