jimntx
Veteran
WT, remember the Bible tells us that a prophet is without honor in his own country. 
Another US red flag?
- Thread starter Mrs. McFly
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #168
If you don't see it, is because you and the authors of about half of the other posts on this thread aren't reading what is written and instead are focused on their own agenda of trying to shut down the truth,
Yes, Jim, the prophets faced the same opposition but they were right - and still will be.
This thread is about the concerns that the OP had about US' ability to successfully merge with AA and create an airline that would be in the best interests of all consitituents.
Apparently it IS ok for US as a company - not just its internet fan base - to have interjected itself in AA's BK process, smoething that many of us decried as being quite unjust since US was afforded the opportunity TWICE to restructure w/o the interference of other airlines in its BK cases. Thus, the argument about bringing up the truth of AA or US, in or out of BK, rings rather hollow esp. coming from the US fan club.
I have noted repeatedly that from a network/strategic standpoint, AA and US individually and together have given up a lot of revenue to competitors that include but are hardly limited to DL. The significance of DL is that DL, unlike WN and B6 and other low fare competitors, is a direct network competitor and seeks the same contract contracts and has the same business model as AA and US.
Thus, the argument doesn't fly that it is not possible for a network/legacy competitor to successfully compete with low fare carriers, and unlike UA's perspective, there is money to be made in the domestic market.
If no one here is able to debate the facts of the AA/US merger or of the strength of each carrier individually to compete with whatever else is in the market, then it would be ok w/ me to close this thread.
The ongoing personal attacks do nothing to advance any understanding of the challenges involved in the merger or of the ability of AA/US individually or together to create a viable alternative to DL and UA, which is the stated intention of the merger.
But then again perhaps the owners of this board are happy to see the ongoing bashing on this forum since it does provide the content that sells advertising. I am happy to accommodate them if that is the desire....
but I am not going to turn my cheek from the very real economic and strategic realities of the airline industry.
Yes, Jim, the prophets faced the same opposition but they were right - and still will be.
This thread is about the concerns that the OP had about US' ability to successfully merge with AA and create an airline that would be in the best interests of all consitituents.
Apparently it IS ok for US as a company - not just its internet fan base - to have interjected itself in AA's BK process, smoething that many of us decried as being quite unjust since US was afforded the opportunity TWICE to restructure w/o the interference of other airlines in its BK cases. Thus, the argument about bringing up the truth of AA or US, in or out of BK, rings rather hollow esp. coming from the US fan club.
I have noted repeatedly that from a network/strategic standpoint, AA and US individually and together have given up a lot of revenue to competitors that include but are hardly limited to DL. The significance of DL is that DL, unlike WN and B6 and other low fare competitors, is a direct network competitor and seeks the same contract contracts and has the same business model as AA and US.
Thus, the argument doesn't fly that it is not possible for a network/legacy competitor to successfully compete with low fare carriers, and unlike UA's perspective, there is money to be made in the domestic market.
If no one here is able to debate the facts of the AA/US merger or of the strength of each carrier individually to compete with whatever else is in the market, then it would be ok w/ me to close this thread.
The ongoing personal attacks do nothing to advance any understanding of the challenges involved in the merger or of the ability of AA/US individually or together to create a viable alternative to DL and UA, which is the stated intention of the merger.
But then again perhaps the owners of this board are happy to see the ongoing bashing on this forum since it does provide the content that sells advertising. I am happy to accommodate them if that is the desire....
but I am not going to turn my cheek from the very real economic and strategic realities of the airline industry.
http://www.theladders.com/career-advice/know-your-audience
No one cares. You are here trying to debate Deltas superiority when AA mechanics are at their critical low point.
We have friends and coworkers who are in the midst of losing their jobs, families where husbands/fathers will be forced to move cross country to keep a job......and your here basically to stroke your own ego. We don't care how "right" you are. Or even aren't.
We are in survival mode. Most of us do not have the extra time or inclination to devote to your ego. Go stroke your own ego.
No one cares. You are here trying to debate Deltas superiority when AA mechanics are at their critical low point.
We have friends and coworkers who are in the midst of losing their jobs, families where husbands/fathers will be forced to move cross country to keep a job......and your here basically to stroke your own ego. We don't care how "right" you are. Or even aren't.
We are in survival mode. Most of us do not have the extra time or inclination to devote to your ego. Go stroke your own ego.
