American Airlines and US Airways reportedly seek merger extension

[WorldTraveler]

the DOJ also noted that they really wanted more time to review the transaction but filed when they did because AA needed it as part of its POR approval.

The entire timeline from merger announcement to trial is much faster than is typical in large and complicated cases like this which won't be lost on the judge.

 

[Jacobin777]

Read my lips... as an AA employee....none of the above....we are not gonna work for Horton.....

-Why should it be Horton who has to leave? Why shouldn't it be you??

-You really haven't countered any of my comments with a valid argument except :

"We're not going to take it anymore"...which really isn't a valid argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI

 

[jimntx]

i just find it strange that the doj had 8 plus months during which time they could have actually talked to us n aa and may be it would of been different

How do you know they didn't talk to US and AA? For all we know, they may have gone straight to DP and said, "You know we can't allow 1 airline to control 60+% of DCA, and your statements in writing about cutting capacity and raising prices are troubling. What are you willing to give up to continue this merger?" And, for all we know, DP said "Not a damn thing. You let DL and NW merge and you let UA and CO merge, so you have to let us merge. Now get out of my office, it's happy hour."

 

[N288AA]

-Why should it be Horton who has to leave? Why shouldn't it be you??

-You really haven't countered any of my comments with a valid argument except :

"We're not going to take it anymore"...which really isn't a valid argument.

For the last 15 years since Mr. Crandall left the employees of this company have given and given. For the record I did vote yes for all concessionary contracts! I have always wanted this company to survive and prosper. In 2003 we were fed the line Pull Together, Win Together! In the ensuing years we watched as the top 1000 managers at this company were given bonuses or if you like "performance pay" that was tied to the stock price. All the while profits continued to vaporize. I am well aware of that it was the AMR BoD that awarded this to them. But it would have went along way if the leaders of the company would have led by example and gracefully turned this compensation down. That is why I believe the way I do and by the way I am a 27 yr. employee with a very good work ethic and have the respect of my immediate mangers. I am not a slug! Out of curiosity what is your deal? Are you an employee, have you walked a mile in their shoes? And to answer your question...If this merger does not go through then I am looking at a career change. I do not believe the future will be bright here. There is way to much animosity towards upper management by all work groups. In a nutshell there needs to be new blood at the top and not anyone who has been associated with past management!

 

[Hatu]

Justice officials: We don’t have to give up names to US Airways, American Airlines

The U.S. Department of Justice said Thursday there’s no legal basis to require it to tell American Airlines and US Airways the names of people they talked to before filing an antitrust lawsuit to block the carriers’ merger.

In addition, DOJ said it doesn’t have to defend its decision not to try to block four other airline mergers since 2005: US Airways-America West, Delta-Northwest, United-Continental and Southwest-AirTran.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/justice-officials-we-dont-have-to-give-up-names-to-us-airways-american-airlines.html/

 

[Jacobin777]

For the last 15 years since Mr. Crandall left the employees of this company have given and given. For the record I did vote yes for all concessionary contracts! I have always wanted this company to survive and prosper. In 2003 we were fed the line Pull Together, Win Together! In the ensuing years we watched as the top 1000 managers at this company were given bonuses or if you like "performance pay" that was tied to the stock price. All the while profits continued to vaporize. I am well aware of that it was the AMR BoD that awarded this to them. But it would have went along way if the leaders of the company would have led by example and gracefully turned this compensation down. That is why I believe the way I do and by the way I am a 27 yr. employee with a very good work ethic and have the respect of my immediate mangers. I am not a slug! Out of curiosity what is your deal? Are you an employee, have you walked a mile in their shoes? And to answer your question...If this merger does not go through then I am looking at a career change. I do not believe the future will be bright here. There is way to much animosity towards upper management by all work groups. In a nutshell there needs to be new blood at the top and not anyone who has been associated with past management!

Part of your problem with your argument is you (and many of your cohorts) for whatever reason refuse to include the price of oil. No one (maybe sans Southwest and one particular analyst's book I read) knew that the price of oil was going to escalate so much so quickly. The price of oil alone negated AA billions of profits every year!

I don't know about your situation, but the the pilots certainly had the chance to join in compensation based on stock price, but they turned it down then cried "foul". I see full hypocrisy in that.

If you were getting a bonus or an above-industry salary+bonus, would you turn it down? Even if you did, Why should others do so, whatever the amount is.

