perseus11

Actually year round it's PHL-FRA, PHL-TLV, PHL-LHR.

BoeingBoy

My money is on any merger being a part of AA's POR, so nothing would happen before AA exits bankruptcy - the end of the year at the earliest. The longest would be if there were never a merger between AA and US - as long as US is able to last as the smallest network carrier. If AA emerged from bankruptcy as a stand-alone carrier and then offered to merge with US on AA's terms - Horton's preferred plan it seems - it would be somewhere between the two above scenarios.

Jim

Indelaware

FYI... Speculation (desire) of many of those on the AA side of FT is that AA will acquire B6 rather than do a deal with US.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/ameri...y-jetblue.html

ADSmithNRA

I only want to see this merger succeed if US stats with Star Alliance. If not due to where I have to fly on a regular basis, I will have to hold my nose and jump to UA. I fly to either SFO, MUC, FRA, ZRH and BSL on almost a weekly basis and those are all *A based carriers in those ports. One world really sucks for me. I don't ever fly to LATAM or Asia which is where One World actually doesn't totally suck.

FWAAA

The chances that a merged US-AA is in Star Alliance are extremely remote, especially since Parker has already said that AA would remain in Oneworld. AA is a big fish in OW while US is a nobody in Star.

Your destinations are Star strongholds, but if/when AA and US merge, it is very likely that the airline continues to serve many of the current European destinations flown by US from PHL and/or CLT. AA already flies MIA-SFO plus AA flies to FRA and ZRH. I assume that US flies to some/all of these European cities as well. It's likely that there would be fewer frequencies to Star hubs, but keep in mind that Oneworld member Air Berlin might help with Germany.

nicksname

I must say, I am disappointed by this move. Most of my flights are to *A destinations, so it looks like I'll have to jump ship to another *A member. Maybe I'll finally jump onto the Aegean Airlines bullet.

Indelaware

There are very few destinations which aren't served by both *A and OW. Where are you travelling? Central Africa?

Always Flyin

While technically true, the availability of non-stops between city pairs differs substantially between the groups. It really depends on where you live and where you want to go.

For example, if you want to travel from Manila to Hong Kong, oneworld is great. with multiple non-stops on Cathay. Star Alliance involves an inconvenient connection in Seoul, Singapore or Bangkok.

Adding a connection when not necessary is incredibly inconvenient to me.

nicksname

Exactly. The majority of my flying involves an area which does not have a local OW carrier and would involve lengthy connections. For example, a direct 11 hr flight would turn into a 3 hour flight plus another 13 hour flight, not even taking into account the necessary layover. And that also leaves me trying to piece together flights with connecting times which aren't ridiculous in length. Coupled with the inferiority of the hard product, I'd much rather stick with *A.

On the plus side, I guess that means more miles for me!

eponymous_coward

AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?

If the result of an AA/US merger can't at least maintain their current level of service into Europe, they shouldn't merge at all. AA needs to do more than just run a joint shuttle service with BA to LHR to be a bigger player TATL. A merger with US would presumably be part of it.

B6 has no desire to merge with AA. Nor should they want to, because it's likely that AA would dump large portions of B6's network- FLL, MCO and LGB don't really work well with the "cornerstones".

morrisunc

[QUOTE=eponymous_coward;19257245]AA is criminally underrepresented in Germany. DL has multiple non-FRA German destinations to go with FRA service from multiple hubs (something AA can't even pull off). Remind me, who's their Skyteam partner in Germany?

If the result of an AA/US merger can't at least maintain their current level of service into Europe, they shouldn't merge at all. AA needs to do more than just run a joint shuttle service with BA to LHR to be a bigger player TATL. A merger with US would presumably be part of it.



Agree with you here. I don't think forcing corporate flyers to connect through LHR is sustainable. Delta and UAL must agree - look at their non stop destinations from EWR/JFK/IAD/ATL. As someone who trecks across the ocean monthly and likes to land/shower/work - I just cant be productive if I have to land at LHR then take another flight - I would much rather have my connection US side. I will, however, occasionally connect in LHR on the return as it's nice not having to connect in PHL or IAD to RDU after a 9 hour flight.

I do fear that the RDU LHR flight will be lost in a merger. I can't see AA/BA running CLT and RDU to LHR.

oldsmoboi

While I assume there would be some elimination of routes in a US/AA merger, why is there speculation that there would be a total elimination of US routes? If PHL-FRA, CLT-FRA, PHL-CDG are money making flights, I would expect the new USAA airline to keep flying them no matter the alliance. All I care about would be keeping my hard earned status (almost entirely regional jet segments).

aztimm

There was similar chatter back when HP and US merged, that every PHX flight to the East coast would be routed through PHL or CLT and the PHX long-haul nonstops would go away.

While this has actually happened in a few cases (RDU, BDL, and YYZ come to mind), many have hung on and when I've been on the flights they've been pretty full (BOS, JFK/EWR, MCO come to mind). Some of those that went away may have been waning anyway prior to the merger.

As what happened then, if this merger happens, nothing will change overnight. They'll look at all routes for profitability. If PHL-FRA remains so, I don't think they'll eliminate that route. And maybe, just maybe, US will try out a PHX-Europe nonstop (we can dream, can't we? )

FWAAA

As you know (or perhaps you don't), DL has a much larger customer base throughout Germany as a result of its former FRA hub acquired from Pan Am.

I assume that most European destinations would remain in a combined US-AA, but to the extent that there's more than one daily flight to FRA from PHL or CLT, frequencies may be cut back to one per day.

US flies a single daily flight to LHR, the primary business destination across the Atlantic, compared to AA's 19 daily flights this summer. It ain't about dots on the map - it's about where premium fares can be sold.

I'm not speculating that there would be any "total elimination of US routes."

Let's be serious for a moment however - there's almost no O&D between CLT and Brasil. Nearly everyone on that plane to Rio is a connecting passenger. Anybody think that flight would remain at CLT? US put that flight at CLT because US doesn't have a hub any place else where there is substantial O&D to/from Brasil, like NYC or MIA or ATL or DFW. So it was either CLT or PHL.

I assume that most of the US European flights would remain, if they're making sufficient money. Whether they remain won't be up to Parker/AA; BA will have input due to the TATL immunized joint venture.

The RDU flight will continue to exist as long as the Research Triangle Park businesses (GSK and others) continue to provide subsidies/revenue guarantees to AA.

pinniped

Personally, I would love to see the B6-AA thing happen and US continue as a standalone *A airline. For me, it's not a question of which is better (Oneworld or Star)...I just know that having access to both of them is better than one. That's what I have now by actively flying US but also maintaining some miles with AA. Even with two relatively low-tier elite statuses, I usually have multiple options to most parts of the globe. (Sadly I keep running into options lately where Skyteam is the only nonstop, but being able to pick from the other two means I can usually get a decent connection.)

I also think that taking one more competitor out of the marketplace will raise fares on that many more routes. Maybe good for you guys who like to bet on airline stocks but bad for us fliers.