I know many of you are going through hard times and I thought maybe it would be good to share my views as a USAirways employee. Things are certainly far from perfect over here, but in my 23+ years of flying, not once did I not get a paycheck. Granted, it may not be as large as I would like it to be, but it is the amount that was agreed upon between my collective bargaining agent and the company. That is the price one pays, be it good or bad, when you have a union job. That being said, Throughout my career I have have been displaced, notified of furlough, rescinded furlough and have watched my seniority continually get worse because of a shrinking airline. I think that is probably the case at most legacy carriers. Quite honestly, that is the luck of the draw. When I first arrived at USAir, we were one of the highest paid in the industry with the best duty rigs. So I was fortunate enough to experience the good days, along with the bad. I know a lot of people have unfavorable comments about our current management, and in some cases it is justifiable, but my overall view is favorable. Aside from contract issues, that really are union leadership debacles on both East and West, the airline has become a better place to work since the merger between AWW and US. At merger time, things were really terrible. Now, aircraft are much cleaner, inside and out, mechanical problems have been greatly reduced, onetime performance and airline operations are functioning the best that they have in my career, the PHL has had a remarkable turn around, facilities and aircraft have been refurbished, f/c has been redesigned, Envoy suites have been installed, wifi is being installed and improvements have been made regarding employee travel. I am not a cheerleader for the company...like I said, we have a long way to go. BUT, progress has been and is being made. Aside from union issues, my workplace has improved under our current management and I believe the customer experience has as well. Some employees will always be angry about all they have lost and blame our current management team for something that happened before they arrived on property. Many have not opened their eyes to the tragedy that has taken place in so many corporations in America and feel that is only they who have suffered hardship. I understand their pain, because I have also lived it, but I also realize it is time bandage the wounds and move forward. Don't let people scare you off from a merger with USAirways, at least on the premise that we have a management team that doesn't have the ability to lead....it simply is not true. Whether a merger happens or not, each of our companies will need good leadership and ingenuity to catch up with Delta and United. Each of airline has already lost important business travel accounts to Delta's and United's larger networks. Brand loyalty no longer determines what airline a passenger, or corporation, will chose to fly. Just like you and me, we want the most for our dollar.
D
Deleted member 17588
Guest
Well stated, skynews. A very rational and realistic response. I think the most important aspect of a merger will be the size of the combined companies. AA has no chance of future survival and growth all by itself. What's needed is a larger airline with a larger network to even begin competing with United and Delta. AA simply cannot survive on its own by taking back market share through internal growth alone. That would take too long, if it happens at all. The only possible way AA could be successful on its own is to actually scale down our network and become a 'niche' airline and focus on being "the" carrier to Central and South America (where we're already strong.) But that's not the vision of our executives. If we want to be a truly global airline, we need to immediatly latch on to US and be part of a larger global network. There's no time to waste. Integration and union issues will eventually be resolved in the meantime.
signals
Veteran
signals
Veteran
Actually the original post said:
The fact that US labor has essentially been in limbo for so long is very disconcerting. From DL to UAL twice, Parker seems to move on to bigger and better conquests instead of taking care of his own issues. Did anyone do any homework before jumping on the US bandwagon?
Since Delta was in BK and a target for hostile takeover, anyone can share their expertise on the topic.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #174
a very well stated response as is the response of Skynews... and notably, returning to the focus of the discussion.
I have repeatedly noted that AA DOMINATES Latin America and aggressively fights to protect its turf there... and has done it quite successfully.
The problem is that there is no model for a niche network carrier... the term is contradictory. The airline business is at its heart about mass because mass is a key component of generating loyalty.... the more places you fly, the better your chances of getting passengers where they need to be. Even WN recognized that if they were to succeed they had to bulk up in the key east coast markets... which is the bread and butter of DL and US' network and where AA has given up alot of ground to competitors.
AA/US may well be the best option that is left for both AA and US. But no one should have any delusions that AA/US will suddenly become the US' largest airline or be able to regain market share which has long been lost. Every other major competitor has a merger under their belt and is well-prepared to defend their own network as well as continue to pick off revenue from AA and US, just as they have done for several years - longer depending on the other airline.
Add in that mergers are inherently VERY messy in the airline industry in part because of labor integration problems which are still not resolved at US and it should be very obvious that an AA/US merger will be very difficult, precisely because AA employees are at the bottom of their hope.
Further, there are very unique factors regarding AA/US which are very different from DL/NW, UA/CO, or WN/FL... which the analysts don't acknowledge or discuss why a merger between AA/US would be different - and harder than any of the others.
But for those AA employees who feel like they have been kicked in the tail and just as they raised their head got kicked in the teeth as well, that is precisely what every other airline employee - at least the network carrier employees - have endured. There are differences in who did the kicking but BK has never been a pretty process. If you are just now discovering how brutal it is, then you probably haven't been listening to your peers at other carriers very well... they've all been through it.
But many did survive, adapt, and are rebuilding lives - or have left the industry and sought other jobs, often w/o looking back and regretting what they have done.
The point of my posts is not to kick any one when they are down but to present a very healthy dose of reality to the merger conversations, knowing full well that even the best executed mergers resulted in alot of pain to alot of people.