No, I'm not an AA employee nor an airline employee. I do support AA in that I fly AA, even if I have to pay more, take an odd routing or fly randomly to hit certain level of status.

Maybe working for AA isn't for you, but again, why is it that Horton and management have to leave?

Have they done anythign illegal? Last I recall, Horton really wasn't around AA the past number of years anyway.

Also, if anything, Horton should get his bonus and be able to lead AA. He's responsible for the blockbuster deal with Boeing and Airbus which will and will eventually lead AA to save billions of $$!!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Jacobin,
WN wasn't alone in predicting surging fuel prices. All of the legacy airlines had large fuel hedge positions in the decade of the 2000s but they had to let them go due to weakened finances, either because of BK itself or operational losses which required them to put up more and more cash as reserve.

WN won big in the 1st half of the decade of the 2000s because the legacy airlines were pulling back capacity, proving growth opportunities for WN, while WN also had the benefit of growing at costs well below the legacies, largely due to fuel.

In the five years after the legacies emerged from BK except for AA, WN has paid fuel prices above what other carriers have paid. There is little realistic difference in the fuel prices that are being paid that goes to the bottom line as a advantage over other carriers; US does not hedge and has paid prices as low as if not lower than the network carriers but they haven't gained a profit advantage because of it - either because other carriers generate better revenues or have lower costs via other means (such as efficiency and higher internal growth for WN and AS).

It is true that far too many people look at the growth in AA revenues and fail to factor in the growth in the price of fuel or compare the growth in revenues across the industry.

 

[robbedagain]

How do you know they didn't talk to US and AA? For all we know, they may have gone straight to DP and said, "You know we can't allow 1 airline to control 60+% of DCA, and your statements in writing about cutting capacity and raising prices are troubling. What are you willing to give up to continue this merger?" And, for all we know, DP said "Not a damn thing. You let DL and NW merge and you let UA and CO merge, so you have to let us merge. Now get out of my office, it's happy hour."

i never said to allow the merged carriers to control 60% of dca ive only thought maybe they would give up say a percentage of the slots at dca something like b6 mentioned to get the merger thru. as far as me contributin to the merger aint my territory i figured long ago that since late last year us/aa and the doj were talking just my opin.. fwaa thats where i get the the 8 months but i do see what your were saying bro. as for that co/ua merger jim i dont think that one should of been allowed but they went ahead and allowed it... but thats not the point jim the point is what will dp do to get the merger thru.. as far as im concerned i just want my paycheck every other week thats it...along with a better contract! now run along and enjoy your happy hour 🙂)

 

[jimntx]

i never said to allow the merged carriers to control 60% of dca ive only thought maybe they would give up say a percentage of the slots at dca something like b6 mentioned to get the merger thru. as far as me contributin to the merger aint my territory i figured long ago that since late last year us/aa and the doj were talking just my opin.. fwaa thats where i get the the 8 months but i do see what your were saying bro. as for that co/ua merger jim i dont think that one should of been allowed but they went ahead and allowed it... but thats not the point jim the point is what will dp do to get the merger thru.. as far as im concerned i just want my paycheck every other week thats it...along with a better contract! now run along and enjoy your happy hour 🙂)

Congratulations! You missed the whole point of my post. YOU said that you didn't understand why it took the DOJ 8 months to even take action when they could have been talking to LCC and AMR. MY post was in response to the effect that you and I don't know when or where the DOJ first talked with LCC and AMR. For all you or I know, the DOJ contacted Doug Parker within 5 minutes of the original merger announcement. Nor, did I say that the "new" AA should be allowed to control DCA. If they merged with no concessions, it would have that control with no further effort on its part--add LCC's slots to AA's slots, divide result by total number of slots at DCA. It's called basic arithmetic.

Whether UA/CO should or should not have been allowed to merge is what is called in the law, a moot point. For the umpteenth time in this and other threads, in anti-trust law, one merger has no effect on another. Each merger stands alone by itself. Maybe the UA/CO should not have been allowed, but legally that decision by the DOJ has just as much standing in this merger discussion as whether or not the Dodgers should have been allowed to move to Los Angeles.

P.S. I have no need for a happy hour. I don't drink alcohol. And, I'm not the one who has had multiple DWIs--like DP.

 

[WorldTraveler]

just to highlight, I noted in the DOJ's approval of DL/NW that they specifically said that the actions they took on DL/NW could not be construed as to how they would act on future mergers.

