Indelaware

I know that there are those who love nonstop and disdain connections. I am not one of them. I'd always choose a connection over a nonstop. Just yesterday, I was able to book PHX-DEN-SAN. Sure, long to the destination, but more miles, more segments, another airport to visit, and most happily more time in the sky. Call me crazy if you like.

A larger portion of US domestic trafffic involves pax who connect. If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HKG?

"Criminal" really? Unfortunate, sure; short sighted, sure; but criminal? Oh, also, *A lost a great deal of service to, and within, the UK when LH sold BD to BA. Should we also call this "criminal"?

A great deal of mergers, including within the airline industry, happen despite one party having no interest. I would much rather have AA acquire B6 than to have Parker involved with yet another airline.

eponymous_coward

What was going on 20-25 years ago might as well be in the Triassic as far as the industry is concerned these days. By all rights, then AA should still have hubs in STL and SJC, and UA should still have a hub in MIA and should still fly JFK-NRT/LHR, if that's the sort of historical standard we're using.

My point is DL has been much more aggressive than AA at trying to have a complete route map. If the Chapter 11 proceedings and mergers aren't the antidote to that, what is?

Certainly I don't expect them to fly routes just to fly them, though. But a US/AA merger would hopefully give the combined entity more oomph in Europe.

Not much recognition of the ironic tension between your two paragraphs, hmm?

Over half of the US public doesn't own a passport, so being able to choose between *A or oneworld for overseas travel is irrelevant for them. But even the prototypical FT "buy cheap Y fares and mileage run to fly LH/SQ/CX F" crowd knows that B6 offers a better experience to the vast majority of the American flying public, than the legacies who shove you into cramped seats and ding you with every nuisance fee they can think of.

AA should not be in the business of spending a lot of cash to turn planes into beer cans. They already did that in other mergers.

mrclshppn

I for one remember the change in service levels from the old US to the present config, think loss of envoy lounge in PHL, decrease in benefits for status members, first airline to start charging fees for everything - or close to the first. AA has some issues with service also, but we do not need to turn these airlines into another giant airline with mediocre service. Flying just about any foreign carrier gets you better service and better metal. (with some exceptions). I am wholeheartedly against a merger of the two.

Always Flyin

I travel for work and need to get to where I need to be. Connections double the chance of a misconnect or a weather or maintenance delay. No thanks for me unless I have no other choice.

Take a look at a map. It's like flying Los Angeles to San Francisco and connecting through Chicago, which is something I would never even consider.

Indelaware

I have, perhaps you should too:

Flying MHL-HKG through the closest *A hub, TPE, increases distance by 73%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

Connecting MNL-TPE-HKG makes more sense than connecting DTW-ORD-IND or SYR-PHL-PIT which both increase distance by 77%.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dtw-ind,dtw-ord-ind
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=syr-pit,syr-phl-pit

The comparision you suggest is hardly a comparision. Flying LAX-ORD-SFO increases distance by 964%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=mnl-hkg,mnl-tpe-hkg

While I am sure that you wouldn't fly LAX-ORD-SFO, it simply isn't like flying MNL-HKG via a hub.

And before you object, my post had a typo, I said HNG rather than HKG, but the route you had suggested was MNL-HKG. But, really how many people do fly to Hienghene?

UA Fan

Darn, this is not good.

Indelaware

I don't think so either. But, perhaps you might expound a bit?

UA Fan

Here is one reason:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/credi...merges-aa.html

Also I am not comfortable with the rising fares after some of the past mergers. My parents are in PHL and I frequently fly DFW - PHL so having competition and choice on that route is important.

eponymous_coward

You'll have it soon. The Wright Amendment runs out of steam in 2014, and you can bet money WN will be flying DAL-PHL.

BoeingBoy

I think that will depend on how many passengers make a connection to a *A carrier in one of the European hubs. Without a partner in FRA, for example, would CLT-FRA still make money? Or PHL-AMS?

I've heard (urban legend?) that AA doesn't serve TLV because of some dispute based on Israel's labor laws. If true, would an AA/US carrier operating as AA still fly PHL-TLV?

Jim

travellerK

A discussion about this issue can be found here (posts 296-298):

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/relig...-meals-20.html

UA Fan

Since DAL is limited on the number of gates, I am not sure how many non-stops there will be, if any. Plus not a fan of RR 2.0

Always Flyin

What in the world are you talking about?

Since when is Taipei a Star Alliance "hub"?

What Star carrier flies MNL-TPE?

What Star carrier flies TPE-HKG?

Even ignoring all that, the issue is flying non-stop versus connecting. Everyone I work with avoids connections whenever possible for the reasons I previously listed, which you seemed to ignore.

Indelaware

TPE will be a *A hub once BR's membership is finalized. Sorry that my verb tense was missing.

BR flies MNL-TPE-HKG.

You didn't just express your disdain for connections, you over inflated the pain of a specific market -- viz. MNL-HKG -- with an over-the-top assertion that it is like LAX-ORD-SFO.

You are not alone in wishing to avoid connections, but the fact is that an exceedingly large portion of domestic air traffic connects everyday. My original claim was "If going through hubs is fine in the US why not between MNL-HKG?" You have offered nothing against this, no reason why a market outside the US should be different than a market inside the US only that you prefer point-to-point rather than travelling the hub-and-spoke system which exists in the US.

Given WN's experience at PHL, particularly with the impact on system wide performance that PHL has caused, I too would be surprised with DAL-PHL nonstop. But DAL-BNA-PHL or DAL-MDW-PHL are certainly possibilities.

Always Flyin

It is more than just verb tense missing.

BR is a niche player and TPE will not suddenly become a "hub" of any legitimate type.

That's nice, but I'll still fly non-stop on oneworld before doing a connection through TPE, even if BR finally becomes an active member of Star. You do realize that some membership applications languish for years?

It's called giving an example.

Ignoring the hypothetical future, as of right now and in the past, if I want to fly from MNL to HKG, as I did a week ago, I can fly on CX non-stop and it is 617 nm. But if I want to fly on Star, I have to connect through ICN, BKK or SIN. That's 2520, 2094, or 2660 nm. Beijing is a similar distance.

Why in the world would anyone other than a mileage runner fly three to four times further than a non-stop?

As I said earlier, with extremely few exceptions, I won't fly with any connections when a non-stop is available. I need to be where I need to be.

The discussion here in any event is alliances. Due to routings on many city pairs, one alliance is more convenient than another.

Because when I choose which carrier to fly, I look to which is the most convenient. Many people in the States choose their carrier on which is the cheapest and don't care if they have two connections en-route.

Internationally, as in the U.S., I fly non-stops whenever possible regardless of which carrier it is. When there is a choice, I'll choose the carrier I prefer most, but with the race to the bottom in the States, it doesn't seem to matter much which carrier you fly.

So I wouldn't fly BR anyway when oneworld has non-stops available.

What you don't seem to grasp is that one alliance works better for some people than others. That was the issue--just to get you back on track.