It would be nice to think that AA employees - w/ or w/o a merger - would fare better than the rest of their legacy carrier employees... but that is not a reasonable goal; holding that kind of goal out is an invitation to be highly disappointed.
Figure out how to adapt to the very bad hand you have been given and rebuild your life the best way you can - just like a whole lot of other airline employees have done before you.
To deny the reality of the challenge which you face will most certainly guarantee failure on the part of your company and in rebuilding your personal lives.
silverbird007
Senior
As a junior AA fa (14 years) I would prefer to not merge. I would be permantly at the bottom of the combined list. Im in my 50s and will NOT be flying until im 70 and even if I i did I think i would still be pretty junior . But if we do at least we should gain alot of market share. If it happens I just hope that whichever mgmt team survives that they dont immediately discontinue routes like AA did after the TWA purchase. US has a much better European network than AA. AA has given too much to BA IMO in Europe, Its probably because of the One World alliance, but I noticed BA does very little to South America, so im sure it was a trade off between AA and BA. If we keep all the European routes from US I will be pleasantly surprised. Either way it is out of our hands whatever is going to happen is probably already planned anyway. Im sure we should hear something soon. Maybe the first few months of 2013.
N288AA
Member
With the strength of the Star Alliance alot of our spokes to Europe could not be sustained, as for merger management I would be pro US. For the past 26 yrs I have been here all AMR management has done is aquire and dismantle. As for that, the past 10 yrs has seen our own network be dismantled. And it seems everything they have touched lately in the BK case has went south also. Just my 2 cents!
jimntx
Veteran
But, you just don't see the big picture. We (AMR) are shrinking to profitability. It has never worked before with any airline in any financial situation (bankruptcy or not); however, our management is going to show the world how it is done. They are perfect. They have never made an error.
And, if this doesn't work, it will be because the employees are paid too much; so, we will need to cut pay, benefits, and jobs again. I would suggest that the next major change be outsourcing the pilots or f/as to Airserv. I'm sure Airserv can train up some pilots in no time. (Of course, there will be the problem of a large percentage of the trainees not passing the criminal/security background check. but, like the cabin cleaner shortages from same issue, the company will just have to take its lumps temporarily while they go train some more pilots.)
And, if history is any indication, the first thing that will have to be done is all pre-merger non-AA hubs will need to be closed. Most pre-merger non-AA routes discontinued, and a whole bunch of people laid off. I'm not judgin'. I'm just sayin'.
And, if this doesn't work, it will be because the employees are paid too much; so, we will need to cut pay, benefits, and jobs again. I would suggest that the next major change be outsourcing the pilots or f/as to Airserv. I'm sure Airserv can train up some pilots in no time. (Of course, there will be the problem of a large percentage of the trainees not passing the criminal/security background check. but, like the cabin cleaner shortages from same issue, the company will just have to take its lumps temporarily while they go train some more pilots.)
And, if history is any indication, the first thing that will have to be done is all pre-merger non-AA hubs will need to be closed. Most pre-merger non-AA routes discontinued, and a whole bunch of people laid off. I'm not judgin'. I'm just sayin'.
About the bolded part: When AA first obtained authority to fly to Europe, it did not have access to Heathrow. So AA began all sorts of flights to primary and secondary European destinations. Once AA bought TWA's LHR rights, those secondary European cities were on the chopping block. Crandall himself told the press in the mid-1990s that the only reason AA flew to all those secondary cities was its lack of access to LHR.
Notice that DL, NW, CO and US all had many more secondary European destinations than AA thru the 1990s and 2000s. That's because AA was busy adding frequencies to LHR, the city where people actually paid for First and Business Class tickets. In 2008, of course, everyone could finally fly to LHR as long as they obtained slots. DL and CO have added a fair number of LHR frequencies, but nowhere near as many as AA still flies. In 2012, AA flew 19 daily peak season flights to LHR. US flew one, PHL-LHR. Plus one to LGW from CLT.
Europe's economy is in the toilet and unless it improves dramatically over the next few months, look for more route suspensions/cancellations among those secondary European cities.
Despite AA's lackluster European network, in peak season, AA flies to Paris from BOS, JFK, MIA, ORD and DFW. From how many gateways does US fly to Paris? The US network to Europe is impressive if you live in or near PHL or CLT. Or you like connecting there.
If you're counting dots on the map, AA's European network is lacking. But it ain't always about dots on the map.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #179
One of US' best contributions to an AA/US merger would probably be continental Europe where they are quite a bit larger than AA. And US has made considerable progress in improving the revenue performance of its European network as it has slowed its growth. As I have noted before, though, US gets its best average fares in Europe from non-Star cities, indicating that UA is keeping the best revenue for itself and throwing the crumbs to US. There is a pretty good chance that US could obtain better revenue if out from under the Star Alliance.
