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

United CFO Rainey Implies Certain Elites were "Over Entitled".

United CFO Rainey Implies Certain Elites were "Over Entitled".

Old Jul 16, 2012, 5:22 am
  #1576  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 58,375
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
Given the disastrous results of the UA/CO takeover, I doubt that any government agency would permit another merger of two more major air carriers.

Competition is critical in public transportation. Mergers reduce competition.
Regulators rule against mergers when competition will suffer, not because the merger is not executed smoothly. With all the existing choices, the federal government would be hard pressed to deny AA the right to merge. Especially after letting the DL/NW and UA/CO mergers go through.
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 5:27 am
  #1577  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,177
Originally Posted by emcsweeney
From a merger process/planning/implementation standpoint, I completely agree. However, I also think there might be 'thousands and thousands' of disillusioned AA elites looking for greener pastures...at UA!
Parker's a smart guy - I bet he learns from the COdbaUA mess and doesn't force every aspect of US on AA
UA-NYC is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 5:44 am
  #1578  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 58,375
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
Parker's a smart guy - I bet he learns from the COdbaUA mess and doesn't force every aspect of US on AA
My guess is that is this merger happens, Parker will end up running a very successful combined airline.
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 5:49 am
  #1579  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SPI
Programs: AA Gold, UA LT Plat, Mar LTT
Posts: 18,147
Originally Posted by mmack
Do you have confirmed extension of 2013 GPUs to the end of the year ie Dec2013? Nothing i have seen has suggested this will happen.
It WON'T happen. The poster is - sadly - confusing the extension of 2011 "earned" SWUs with those earned in 2012. Not to worry that yours and mine are NOT going to be extended.

Dave
bseller is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 6:12 am
  #1580  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by halls120

Regulators rule against mergers when competition will suffer, not because the merger is not executed smoothly. With all the existing choices, the federal government would be hard pressed to deny AA the right to merge. Especially after letting the DL/NW and UA/CO mergers go through.
-
I am not clear why competition would not be impaired by allowing AA and US to merge, ignoring the UA/CO merger fiasco, John Rainey and the well organized merger of DL/NW.

If a merger were approved for AA and US, it would mean that formerly six legacy U.S. air carriers are reduced to three. That has to be a reduction in competition.

In the cited example of AT&T and T-Mobile, the Justice Department used only two companies to claim that competition would be impaired.

When you wrote "with all the existing choices" do you include non U.S. air carriers as among the choices?

Thanks
-
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 6:30 am
  #1581  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 58,375
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
I am not clear why competition would not be impaired by allowing AA and US to merge, ignoring the UA/CO merger fiasco, John Rainey and the well organized merger of DL/NW.
UA, DL, WN, AS, HA, B6, VX, F9, SY, YX, NK, and G4 will all still be around and flying. How is that not competition? And despite your longing to include the organizational aspects of the DL vs. UA merger, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
If a merger were approved for AA and US, it would mean that formerly six legacy U.S. air carriers are reduced to three. That has to be a reduction in competition.
Where does the law say that X number of legacy airlines must remain in business?

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
In the cited example of AT&T and T-Mobile, the Justice Department used only two companies to claim that competition would be impaired.
They used 2 because there weren't 12 other national providers of similar scope.

AA will be allowed to merge.
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 8:40 am
  #1582  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by halls120

UA, DL, WN, AS, HA, B6, VX, F9, SY, YX, NK, and G4 will all still be around and flying. How is that not competition? And despite your longing to include the organizational aspects of the DL vs. UA merger, that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

AA will be allowed to merge.
-
It is not my intent to beat a dead horse, however, the carriers you mentioned are not major legacy carriers like UA/CO, DL/NW. They are, for the most part, feeder type carriers or carriers that travel to limited destinations.

I continue to believe that competition will be impaired if AA and US are allowed to merge. These two carriers are world-wide carriers unlike most of the other carriers you named.

I guess the only thing to do at this point is to wait for the outcome. Thanks again for responding.
-
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 9:09 am
  #1583  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 58,375
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
It is not my intent to beat a dead horse, however, the carriers you mentioned are not major legacy carriers like UA/CO, DL/NW. They are, for the most part, feeder type carriers or carriers that travel to limited destinations.

I continue to believe that competition will be impaired if AA and US are allowed to merge. These two carriers are world-wide carriers unlike most of the other carriers you named.
So what you are saying is that to go from 4 to 3 international carriers will lessen competition, correct? Since AA and US don't have a lot of overlapping international routes, how would a merger of those two carriers eliminate competition?

