Aa's Purchase Of Twa

[twaokc]

aafsc,
You are the one that needs to get over it. You think you know all the answers, but really do not know anything. If you have all the answers, why wasn't you in the big chair with the title of CEO instead of Carty at the time of the purchase. If you had been, maybe this deal would not have gone thru, and the Geat TRANS WORLD AIRLINES

 

[twaokc]

aafsc,
You are the one that needs to get over it. You think you know all the answers, but really do not know anything. If you have all the answers, why wasn't you in the big chair with the title of CEO instead of Carty at the time of the purchase. If you had been, maybe this deal would not have gone thru, and the Great TRANS WORLD AIRLINES would still be flying.
Why do you have such hatred for the TWA employees? Has any one of them done anything to you?

 

[aafsc]

aafsc,
You are the one that needs to get over it. You think you know all the answers, but really do not know anything. If you have all the answers, why wasn't you in the big chair with the title of CEO instead of Carty at the time of the purchase. If you had been, maybe this deal would not have gone thru, and the Great TRANS WORLD AIRLINES would still be flying.
Why do you have such hatred for the TWA employees? Has any one of them done anything to you?

[post="243551"][/post]​

First, as I said earlier I do not hate TWA people. And it is not so much as what they have done to me and other nAAtives; it is what they want to do to us. TWA WAS a great airline in the 1970s and early 1980s and was the airline of the "golden age of air travel" in terms of service. But sadly, by the mid 1980s due to very poor management, corporate raiders, hijackings, bombings,and the fact that air travel now resembles riding a greyhound bus, the airline started it's financial slide. By the end of 2000, it was a failed corporation (as stated by the bankruptcy court) with a great legacy and no real valuable strategic assets. The ex-TWA employees come on here and complain about the seniority issue and try to justify having their TWA senioirity at AA by saying all of the "assets" they brought (You would have thought AA bought NW). When I refute the value of the assets (the only valuable ones being LGA and DCA) versus the price paid, all of a sudden I am seen as hating TWA people. All I am doing is presenting my argument and backing it up with facts. The TWA people are just as free to post facts. Instead, all they do is complain about "how they were screwed". As far as me being the CEO of AA, I would have done a hell of a better job than Carty. At the end of 2000, AA was having merger talks with NW but NW management wanted a very very high premium for the stock. When I saw the first report of the AA/ TWA deal on TV, I (along with everyone else at AA) was very upset. I knew from the first second it was a very bad deal because it did virtually nothing for AA asset wise. Not to mention the fact that we were forced to defend ourselves from the TWA people regarding seniority.

 

[MCI transplant]

Not opinion, fact, based on analysis and comparison to the EAL transaction. AS for EAL, I and the other people from EAL have been over it since it died. Bob Owens is right. EAL people sacraficed all to stop the spread of the Lorenzo cancer; unlike the TWA people who gave concession after concession after concession and who were the lowest paid of the majors in order to "save" TWA in the hopes of a "transaction" where they would be rewarded for their concessions by going to top pay and stealing the seniority of the people at the acquiring airline. TWA is dead along with your TWA seniority! Get over it!

[post="243512"][/post]​

<_< What is it with you aa? I think you are bitter that a.a. didn't buy EAL, but bought TWA !!!! That must be it, isn't it???? By the way, Those gates you mentioned in STL! You know termenal "D"! You failed to mention those were TWA gates a.a. gave up! Is that TWA's fault that a.a. is inviting some other LLC in to STL by making those gates avaible to them??? "FACT"! Not even close!!!!! :down:

 

[goingboeing]

<_< What is it with you aa? I think you are bitter that a.a. didn't buy EAL, but bought TWA !!!! That must be it, isn't it???? By the way, Those gates you mentioned in STL! You know termenal "D"! You failed to mention those were TWA gates a.a. gave up! Is that TWA's fault that a.a. is inviting some other LLC in to STL by making those gates avaible to them??? "FACT"! Not even close!!!!! :down:

[post="243668"][/post]​

The gates should have been gone 4 years ago when NO ONE[including AA] should have bought TWA.Once TWA went C7 then whoever wanted the gates could have bid for them.By AA giving up the gates they are admitting that TWA was a mistake to buy.
This is not the 1st time AA has given up a big chunk of gates. [SJC-RDU-BNA]

 

[aafsc]

