As US Airways shares rally, AMR merger may be more likely, Bloomberg reports

[wings396]

Well that may be the dumbest reply that I have ever seen, you win Jim.
Childish replys set aside, if you think that ANYONE can effectively compete with DL & UA, you truly are clueless about the industry.
As time goes on, they will chip away at others markets and gain enough to dominate many strongholds that we have. While I don't agree with a lot of what WT posts, I believe that his synopsis of AA in regard to their loss of marketshare is correct. Between what AA has GIVEN to B6 in NY, and lost to DL should be a good indication of things to come. Couple that with nothing in the SE part of the county, your own observations of ORD, and the SWA threat at DAL, and tell me what you see?

 

[robbedagain]

wings you make very valid points... it will be very interesting to see what kind of settlement the doj and the donkeys running the airlines come up with to get the merger thru if its done before nov 25

 

[WorldTraveler]

So basically, they have let everyone else merge which has reduced competition to the point where consumers MAY suffer. But they are blocking a merger that will effectivey compete with the 2 big boys that will dominate the industry, and have the size and power to crush AA & US as standalones. Not to mention that they will eventually control enough of the domestic market to control pricing and fees as they wish.....
Real nice way of thinking by the DOJ.
Why do they let Walmart keep expanding and crushing small businesses accross America one town after another? Does anyone think that they may be slowly eliminating competition with a goal of total consumer control at some point?

in addition to what Reed noted - which no one wants to admit is an issue that the other airlines didn't have - AA/US fans seem to forget that US has been the bottom feeder in the industry and has stated in those leaked internal communications that they intend to end that role.
Thus, the issue is that AA and US, not DL and UA, are the ones that have been setting the pricing in the legacy carrier segment of the industry and it is the problem .

Further, the DOJ does not have a requirement to approve subsequent mergers in an industry just because one or more companies have been allowed to merge in the past. The entire notion that "we should be allowed to merge because DL and UA and WN were" is completely unsupported in antitrust law.

Further, the DOJ has not said that they were objecting to AA/US on the basis of the total size. They are objecting to AA/US because of specific things that they say are inherently wrong and different from others. Fixing those problems is what it will require to get the merger approved, not continuing to say that "they are picking on us" and "they are treating us differently."

I still believe AA/US will be allowed to merge but there will be much deeper concessions than were reuired I n the past.

Daddy, it's not fair. You let Delta and United go out and play. I'm going to my room and hold my breath until I die. And, then you'll be sorry.

+321

Well that may be the dumbest reply that I have ever seen, you win Jim.
Childish replys set aside, if you think that ANYONE can effectively compete with DL & UA, you truly are clueless about the industry.
As time goes on, they will chip away at others markets and gain enough to dominate many strongholds that we have. While I don't agree with a lot of what WT posts, I believe that his synopsis of AA in regard to their loss of marketshare is correct. Between what AA has GIVEN to B6 in NY, and lost to DL should be a good indication of things to come. Couple that with nothing in the SE part of the county, your own observations of ORD, and the SWA threat at DAL, and tell me what you see?

thanks ... but it isn't the DOJ's job to ensure that companies are protected from competition. Its job in this context is to ensure that merger activities to not create antitrust issues.
There is a big difference between the two.

remember also that US is the one who is the low price leader and that role would be removed in the event of a merger. US has been more stable than AA in terms of market share and profitability. It is much harder to argue that the merger is needed if US, the carrier that has provided pricing discipline among the network carriers, is the one that actually has the best chance of standing alone.

Also, based on current schedules, the combined AA/US would be the largest US domestic carrier which is not simply a question of "keeping up w/ the Jones."

 

[wings396]

Oh come on already, can you imagine all the rhetoric we would be reading from you if this was the DL/NW merger that the DOJ was attempting to block. Are you willing to
"Admit" that?. I'm willing to bet the "you let the others do it, and we need a level playing field" cards would be tossed all over the place if this involved DL.

 

[FWAAA]

Yes the W/A will indeed have a rather large effect on AA's market share around the DFW area, but SWA cannot get enough aircraft fast enough. They are currently looking for any used as well as new aircraft to grow quickly, but are having a hard time finding any.

Seriously? In 2012, WN took delivery of 29 new 738s and leased five used 738s for a total of 34. In 2013, WN will take delivery of 20 more 738s. In 2014, WN will take delivery of another 29 firm plus options on another 15. In 2015, WN is scheduled to get another 36 plus options on 12 more.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but couldn't they just have kept the 717 fleet if your comments are correct? If they are going to come up.short on expansion at DAL due to a shortage of AC, the removal of the 717 fleet is looking pretty stupid at this point.
No reason they couldn't have shifted all of the 717 flying to DAL for your so called quick expansion.