Part of the reason DOJ approved the DL/NW and UA/CO mergers is because their respective route systems were complimentary. DL was strong to Europe, and NW strong to Asia. Likewise, UA was strong to Asia, and CO strong to South America and Europe.
halls120 is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 9:23 am
  #1584  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by halls120

So what you are saying is that to go from 4 to 3 international carriers will lessen competition, correct? Since AA and US don't have a lot of overlapping international routes, how would a merger of those two carriers eliminate competition?

Part of the reason DOJ approved the DL/NW and UA/CO mergers is because their respective route systems were complimentary. DL was strong to Europe, and NW strong to Asia. Likewise, UA was strong to Asia, and CO strong to South America and Europe.
-
What you wrote makes perfect sense.

For purposes of nostalgia (PanAm, TWA, Eastern, Western et al) I hope AA sticks around and doesn't disappear in a merger.

I would not like to see AA involved in a merger that includes telling passengers that there will be demotions ahead and that the management thinks the passenger will like the demotions, like what happened with UA.

After all, US could have another Rainey waiting in the ranks alleging that AA customers are over-entitled.
-
dgcpaphd is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 9:52 am
  #1585  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by DCEsquire
Government regulators *rarely* ever block deals and usually seek conditions. I don't see any reason this deal would get blocked. Conditions perhaps.
Tell that to AT&T.

Originally Posted by UA-NYC
Parker's a smart guy - I bet he learns from the COdbaUA mess and doesn't force every aspect of US on AA
And believe it or not, there are some good things US does that could be implemented successfully with AA. A330 Envoy style for starters.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 16, 2012 at 10:56 am Reason: merge
Superguy is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 10:36 am
  #1586  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,177
Originally Posted by Superguy
And believe it or not, there are some good things US does that could be implemented successfully with AA. A330 Envoy style for starters.
I'm well aware that US is making strides - observed it on a pair of flights a couple weeks ago. If not for the awful LGA-PHL flight that would start my trip, would love to try out Envoy at some point.
UA-NYC is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 11:37 am
  #1587  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sandpoint,Idaho- previously- Colorado, NYC, New England, SC
Programs: United Millionmiler 1/Star Alliance Gold, National Emerald Executive for Life, Best Western Platinum
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
Just a few months ago the feds blocked a merger between T-Mobile and AT&T giving the excuse that the merger would reduce competition.

I don't see this decision any different than if it applied to two major airlines such as AA and US.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technolo...hone-networks/

-
The US climate for many years now has been to alllow almost unfettered versions of these to proceed. A few usually mostly minor adjustments then ok given. Climate is not one to really examine what is best longterm, for good of society,business structure as relates to that.

7th generation anyone?
stephenbgarvan is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 8:43 pm
  #1588  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
I'm well aware that US is making strides - observed it on a pair of flights a couple weeks ago. If not for the awful LGA-PHL flight that would start my trip, would love to try out Envoy at some point.
Could always do EWR-PHL on UA. Or go out of CLT.
Superguy is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 8:59 pm
  #1589  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Izamal, Yucatan
Programs: Previously 5 year AS Gold 75, UA MM Lifetime Gold
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
Parker's a smart guy - I bet he learns from the COdbaUA mess and doesn't force every aspect of US on AA
Exactly my point! He's smart enough not to let the inevitable whining of the AA elites affect his prudent changes to the newly combined FF program so the new airline can remain profitable.

Originally Posted by dgcpaphd
...I continue to believe that competition will be impaired if AA and US are allowed to merge. These two carriers are world-wide carriers unlike most of the other carriers you named...
I must say I don't see your logic here. As halls120 pointed out, there are plenty of domestic choices. So what you're concerned about is the number of US carriers with international service? Possibly for mileage redemption? I think if anything, by narrowing it down to only three "global" US carriers, they might actually be forced to improve their product to compete on the same level as the foreign carriers...even though it still probably wouldn't happen,

Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 16, 2012 at 9:22 pm Reason: merge
emcsweeney is offline  
Old Jul 16, 2012, 9:46 pm
  #1590  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,825
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
Parker's a smart guy - I bet he learns from the COdbaUA mess and doesn't force every aspect of US on AA
Originally Posted by emcsweeney
Exactly my point! He's smart enough not to let the inevitable whining of the AA elites affect his prudent changes to the newly combined FF program so the new airline can remain profitable.
You mean just like Smisek is doing now, right?
LarkSFO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.