PineyBob

Pardon me, but airline mergers are incredibly expensive. Who has the cash to buy pencils much less another legacy carrier?

It's not like anyone can take on more debt. Even Branson has limited financial wherewithall to aquire another airline.

US Airways needs IMO to generate profits as a stand alone airline and groom itself for either A) future expansion or B) Aquistion.

To try some far fetched convoluted deal now IMO would likely result in the demise of the aquiring carrier and US Airways.

PHL

Which is why I referred to them as the "then-management" team. But, many would actually argue - despite the two major mergers (PSA and Piedmont) - that Colodny and friends were the best management team the company has had in 15 years.

sbtinme

..... and, just exactly W H A T does US have to really sell? Any solid competitor would simply compete head to head for a few months instead of buying "assets" from US.

UAwatcher

I'd argue that Wolf & Gangwal take the cake by a mile - they repaired US' badly tarnished image, restored significant shareholder value, began a hitherto-unthinkable fleet and route network rationalization program, and wisely determined that the best course for the airline long-term is to merge with another airline, and brokered a deal with United to that effect. The Wolf & Gangwal maxim that "there is NO PLAN B for US Airways" has proven true despite multiple leadership successions.

flymeaway

If the legacies are grossly over priced AND running 80% load factors...AND still in the red...

Tell me how that adds up?

I agree that the over-capacity argument is over-played. My flights are full full full almost all the time. But flying, outside last minute walk-ups, is cheaper than ever at a time when costs are higher than ever - so I'm not sure I can buy the grossly over-priced part.

sts603

Last minute walk-ups in most markets have probably come down more than all fares on a percentage and a $$ basis as well.

NeoOfTheCRS

UA has now been in bankruptcy for 26 MONTHS. Thats over TWO YEARS and they are still asking for more time. Now, as US learned, you don't want to rush your exit, but you can't stay in Chapter 11 forever.

Their creditors have already started licking their lips over re-possessing UA assets and the judge already had to tell them to back off at least once.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big UA fan and I have 8X more miles with UA than US, but at some point, you gotta wonder, just how long can you stay in Ch 11 and not emerge.

TomBascom

You left "grossly inefficient operations" out of your math.

The LCCs turn a profit with lower average prices, lower walk-up prices and lower load factors. The difference? More efficient operations. Largely through more productive labor -- they pay more on a w4 basis but they get far better use of their people.

Demand is sky-high. The problem is not excess capacity. The problem is how these guys run the show. An airline failure will change nothing about that. Voluntary and unilateral capacity reductions are, as US has already demonstrated, suicidal.

flymeaway

I think it's easy to blame labor...but I also think it's inaccurate to paint labor as the primary cause. It's one piece of a complex puzzle. Look at CO - very efficient labor ops when compared to most others, but still currently losing money. The LCC's do have a very productive workforce and that does help their bottom line - but their operation is also more efficient and cost-effective because they're only flying one aircraft type and because they're almost exclusively domestic.

dingo

I can't find it now, but I swear I read that wages among the old airlines and LCC's are pretty much in line. But when you look at the work rules (# of people to turn a plane for example) the old stalwarts come out very much on the short end. I'd like to see an all encompassing breakdown in terms of comparisons. I obviously am one who blames labor first...unions are beyond me in this day and age with plenty of work rules at the federal level.

flymeaway

It's easy to say that when you've never been a pilot or flight attendant. In fact, I said that before I found myself flying for a living. The federal regulations governing air crew are very minimal, and we have no OSHA protection like the rest of you do. There was talk about OSHA covering us a few years back, but nothing ever happened with it so far as I can tell - and I haven't been able to find anything more about it.

Even with a strong labor contract, our schedules are still utterly ridiculous at times. Poor sleep schedules, poor meal schedules, poor nutrition, constant dehydration, hearing loss, higher than average rates of miscarraige, far higher rates of cancer, constant exposure to germs and allergens from all over the world, hopping from climate to climate, yadda yadda. It's tough to explain in a way that you'd get it without writing an epic and laying out my schedule. Our labor contracts are as much about quality of life as they are about compensation. I didn't grow up around unions, and don't like the lack of integrity and politics that are often played within them - but I can't imagine doing this job without the protection that they provide on the quality of life stuff.

dukeman

I won't argue with the sleep schedule, meal schedule, etc; however, I'd be really curious about the "far higher rates of cancer." Can you elaborate. I'd be curious as the types and causes. I'm not a doctor, but I would imagine that if there were a much higher incidence of cancer that there would be a risk to any frequent flier and that the airlines would have some sort of warning on all tickets, etc..... like on cigarettes......

Boraxo

In the short run it would be great for US employees and flyers since the alternative is liquidation.

In the long run the legacy of ineptitude and incompetency will bring them both down, so it won't really matter. Some people probably think the combined carrier would be too big to fail, but I wouldn't count on government intervention over the next four years.

Then again, WN picked up ATA in bankruptcy so you never know. But WN is a stronger company and won't have to contend with a (formerly) high paid unionized workforce or a legacy fare structure.

Of course, this is really a pipe dream as UA has not turned around its operations and doesn't have a prayer of coming up with the cash necessary to effectuate an acquisition.

TomBascom

I didn't blame labor. I said that the LCCs get more bang for the labor buck. There are a lot of ways that that can happen and they aren't all, or IMHO even mostly, "labors fault". OTOH they aren't all management's fault either.

SealBeach

And over at Northwest, they're still fixated on who's "red" (Northwest) and "green" (Republic). They probably always will be until the last ex-Republic employee retires (and maybe even until the last ex-Republic retiree dies).