Aa To Buy Ual Pacific-rumor

[coolflyingfool]

Okay - $4 Billion - that is more than the whole airline is worth according to the stock. At least make the amount believable. I bet a pilot told you that rumor.

 

[JFK777]

IF AA were to buy UA Asian system it would have to give up everything it has built up since it flew DFW-NRT starting in 1988. It would have to take all the 747-400, forget those P&W 777, they are range deficient dogs. If AA needs more 777, they can buy more Rolls powered ones from Delta. Rights to Sydney, ALK and HKG would be part of the deal.

If I were AA I would buy UA SFO hub, rights to Australia & HKG. Let them keep the NRT hub. Buy only select 747-400 & no UA 777's.

 

[AAquila]

AMR buying UAL would NEVER, EVER pass any sort of anti-trust scrutiny. The combined airline would control more than almost every other network carrier put together.

Let me see. BUSH = TEXAN
AMR = TEXAN COMPANY

BUSH CREATED ONLY 32,000 NATIONWIDE, CAN HE AFFORD TO CAN ANOTHER 80,000 ( UAL WORKERS) ?

 

[Whadayano]

If UAL were broken up then AA could buy the Pacific and SFO as an extension of their system, assuming someone would lend them some money to pay for it. But to buy anything else domestic they would probably have to leave Chicago to someone else. No one is going to let one airline own the biggest O & D hub in the US as a near monoply (near only because of MDW and LUV). Under the failing carrier doctrine, which was around under the CAB and may have disappeared with it for all I know, the antitrust rules can be softened to an extent.

 

[mjk]

Just heard in DFW that AA has secured a 4 bil loan to possibly buy the Ual pacific division. that would be awsome!!!!!

[post="172465"][/post]​

I want to know who in their right mind would loan AMR $4 billion.

I got some swamp land in Arizona they might be interested in.

 

[Fly]

[fdkfdff

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

Drug taps for all!

 

[ZMAN777]

It would have to take all the 747-400, forget those P&W 777, they are range deficient dogs.

[post="172803"][/post]​

Range deficient? YGBSM! UAL used to fly EWR-HKG with them. I wouldn't call that range deficient. Perhaps you're confusing some the earliest UAL "A" models with the later longer range/bigger engined "B" models.

Cheers,
Z B)

 

[JFK777]

ZMAN,

The UA P&W 777 are "range deficient dogs". Not the 744's, the UA 744 are excellent as all 744 are. Compared to AA's Rolls powered 777, the UA 777's are underpowered. Since AA purshased its 777 fleet in 1997- 2000, it had the 3 years design advancement to build a longer range Trent powered 777 with 92,000pounds of thrust per engine. The international UA P&W 777 has 90,000 pounds per egine. On the ultra long flights that difference is significant.

When UA operated EWR-NRT they used a 747-200 not a 744 or a 777. This route is no longer operated by UA and hasn't been for quite some time since the late 1990's.

 

[JFK777]

ZMAN,

The only airline to operate nonstop EWR-HKG service is CAL with a GE 777( it still does). UA never operated from EWR to HKG, They did operate a 744 nonstop from JFK-HKG in 2001. UA did fly EWR to Tokyo with a 747-200B, as I said in my previous posting.

 

[Wild Onion]

Maybe the $4 billion is to pay for fuel :blink:

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Old-school thinking here folks. Toss out your old ideas about airline 'mergers'.

AA could simply wait and pick up the pieces. As would others.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The US has open skies with Australia and New Zealand. There is no need to buy anything to serve the S. Pacific.

 

[Fly]

The truth is that, with a few exceptions, any airline can fly anywhere they want to fly. This explains why United's creditors aren't too eager to slice it up.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Another factor to consider is how many employees UA has in each of the "potentially acquired cities". You'll remember that AA refused to believe service to TLV (Tel Aviv) partly because of the large number of employees TW had there. DL had the same problem when they bought PA's Atlantic assets - too many employees in some cities, including TLV. Some countries also have lifetime employment laws so if a company leaves and decide they later want to return, they have to offer to rehire their former employees and pay back wages, if I understand it correctly. Supposedly that is why DL will not return to Delhi.

You may remember that when UA announced they were leaving Santiago, Chile that over 100 employees would lose their job. That seems like an astronomical amount of employees to work 1 flight/day and may have been part of the reason UA could not make a profit there. UA's announcement that they have 800 ground employees at LHR also should raise concern. That is a heck of a lot of people for 12 widebody flights/day. Not sure what AA has in LHR.

Employee regulations may limit anyone's ability to acquire UA assets if they should become available.

Anyone with additional info on the overseas employee situation for airlines is welcome to add/correct info.