username

What I had heard the original internal targetted departure date from *A was November. With the DOJ thing, obviously it is delayed.

What I really wonder is that what *A requires for members to leave and how things will be handled for passengers with existing bookings. The last 2 big mergers were same-alliance. This one is going to be interesting...

AA_EXP09

Look at SMI/J-the best person ever in terms of keeping promises and telling the truth., right?
(my biggest concern right now is YQ on awards, which is why I am burning my AA mileage balance. Which your great leader said in writing he would add. )

aztimm

If memory serves me right, CO first moved from Sky Team to Star Alliance, or am I incorrect in that?
I think CO then was bigger than US is now, but I'm not certain on that.

FlyIgglesFly

Correct, CO moved from SkyTeam to *A before the merger.

BoeingBoy

Modern day union members are far too often concerned with "what's in if for me" instead of "what's best for everyone in the union". The thought of raises for all from what AA had negotiated along with getting rid of Horton was enough to make most favor the merger. On the US side, Horton wasn't as much a consideration but the raises were bigger since what Horton negotiated with most of AA's unions represented a nice raise for US workers.

I think it was FWAAA who posted that US was profitable for one reason - the lower cost of the employees - and it's true. US has the lowest cost per employee of any carrier flying mainline sized planes.

Jim

nova08

Didn't US try PHL-CPH and then cancel it. If they couldnt make it work when they were in *A I doubt we will see the merged airline try Scandinavia in the near future.

Flyer78

I guess there is a chance AY (Finnair) (or AA) starts PHL-HEL ... but that is probably the best (and likely long) shot to that region...

In the past, I think there was PHL-ARN (Stockholm) service, that compared to other options was way too pricey.

McFlyPHL

Of course, it has nothing to do with the new product taking up more physical floor space. Or "right sizing" the cabins to match demand. That couldn't possibly be it.

I do love when anecdotal observations lead to a demand for proprietary data. But, from a mathematical standpoint, think about this: There are not a huge amount of CPs, and not all of them burn (or even try to burn) the certs. TATL mileage upgrades have a sizable co-pay attached (read: additional revenue) and reduce a liability. But even then... there aren't that many people who have them in significant quantities to regularly fill the cabins with upgraders.

Instead of ranting, try reading what I said. Specifically that [/b]SOME[/b] people prefer to get meaningful sleep time. Not all. Some. Having DFW and ORD as options provide additional flexibility to get that which does not exist in the current US network.

McFlyPHL

... and that's exactly what the idea of qualifying by revenue rewards. So why is that an issue for anyone?

Again, read what I wrote. I said I'd like to see spend as more than just a disqualifier. It shouldn't make a difference to US whether I spend $15k on 50 segments and 60k miles of flying or if I'm spending it on MRs. The whole point is that you want to offer the most benefits to the customers who exhibit the behavior you want to reward. The only losers in a revenue qualifying scheme are the low-spend, high mileage fliers - those who take more out in benefits than they put in in cash.

Why the heck wouldn't the airline want to incentivize with a scheme that was 100k/120 seg/ $15k as qualifying thresholds? In that instance, there really aren't any losers.

McFlyPHL

I agree with you on this... but I think the "unlimited upgrades" marketing pitch will probably win out unless the 500 milers are providing a significant source of revenue. I've never had to buy them on AA, so can't really say what my willingness to pay for them would be. Gut feeling says I'd only request/buy the ones I really want. That would basically be the UA system, but without the ability to buy your way to the top of the list and take an upgrade out from under a higher tier.

Special Dividends is a similar program at US. I tend to prefer the scheme AA has setup vs. US, but that's largely because I don't have a lot of use for most of the things US offers, whereas AA offers miles I can bank or additional SWUs. The VIPs/SWUs are transferrable so I've used them to give to family as a perk when they visit.

FWAAA

A decade ago, AA management told the analysts during a quarterly loss conference call that its upgrade sticker revenue was north of $120 million a year. An analyst had asked Arpey whether AA would switch to any type of UDU system like the other big airlines had done, and the answer was that if AA did that, the revenue would have to be replaced somehow.

Not too long after that, AA gave the top tier (EXP) Unlimited domestic upgrades, which include Hawai'i and the Caribbean and Central America. At the same time, EXPs no longer earn any of the stickers (four 500s per 10,000 miles flown) so now EXPs have to buy them to upgrade companions.

AA hasn't said how much money the upgrades are bringing in these days, but I'd bet it's more than the $120 million that it was 10 years ago. Sure beats the TOD nonsense that might be happening at UA.

AA hasn't had any trouble filling its F cabins over the past 10 years, so giving in to UDU for all would appear to be a giveaway of whatever revenue those upgrade stickers bring in, and that could be in the $100 million to $150 million range. AA has been attracting UA 1Ks with status matches, so no shortage of F seat occupants. I don't see DP giving up that kind of revenue, especially since it could grow to perhaps $200 million or so if the US elites (non-top tier) have to begin buying them.

azepine00

the only nonsense here is suggesting TOD exist in a meaningful way - in all my flights as an elite as well as statusless family/colleagues i have not seen anything resembling TOD. TOD on UA is an urban myth.

McFlyPHL

I've been offered them on ~20% of my UA trips - while I was on the waitlist as a 1K. According to UA's social media team, that's intentional and it's a "benefit" to allow me the opportunity to buy my way to the front of the line.

dsquared37

As opposed to modern day management who consistently look out for employees, pax and the long term good of the company. Oh right, they simply look at short term profits and 'what's in if [sic] for me".

Rather myopic view you're expressing.

AZ Travels the World

As if they're mutually exclusive?