<_< What is it with you aa? I think you are bitter that a.a. didn't buy EAL, but bought TWA !!!! That must be it, isn't it???? By the way, Those gates you mentioned in STL! You know termenal "D"! You failed to mention those were TWA gates a.a. gave up! Is that TWA's fault that a.a. is inviting some other LLC in to STL by making those gates avaible to them??? "FACT"! Not even close!!!!! :down:

[post="243668"][/post]​

No, MCI, I along with all the other ex-EAL people at AA totally accepted the fact that we had to start all over at the bottom of the payscale and seniority list. We never expected to have origional AA people pay the price for EAL's failure by giving us our EAL seniority. If AA had bought EAL or its assets (like AA did to TWA) AA would have gotten a much better deal because EAL had MIA/SJU and Latin America, very good hubs in ATL and PHL, the northest shuttle, and numerous slots and gates in DCA, LGA, JFK, and BOS. As far as the gates in STL, you are right, they were TWA gates that AA gave up; obviously STL is not as valuable as the ex-TWA seem to think proven by the fact AA got rid of them. AA is in the process of cutting their overhead and getting rid of gates accomplishes this. In my city, they are returning gates to the airport authority. The reason I brought up the gates was because another poster mentioned that another airline could come to STL and I was pointing out the fact that they could go in right now because of all those empty gates. And I am still waiting for you to answer the question of "If there was an alternative to the AA deal for TWA then why did TWA's union leaders, who were also TWA board members, vote FOR the AA deal and AGREE to waive their seniority?"

 

[eolesen]

another poster mentioned that another airline could come to STL and I was pointing out the fact that they could go in right now because of all those empty gates.

[post="243720"][/post]​

Duh. The reason they're empty now is because AA took all the customers before 9/11 hit.

Failing a deal with AA, Compton would have just kept knocking on doors.

Eventually, someone was going to to say yes, prior to 9/11.

Then again, hindsight is a great thing. I just wish I could second guess my picks in the NCAA Final Four pool the way y'all keep second guessing this.

 

[Boomer]

I agree. And the sooner the oversupply is corrected (which is why those fares are too low) by the failure of UAL, USAir and ATA, the better. Fortunately, the AMFA members at UAL may have hastened that correction with their concession rejection. B)

Nevertheless, that revenue has paid your paycheck, fueled the airplanes and paid other bills, and none of those recipients' checks depended on whether AA was profitable.

[post="243402"][/post]​

--------------------------------

FWAAA,

Are you on drugs? The failure of both/either U or UAL will increase the pressures on the remaining Legacy Carriers Exponentially.

Both UAL and U have both/either A320/B737 fleets that will be down and not turning a profit for their lessors. AMR has too much cash to enjoin the comfort of BK; too little trust with their Unions to negotiate a timely deal; and, too many restrictions to capitalize on the crises.

Both/either LUV or JetBlue have the cash: we don't. They could snap up favorable leases on the tin U and UAL leave on the ground and use it to increase a more heavily leveraged face off with AMR and the rest of legacy carriers.

The lessors get an amount certain versus nothing; and with it, the rationalization in capacity going forward to give certainty to current obligations.

 

[Boomer]

BoAArd ModerAAtors,

Since you chose to delete the text of the Kasher Arbitration through, "maasive snipaage" by the addtion of a link that is no longer aactive, could you replace the text?

 

[FWAAA]

--------------------------------

FWAAA,

Are you on drugs? The failure of both/either U or UAL will increase the pressures on the remaining Legacy Carriers Exponentially.

Both UAL and U have both/either A320/B737 fleets that will be down and not turning a profit for their lessors. AMR has too much cash to enjoin the comfort of BK; too little trust with their Unions to negotiate a timely deal; and, too many restrictions to capitalize on the crises.

Both/either LUV or JetBlue have the cash: we don't. They could snap up favorable leases on the tin U and UAL leave on the ground and use it to increase a more heavily leveraged face off with AMR and the rest of legacy carriers.

The lessors get an amount certain versus nothing; and with it, the rationalization in capacity going forward to give certainty to current obligations.

[post="243984"][/post]​

If it were still 1998-2000, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Who cares about their fleets? There's hundreds of airplanes in the desert, and nobody is flocking to lease them. Airbus is not cranking out A320s at maximum capacity - anybody who wants some can get them. 737 production has slowed to less than half of Boeing's capacity.