Given that BA will be spending alot of effort over the next few years restabilizing its continental Europe presence as a result of IB's downsizing and the European crisis, US' continental Europe presence would probably be welcome. As strong as LHR is, it is still capacity constrained which means that if AA/BA wants to compete for continental Europe traffic over LHR, they will displace higher value connecting or London local traffic. Air Berlin might be an option some day but they are still sorting out alot of their own strategic issues.
In regarding to Paris, AA does have a large operation there for it being a non-alliance city, but AA's average fares to/from CDG are the lowest of any of the US carriers, so AA clearly has alot of underperforming capacity in the market. Notably, US' average fares to CDG are higher than AA's so the chances are fairly good that US' CDG operation is more profitable on a margin basis than AA's.
US has a strong int'l gateway at PHL but the question still remains if AA/US could continue to successfully compete in much out of NYC and even BOS or whether they would be better off putting their TATL eggs into US' basket. There is still untapped potential from US' hubs for European flying as well as to Asia and Latin America.
Regarding Latin America, part of the IB acquisition was to boost BA's presence in Latin America but in reality what BA is or is not really does not affect how well AA does or will do in Latin America. The US- Latin America market is different enough from the Europe-Latin America market and the majority of the traffic flies nonstop or via European gateways rather than via the US. If anything AA can help BA, but BA's weakness won't hurt AA.
The next issue on the horizon regarding Latin America is the decision regarding where TAM will end up w/ oneworld the likely choice, even though it is almost certain they will not be allowed to begin any joint ventures with AA until Open Skies is fully in place in Latin America, and maybe longer. Open Skies has the potential to usher in alot of changes including bringing new competition to MIA where AA currently has not only a market monopoly among US carriers, but one in which several of the treaties w/ other Latin American countries do not allow the addition of another carrier for several years. As those treaties change, so will the marketplace.
Given that BA will be spending alot of effort over the next few years restabilizing its continental Europe presence as a result of IB's downsizing and the European crisis, US' continental Europe presence would probably be welcome. As strong as LHR is, it is still capacity constrained which means that if AA/BA wants to compete for continental Europe traffic over LHR, they will displace higher value connecting or London local traffic. Air Berlin might be an option some day but they are still sorting out alot of their own strategic issues.
In regarding to Paris, AA does have a large operation there for it being a non-alliance city, but AA's average fares to/from CDG are the lowest of any of the US carriers, so AA clearly has alot of underperforming capacity in the market. Notably, US' average fares to CDG are higher than AA's so the chances are fairly good that US' CDG operation is more profitable on a margin basis than AA's.
US has a strong int'l gateway at PHL but the question still remains if AA/US could continue to successfully compete in much out of NYC and even BOS or whether they would be better off putting their TATL eggs into US' basket. There is still untapped potential from US' hubs for European flying as well as to Asia and Latin America.
Regarding Latin America, part of the IB acquisition was to boost BA's presence in Latin America but in reality what BA is or is not really does not affect how well AA does or will do in Latin America. The US- Latin America market is different enough from the Europe-Latin America market and the majority of the traffic flies nonstop or via European gateways rather than via the US. If anything AA can help BA, but BA's weakness won't hurt AA.
The next issue on the horizon regarding Latin America is the decision regarding where TAM will end up w/ oneworld the likely choice, even though it is almost certain they will not be allowed to begin any joint ventures with AA until Open Skies is fully in place in Latin America, and maybe longer. Open Skies has the potential to usher in alot of changes including bringing new competition to MIA where AA currently has not only a market monopoly among US carriers, but one in which several of the treaties w/ other Latin American countries do not allow the addition of another carrier for several years. As those treaties change, so will the marketplace.
silverbird007
Senior
I understand that the bottom line is the $$. I doubt the yield is that great on the LHR routes anymore. Especially with Delta flying there. United now flies to approx 40 cities in Europe, plus they are huge at LHR also. Plus with their Star Alliance partnership with LH they are huge in FRA of course. UAL has a fa base at LHR and FRA. In spite of these two they stilll fly to approx 40 cities in Europe. Have you seen all the 777s and 747s at FRA? The last quarter wasnt so great for UAL but I think its mostly due to their integration cost with CO. If UAL can do it then why cant we? Espcecially now that our costs are going to be lower. I dont think merging with US is the answer to all of our problems but if we do merge I hope we at least keep the European network. I have read that PHL is a profitable hub for US. I do think that we need more dots on the map. Who wants to connect at Heathrow? I think we have given way too much to BA, AA loves to give away our flying. It takes time to build up any market, with AAs reputation for pulling out after 6 months I dont blame people or companies for avoiding AA. Like I said maybe with our lower costs we will see some new city pairs.
