Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > US Airways | Dividend Miles (Pre-Consolidation with American Airlines)
Reload this Page >

US/AA merger- MASTER DISCUSSION THREAD/incl 'when will US leave STAR'

View Poll Results: Is an American Airlines/US Airways merger good for the traveling public?
Yes
84
28.19%
No
214
71.81%
Voters: 298. You may not vote on this poll

US/AA merger- MASTER DISCUSSION THREAD/incl 'when will US leave STAR'

    Hide Wikipost
Old Dec 8, 13, 9:45 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: aztimm
Wiki Link
Note:

There is an existing thread in the AA forum that may be useful to US and AA Flyertalkers:
US-AA Merger: Just the Facts thread

As facts become posted, that should be the place to look.

Merger discussion, speculation, and other questions can be directed here, or the similar thread in the AA forum:
MERGER: US and AA 9 Dec 2013 and implications for AA flyers (new)

AA - US Merger Agreement / Announcement / DOJ Action Discussion (consolidated, and now closed to new posts)
Print Wikipost

 
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:09 am
  #1606  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,601
Originally Posted by burlax View Post
This is patently incorrect. Granting a party's request for more time to prepare does not mean any further 'favors' during the trial. Gotta love FT legal analysts.
Correct. The judge in most cases has all the latitude in the world to grant a party more time to prepare if the nature of the request is reasonable. Granting that request is not a "favor" in any legal sense, it's done in the best interests of justice. For the most part, parties requesting more time are given it unless the request is a pure stall tactic without any legal merit. I'm not an antitrust lawyer, so I can't speak to these particular instances, but the parties' desire to get a merger done doesn't bear on the judge any more than the DOJ's desire to have more time to prepare. Neither is a favor to anyone.
PWMTrav is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:10 am
  #1607  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,127
Originally Posted by Kootur View Post
Doj continues to try and stall.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...rch-2014.html/

If find it comical that the doj thinks its ok to have a trial over 7 months out and over a year after the merger was announced. The madness should stop and let the merger happen.
Trials commonly last that long and are dragged out. Look at how long Apple vs. Samsung has gone on ...
Superguy is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:15 am
  #1608  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,127
Originally Posted by flight62 View Post
Because there is no crystal ball that proves the sky will fall for the flying public. The burden of proof falls with the DOJ. They only have what they THINK will happen. The DOJ can no more see in the future than you and I. AND, one economic downturn and guess who will probably be most vulnerable? But the DOJ should know that since they have decided they are Miss Cleo. GET IT NOW???
But we do have Dougie's own words about raising fares and fees and reducing capacity should the merger go thru. Don't need a crystal ball to predict what he already said would happen.

Let's also not forget that everything the airlines promised in other mergers about competition, being pro-consumer, etc, has proved to be lies.

But hey, feel free to continue to dispute history and facts the parties to the suit have said ...
Superguy is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:28 am
  #1609  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SFO
Posts: 3,601
Originally Posted by Superguy View Post
Trials commonly last that long and are dragged out. Look at how long Apple vs. Samsung has gone on ...
Isn't that primarily a patent suit? Different animal.
PWMTrav is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:45 am
  #1610  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: US-CP, UA, Marriott Rewards, HHonors, Avis,
Posts: 4,549
Originally Posted by perseus11 View Post
It's all up to the Judge on the 30th. IMO, if the Judge agrees with the DOJ date, it will provide a clue regarding who she will favor during the actual trial, which may cause the merger to unwind at AA's request. I'd bet she will set a middle ground date and ignore the absurdity of the DOJ's request for more time - they've already had a year to prepare!
When I worked for the PBGC, we had a fairly small team of analysts and attorneys focused on potential future litigation. The bulk of the analysts and attorneys spent their time working on cases that had already been selected for litigation. While the DOJ and the PBGC aren't the same animal, they do work closely together on various matters (along with DOL), and likely have some similar business practices. In other words, just because it's been a year since the potential merger plans were announced doesn't mean the DOJ has had a year to prepare their case. It would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to start building a full-on case the minute the merger plans were announced because if the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts had said No Way, there'd have been no reason for the DOJ to even go to court. So I don't see anything wrong with them requesting time to get their side of the litigation in order, because it means they didn't waste a bunch of my money preparing for a case that might never have happened. Sure, this merger is going to court, but how many mergers never make it past the shareholders? The bankruptcy being in the mix just adds another point where the whole concept could have failed, leaving DOJ no reason to take action.