The inevitable shutdown of USAir and UAL does not necessarily mean that AA needs to add hundreds of flights to benefit: AA could benefit simply by cherry-picking some of the top-yielding customers and placing them on AA's existing flights.

AA's flights are already full, you say? Then AA could afford to be a little more discriminating as to customers. If AA could add 5% or 10% more at the top of the yield curve, it could jetison the bottom 5% or 10%. That alone would work wonders.

Think of each legacy airlines' pax as a spectrum. Each airline has some (too few, to be sure) pax paying high fares. And each one has too many pax paying too little. A shutdown at UAL would enable AA to try to attract some of UAL's higher yielding pax and would allow AA to leave behind some of the lowest-yielding pax.

Here's what I see happening when UAL shuts down. AA would own ORD the way it owns DFW and the way DL owns ATL. Sure, some LCCs would move into ORD. But so what? The UAL pax who pay more than 5 cents/mile would gravitate toward AA. At least some of them would.

AA doesn't have any cash? Have you seen the $3 billion of unrestricted cash? That cash can be used to bid on UAL's overseas routes. WN and B6 won't be in a position to do that. Other bidders will include CO, DL and NW.

To the extent that AA does need to add some capacity, that would be simple. How many thousand AA pilots are on furlough? AA's got some MD-80s in the desert, along with the "permanently retired" 762s. AA could pick up some UA 762s and 763s to quickly add some capacity. Within weeks, nobody would miss UAL.

You're right - the LCCs would pounce. But UAL and USAir still fly SOME pax who pay high fares. And their shutdown would mean those pax would be up for grabs. Think they would all gravitate toward WN or B6? If so, then YOU are the one who is high.

Would a shutdown at UAL and USAir solve AA's problems forever? NO. Will AA survive if UAL and USAir are kept on life support forever? NO.

But a shutdown of those airlines will buy the remaining survivors some breathing room to keep up their transformations into long-term survivors.

There's no competitive need for 6 different legacy airlines to fly pax from SAN to LGA. Or between any other city pairs.

 

[FWAAA]

I'm curious to know what makes you think that the removal of even all three of those airlines would reduce the supply in the market.

[post="243538"][/post]​

You're right: The shutdown of all three of these airlines would mean an instant increase in industry-wide capacity.

Before you post it - I know that the shutdown of these airlines would not solve the problems for the remaining legacies. But it would buy them some breathing room while the LCCs expand into the void left by the failures of UAL, USAir and ATA.

 

[mweiss]

You're right: The shutdown of all three of these airlines would mean an instant increase in industry-wide capacity.

Of course it's not instant. But saying that the removal of those three airlines would solve the problem is beyond silly. As you said, the only thing it does is buy some time.

Let's face it, these airlines have had nearly thirty years of time to solve the problem. What does that tell you?

 

[FWAAA]

Of course it's not instant. But saying that the removal of those three airlines would solve the problem is beyond silly. As you said, the only thing it does is buy some time.

Let's face it, these airlines have had nearly thirty years of time to solve the problem. What does that tell you?

[post="244133"][/post]​

So I take it that you are in favor of indefinitely propping up UAL and USAir? No matter how much cash they continue to burn?

Their shutdown won't solve the remaining legacy airlines' problems, but it sure won't exacerbate those problems, either.

There's far too much capacity. I don't care how it is reduced, but it needs to be reduced.

 

[mweiss]

So I take it that you are in favor of indefinitely propping up UAL and USAir?

No, you mistake it. There's a huge difference between saying that it won't help the other legacies for long and saying that I think that means they should be propped up.

No, if their business models are bad, they should fail. That's the system we, as a nation, have agreed to have, so let's not subvert it.

There's far too much capacity. I don't care how it is reduced, but it needs to be reduced.

[post="244143"][/post]​

Let's be clear...there's only too much business mode capacity. There has been for only, oh, at least three decades.

 

[FWAAA]

Let's be clear...there's only too much business mode capacity. There has been for only, oh, at least three decades.

[post="244147"][/post]​

Agree with the first sentence. I've posted as much numerous times on numerous threads. My apologies for not saying so on the post that generated this exchange. I'll try to do better.

Not convinced about the second sentence, but who cares? There's too much capacity now, and now's what matters. Not how long there's been too much capacity.