A Suggested Route For Us Airways

[Cfm56]

>>>Here's my prediction (FWIW):
1- Mesa will buy PSA and take over the regional flying for UAL and USA.
Gives the maximum flexibility to Mesa to route RJs for both airlines in the hubs
as well as frees up both other carriers to use there capital for other "things".
2- Either MDA (if it gets off the ground) of Mesa (if not) will fly the shuttle utilizing
E170's flying for USA and UAL under a re-branded name (STAR Shuttle?).
3- UAL and USA may or may not be merged, but will fly as one carrier under
the STAR umbrella.
4- USA will take over the Carribean/LA/SA flying for STAR.<<<

What a God-awful complicated mess.

No wonder SWA does well just flying 737s ....one airline, one airplane, one pilot group, one employee group, no code sharing, no whip-sawing, no infighting..... so simple.

 

[Twicebaked]

MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER MERGER...........................................THAT IS ALL YOU THINK ABOUT DELETED OR WHO EVER YOU ARE CLAIMING TO BE OR NOT TO BE....THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. GIVE IT A REST

 

[diogenes]

>>>>WN's rampers top out at $24.00/hr. at the end of their contract. As far as I know, that's now the highest paid among the majors. <<<


As I'm sure you know, WN's airplanes are constantly flowing in and out of the gates instead of banks of flights. The rampers are fairly constantly busy instead of a flurry of work and then 2 hours of sit time between "banks". The cost efficiency and productivity and use of fixed and labor assets of SWA"s operations is phenomenal and compared to anyone else is huge.

The hub and spoke has more revenue efficiencies but SWA's point to point flying allowing a constant steady flow of traffic in and out of their gates is key to their efficiencies. Plus....they don't create their own delays by trying to get 100 flights out in 25 minutes.

Hey, you just gave me an idea that would justify U agents getting paid what Wn agents make.

Let's just tell scheduling to run flights thru stations just like WN does.

I mean, we don't need to check with dave on that do we? It's just a phone call away!

 

[funguy2]

The Federal Government did not "goof" in the failed 2000-2001 merger of UAL/USAir.

Fact: The Federal Government's role in the failed merger attempt was simply to ensure that the merged entity was not engaging in anti-trust or monopolizing activities. There was such concern over the removal of compeitors in the Washington and New York areas that US Airways was suggesting that it would need to spin off its DCA assets and the Shuttle just to get anti-trust approval.

Fact: The Federal Government's role in the failed merger attempt was not to ensure a carrier doesn't fail. If the Federal Government's job was to ensure that companies do not fail, they should not have de-regulated the industry in 1978. Companies fail all the time, big and small alike (recent non-airline failures: WorldCom, KMart, Enron). In most cases, it is not in the governments best interest to "rescue" a failing company. The Emergency stabilization act after 9/11/01 was intended to stabilize the entire industry, not failing companies.

Fact: The Department of Justice never ruled on the merger. There was much speculation that the DOJ took its time reviewing the deal in order to force the deal to end. UAL simply exercized its right to not extend the merger agreement when a deal was not completed by a certain date. Thus, UAL ended the deal, not the Federal Government.

Fact: UAL offered $60/share for U Group. By the time UAL terminated the pending deal, U Group's stock was trading around $22/sh, IIRC. UAL simply no longer wanted to pay an extremely high price for the stock. Had U Group been willing to negotiate, they may have been able to seal the deal around $30/share. If I were UAL, I would not pay 3 times the going rate for the stock either. If US Airways knew what the future would bring, they would have certainly taken that deal. Unforetunately, in May 2001, they had no idea what was only a few months away.

(Interesting how quickly the Facts are forgotten).

My Opinion based on Facts and History: Since both carriers subsequently became insolvent (i.e. bankrupt) after the failed merger attempt, there is no reason for me to believe that the merged entity (had the gov't not "goofed" in 2001) would have averted bankruptcy. In fact, I would argue that the added cost (in both cash and time) of integrating the two companies would only have served to worsen the financial situation of the remaining entity. Simply put, combining two airlines is expensive and difficult. I don't believe that the merged UAL/U would be better off today than the two independent companies are currently. In fact, had one company lost the same amount that UAL and U have lost combined, I suspect the resulting cuts, restructuring, etc that would have taken place by the merged entity would have been worse that what we have now, because those staggering losses would have scared the cr+p out of any CEO/management team.

 

[Andre1980]

Well said funguy2. A merger is not the answer it would be like tying two boulders together putting them on water to see if they will float. UA still has too many problems they need to work out to get their casm to a competitive level and I don't see a merger making it any lower.