Also it's quite common in any litigation for one side to want a very rapid court date and another to want a lot of time to prepare; I wouldn't read too much into the strength or weakness of either side based solely on how soon they want to end up in court. Speaking again as a taxpayer, if the DOJ asks for a long turn-around time then they are more likely to get their ducks in a row without having to get further into my pocket to pay temporary staff and overtime; if they're given a short turn-around then it's just more expensive to those of us whose tax money pays for the DOJ. Either way, the DOJ will put their side of things together but since they're paid for by the taxpayers, they have to at least try to do it in the most cost-effective manner.
dcpatti is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 9:47 am
  #1611  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,127
Originally Posted by PWMTrav View Post
Isn't that primarily a patent suit? Different animal.
Civil litigation though. The main point was there's no such right to a speedy trial in civil matters. Suits can take years to resolve by the time the trials and subsequent appeals occur.
Superguy is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 11:03 am
  #1612  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: Marriott Silver, Morton's VIP, Awesomeness EXPLT
Posts: 15,032
Originally Posted by PHL View Post
I'm wondering if US and AA really do have a plan B to codeshare or enter into some kind of partnership if the merger doesn't happen.
I don't think they have a plan B...
stockmanjr is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 11:16 am
  #1613  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
Originally Posted by LM225 View Post
Yikes. If the news about AA fuel surcharges is true, I'm a lot less excited about my US miles becoming AA miles, and a lot more likely to burn them beforehand if the merger actually happens.
Nope. False alarm. Gotta get that scoop, even if it means making things up (like the headline to the original post).
FWAAA is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 11:53 am
  #1614  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,790
Originally Posted by PHL View Post
I'm wondering if US and AA really do have a plan B to codeshare or enter into some kind of partnership if the merger doesn't happen.
Originally Posted by stockmanjr View Post
I don't think they have a plan B...
Despite the revisionist history being spouted by AA management and its general counsel ("there is no Plan B"), the merger with US was clearly Plan B.

If the merger is blocked, then the AA creditors will have no other option than to return to Plan A, regardless of its perceived value. Or they could liquidate the company or entertain alternate Plans of Reorganization; neither of those is likely.

Part of Plan A (Horton's stand-alone plan) were planned codeshares with US on the Northeast Shuttle routes plus extensive codeshares with B6 and expansion of codeshares with AS.

As for widespread codesharing with US? Nope. The AA pilot agreement permits domestic codesharing with other airlines as long as the codeshare ASMs account for no more than 50% of the AA ASMs, or, in other words, domestic codeshares can total no more than 1/3 of the total AA+Codeshares. After accounting for the AS and B6 codeshares, AA would not be able to codeshare with US to the same extent as UA codeshares.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 1:29 pm
  #1615  
Four Seasons Contributor BadgeMarriott Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,130
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
Nope. False alarm. Gotta get that scoop, even if it means making things up (like the headline to the original post).
That's a relief. And a reminder to not get worked up about things we hear through the grapevine
LM225 is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 1:48 pm
  #1616  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM; AA 1MM
Posts: 3,339
Originally Posted by PHL View Post
I'm wondering if US and AA really do have a plan B to codeshare or enter into some kind of partnership if the merger doesn't happen.
I was wondering this same thing. Has US reached the point of no return in their decision to join OW even if the merger fails? Or are the moves posturing?
ty97 is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 2:55 pm
  #1617  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PIT
Posts: 759
Originally Posted by dcpatti View Post
........... In other words, just because it's been a year since the potential merger plans were announced doesn't mean the DOJ has had a year to prepare their case. It would be a waste of taxpayer money for them to start building a full-on case the minute the merger plans were announced because if the shareholders or the bankruptcy courts had said No Way, there'd have been no reason for the DOJ to even go to court. So I don't see anything wrong with them requesting time to get their side of the litigation in order, because it means they didn't waste a bunch of my money preparing for a case that might never have happened..................
Regardless, I would assume that if the DOJ case is viewed by say top anti-trust lawyers (both Govt and non-Govt) as weak, they could be accused of wasting tax payer $ by pushing for a later trial date and resolution. I have worked with government officials as part of contracts for many years and the single theme they all have is "don't get accused of spending $ on inappropriate tasks".
perseus11 is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 3:15 pm
  #1618  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,127
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
Despite the revisionist history being spouted by AA management and its general counsel ("there is no Plan B"), the merger with US was clearly Plan B.
Technically, the lawyers are right - there is no Plan B - at least as it's usually thought of. Plan A was the original standalone plan, with B being the merger. Plan C would be something other than Plans A or B. If they go back to the original plan, it's not Plan B, it's Plan A. If they end up doing something else, then it would be going to Plan C.

So for all intents and purposes, they are absolutely correct when they said there was no Plan B.

Is your head ready to explode yet?
Superguy is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 3:51 pm
  #1619  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: US-CP, UA, Marriott Rewards, HHonors, Avis,
Posts: 4,549
Originally Posted by perseus11 View Post
Regardless, I would assume that if the DOJ case is viewed by say top anti-trust lawyers (both Govt and non-Govt) as weak, they could be accused of wasting tax payer $ by pushing for a later trial date and resolution. I have worked with government officials as part of contracts for many years and the single theme they all have is "don't get accused of spending $ on inappropriate tasks".
The only thing that is guaranteed is that, no matter the outcome of the trial or the current state of the DOJ's potential evidence, someone will see it as wasteful. Start prepping in advance so that you can be ready to move quickly and you're tagged as wasteful when the bankruptcy court says No and you don't need to go to court anyway; don't prep in advance and end up hiring a ton of (super expensive) temps and you're labelled as wasteful for not getting the job done without the temps. Push for a later date so you can decrease the temp labor and you're wasteful for not getting it finished sooner.

There's no way to get prepared for something like this without giving someone a chance to call you Wasteful.
dcpatti is offline  
Old Aug 28, 13, 6:43 pm
  #1620  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LAX
Posts: 546
does this mean US is leaving *A for sure???
cubachao is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: