FCYTravis

Yes, but the scope Parker has offered is still a significant loss from current AA... it's basically current US scope, which allows tons of 76-seat Republic jets.

The scope AA management wants is horrifyingly bad and would set a very bad precedent for the industry, in terms of allowing outsourced flying. It's almost as if AA managers want to outsource the entire airline, and just run a ticketing and frequent-flyer miles business.

Biggie Fries

Not to disagree with your main point -- that there's a lot not to like about the proposed merger -- but if you are talking here about the E170s (and maybe E175s), I would say that they are one of the better aspects of being a current US FT. The planes themselves are comfortable, even in Y, where the first row can be very spacious. I think that they "feel good" in the air (as in, sort of fun looping back and forth over NJ while landing at PHL). The recent addition of an F cabin has resulted in a lot more upgrade space, the recline is the glory of the fleet (Envoy Suites excepted), and almost every comment on this board compares the Republic FAs favorably to main line US FAs, with the new F seeming to have lifted their pride and professionalism even further.

Now, back to the nightmare which is the merger ....

Superguy

Let's not forget UA keeping IAD and EWR, plus CLE and and ORD in that mix as well. That's 4 hubs in roughly the same distance as DFW and PHX.

Superguy

Could be like CO moving to *A for awhile and then eventually tying up. I don't see that happening though without some serious merger potential happening down the road though.

They called CO entering the alliance and following codeshares with UA a virtual merger that offered most of the benefits of the a merger without a lot of the hassle. From that point, it made sense that CO and UA seal the deal with a formalized merger.

One could argue that the execution was off a lot though.

BearX220

It's the main reason I hardly ever fly AA. I need to go to New England quite a bit (BTV, MHT, PWM) and that whole region doesn't exist to AA.

But the bigger Embraers are light years ahead of CRJs or Qs. They're quite nice actually.

BoeingBoy

It's not much different than current AA scope - 10 or so more large RJ's (which don't necessarily have to be the E-jets). It does allow up to 88 seats, which is more than current scope but that just allows bigger versions of planes that current scope allows and is still well below the 100 seat line.

It is quite a bit better than what AA wants. One of AA's many problems was how long it took to get over the 50-seat RJ limit, and even when they were able to the limit was still 70 seats and only 70-some total.

The code sharing provisions is probably the biggest scope difference as well as another area where Parker promised AA unions better than he's offered US unions.

Jim

buckeyefanflyer

AA has JFK and had a good operation at LGA. Also had the RDU hub for north-south traffic but closed it. So this would be considered Mid-Atlantic operations.

dcAA

It's too early for me to view CLE as "kept."

flight62

Not that anyone here cares, but on a Facebook flight attendant AA/US group page, there are 10,400 flight attendants from both airlines standing together in support of a merger.

paytonc

Nope -- me, too!

I have a stash of miles with BMI that could become BA Avios in July. Avios are great value for short-hop (<650 mile) flights that don't include YQ... and US's many high-yield (i.e., bloody expensive) ex-DCA non-stops fit the bill.

mreed911

10,400 FA's or 10,400 people liking the pages, who may or may not be flight attendants for either airline?

Last I checked, Facebook doesn't verify employment. I could go there today and magically be a flight attendant for any airline.

skylady

10,347 members in the group. The admins are FAs, and are verifying employees. It is a very positive page.

ArizonaRoadWarrior

If the merger between AA and US is completed, it is very likely (99.9% in my opinion) that the "merged" airline will stay in Oneworld. I like the airlines (OZ, SQ, LH, etc.) in the Star Alliance. Cathay Pacific is the only airline that I like in Oneworld. My question is it worth the 'hit' to exchange US miles to another Star Alliance airline? I have over 2MM+ miles and my family members have over 1MM+ miles per member. Or should I just eat my lima beans by flying the airlines in Oneworld?

jfinsocal

The plan offered by US mgmt to the AA unions doesn't address fundamental issues of higher labor costs. Seems like empire building to me by Parker et al.

Similarly, the AA BK plan doesn't make sense - the AA employess are already on the old and bitter side of the equation and cutting pay/pensions would make this worse; service quality would suffer and flyers would stay away. This approach would almost surely be the most consumer friendly however.

Best solution would appear to be the Pan Am route - sell off valuable routes, gates and let the AA brand die. OW might be toast and this would be bad for consumers but their situation has deteriorated to the point where it probably isn't savlageable. Maybe they can prove me wrong.

dcAA

I don't think the situation at AA is a bleak as you make it out to be. While the employees may be unhappy with management, from a customer's perspective, I haven't noticed AA being significantly worse (or better) than the other two airlines I fly a lot, US and WN.

I do agree that the Pan Am route makes more sense than a US merger with DP's current contract offer to AA's unions.


Oneworld won't be toast. There are enough non-aligned airlines (WN/AS/B6) as well as the odd-man out of the *A ATI, US, that could be wooed to oneworld. While none of the above, save jetblue, have shown significant interest in joining oneworld, a oneworld facing the prospect of no major U.S. partner will probably be making an offer that can't be refused.