As Jim notes, that is the basis of US antitrust law. The entire premise that AA/US have made thruout this case will last about 3 minutes before the judge says the same thing.

"Because they got one" is simply not a valid antitrust argument....

 

[Jacobin777]

Jacobin,
WN wasn't alone in predicting surging fuel prices. All of the legacy airlines had large fuel hedge positions in the decade of the 2000s but they had to let them go due to weakened finances, either because of BK itself or operational losses which required them to put up more and more cash as reserve.

WN won big in the 1st half of the decade of the 2000s because the legacy airlines were pulling back capacity, proving growth opportunities for WN, while WN also had the benefit of growing at costs well below the legacies, largely due to fuel.

In the five years after the legacies emerged from BK except for AA, WN has paid fuel prices above what other carriers have paid. There is little realistic difference in the fuel prices that are being paid that goes to the bottom line as a advantage over other carriers; US does not hedge and has paid prices as low as if not lower than the network carriers but they haven't gained a profit advantage because of it - either because other carriers generate better revenues or have lower costs via other means (such as efficiency and higher internal growth for WN and AS).

It is true that far too many people look at the growth in AA revenues and fail to factor in the growth in the price of fuel or compare the growth in revenues across the industry.

I'm not so sure you are correct there WT. IIRC, I remember reading that AA's fuel hedges were on the low side I also remember Arpey once commenting "wait until WN's hedges finish" - learly he was refering to the fact WN had a substantial advantage on fuel/fuel hedging.

If I'm not mistaken, US doesn't even have a fuel hedge strategy.

just to highlight, I noted in the DOJ's approval of DL/NW that they specifically said that the actions they took on DL/NW could not be construed as to how they would act on future mergers.

As Jim notes, that is the basis of US antitrust law. The entire premise that AA/US have made thruout this case will last about 3 minutes before the judge says the same thing.

"Because they got one" is simply not a valid antitrust argument....

Some people simply don't understand this rather simple concept. :huh: :mellow:

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not so sure you are correct there WT. IIRC, I remember reading that AA's fuel hedges were on the low side I also remember Arpey once commenting "wait until WN's hedges finish" - learly he was refering to the fact WN had a substantial advantage on fuel/fuel hedging.

If I'm not mistaken, US doesn't even have a fuel hedge strategy.

AA might have had good fuel hedges - a number of legacy airlines did... but WN hedged more fuel because they had deeper pockets and were less impacted.

The reason why Arpey made the comment you cite - which is very credible - is because WN was gaining significant advantages because of the size of its fuel hedges which did end and WN's growth slowed down dramatically as a result.

Nonetheless, WN still has a cost advantage to every legacy carrier.

And yes you are correct. US doesn't hedge anymore and they have often paid lower fuel prices. Some analysts believe that legacies still do it because it provides some certainty to a major cost item and some sense of assurance the business can continue even in the midst of a major crisis, even if it doesn't result in the lowest price.

Major carriers also have currency hedges for the same reason.

 

[Thomas Paine]

There is way to much animosity towards upper management by all work groups. In a nutshell there needs to be new blood at the top and not anyone who has been associated with past management!

That pretty much sums it up, Horton must go or the company will fail because even the Yes voters feel this way, and they are now the minority. I think Jacobin777 is Tom Horton, he is the only one who feels Horton should stay.

 

[AANOTOK]

That pretty much sums it up, Horton must go or the company will fail because even the Yes voters feel this way, and they are now the minority. I think Jacobin777 is Tom Horton, he is the only one who feels Horton should stay.

+1

 

[eolesen]

That pretty much sums it up, Horton must go or the company will fail because even the Yes voters feel this way, and they are now the minority. I think Jacobin777 is Tom Horton, he is the only one who feels Horton should stay.

Yes, off with the management's heads......

24 months later, you'll all be pissing & moaning about how the new management has screwed you.

Look as UA.... all those folks who demanded that Glenn Tilton & Jake Brace be run out of town & were downright giddy that the customer/employee focused CO management was taking over.

I don't think they're so happy today... especially the CO pilots, but that's another story for another day.

The only constant in all that are the folks who called for management's removal... They were bitter then, and they're bitter now.

AA and US will be no different. You'll demand a regime change, and you'll still long for the good old days even though you got your way.

Next.