There is no shortage of aircraft available to WN, despite swamt's assertion. In the four years between 1/1/12 and 12/31/15, WN has acquired and has firm orders on 122 new 737s (plus options on 24 more). The 88 717s will be removed from the fleet at the rate of about 3 per month, and thus will be in the fleet until the end of 2015. Here's the official word on how WN intends to deal with the return of the 717s:

The Company has entered into an agreement with Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Boeing Capital Corp. to lease or sublease all 88 of AirTran’s Boeing 717-200 aircraft to Delta. Deliveries to Delta are expected to begin in August 2013 at the rate of approximately three aircraft per month. From a fleet management perspective, this transition allows the Company to minimize the impact of this transaction on operations, as the Boeing 717 capacity lost is expected to be replaced through the capacity gained as a result of (i) the Company’s extension of the retirement dates for a portion of its 737-300 and 737-500 aircraft and (ii) deliveries from Boeing of new 737 aircraft or deliveries of used 737 aircraft from other sources. Transitioning the Boeing 717 fleet to Delta avoids the added complexity to the Company’s operations, as the Company has historically operated an all-Boeing 737 fleet. Replacement of the Boeing 717 aircraft capacity with Boeing 737 capacity provides revenue opportunities with more seats per aircraft, while costing approximately the same amount to fly on a per-trip basis as the larger Boeing 737 aircraft.​

​

http://southwest.inv...nual Report.PDF​

It's clear that WN has sufficient aircraft on the way to enable it to return the 88 717s over the next 30 months plus grow if growth makes sense to Gary Kelly. 122 firm aircraft in four years (plus options foe 24 more) and 88 717s to get rid of. As WN said in its annual report, it can slow down the retirement of older planes if necessary. That leaves WN with sufficient planes to grow at DAL beginning in October, 2014. ​

 

[767one]

in addition to what Reed noted - which no one wants to admit is an issue that the other airlines didn't have - AA/US fans seem to forget that US has been the bottom feeder in the industry and has stated in those leaked internal communications that they intend to end that role.
Thus, the issue is that AA and US, not DL and UA, are the ones that have been setting the pricing in the legacy carrier segment of the industry and it is the problem .

Further, the DOJ does not have a requirement to approve subsequent mergers in an industry just because one or more companies have been allowed to merge in the past. The entire notion that "we should be allowed to merge because DL and UA and WN were" is completely unsupported in antitrust law.

Further, the DOJ has not said that they were objecting to AA/US on the basis of the total size. They are objecting to AA/US because of specific things that they say are inherently wrong and different from others. Fixing those problems is what it will require to get the merger approved, not continuing to say that "they are picking on us" and "they are treating us differently."

I still believe AA/US will be allowed to merge but there will be much deeper concessions than were reuired I n the past.






+321



thanks ... but it isn't the DOJ's job to ensure that companies are protected from competition. Its job in this context is to ensure that merger activities to not create antitrust issues.
There is a big difference between the two.

remember also that US is the one who is the low price leader and that role would be removed in the event of a merger. US has been more stable than AA in terms of market share and profitability. It is much harder to argue that the merger is needed if US, the carrier that has provided pricing discipline among the network carriers, is the one that actually has the best chance of standing alone.

Also, based on current schedules, the combined AA/US would be the largest US domestic carrier which is not simply a question of "keeping up w/ the Jones."

I must state the obvious......isn't some company in every industry the largest? Maybe we should have the government size every company in every industry to exactly the same size with no advantage given to any company. I'm sure the government would do a great job with that!! Just look at how well they manage their own business. Understand I'm no fan of mergers because most just make a few rich folks richer and the employees end up footing the bill in many cases.

All the best,

Bob

 

[WorldTraveler]

Oh come on already, can you imagine all the rhetoric we would be reading from you if this was the DL/NW merger that the DOJ was attempting to block. Are you willing to
"Admit" that?. I'm willing to bet the "you let the others do it, and we need a level playing field" cards would be tossed all over the place if this involved DL.

Perhaps that is why DL moved quickly to be the first carrier to pull off a merger with NW... precisely because they knew there would be issues related to size at some point.

And again, you continue to think that all things were equal even between AA/US and the other three... and they are not.

Just to recap... no other airline that we know of sent emails and made speeches saying that the merger would allow them to reduce capacity which we would be good for the merged company and the industry. BTW, if you recall, Parker said the same thing about the DL-US merger attempt which is why gov't authorities shot it down so quickly. The whole DL employee thing was great for DL's internal PR but Parker hung himself with what he said about his plans with the DL merger - and then he repeated the same thing with AA/US.

No other airline sent emails or had internal communications saying that the Advantage Fares or similar consumer friendly programs would have to go as part of the merger.

No other airline pair would be as concentrated in one region of the country as AA/US will be on the east coast based on size. NW and UA were much smaller on the east coast than DL and CO.

And the only other case that resulted in an airport where the combined carrier would have more than 50% of the slots at a slot-controlled airport was at EWR with UA/CO - and UA had to divest all of its own pre-merger slots.

DL still does not have over 50% of the slots at any slot-controlled airport.

There are facts involved and dealing with those facts instead of "they are treating us differently" is what is necessary to solve the case.

I must state the obvious......isn't some company in every industry the largest? Maybe we should have the government size every company in every industry to exactly the same size with no advantage given to any company. I'm sure the government would do a great job with that!! Just look at how well they manage their own business. Understand I'm no fan of mergers because most just make a few rich folks richer and the employees end up footing the bill in many cases.

All the best,

Bob

The gov't is NOT trying to make or prevent every company the same in the US airline industry and they haven't done that in other industries.

They are enforcing antitrust laws which require that mergers not result in combinations that would hurt consumers. They have spelled out why they are taking action against AA/US and it is not merely about size.

Of course, let's remember that AA/US touted early on that they would be #1 after the merger even though many of us were saying that there would have to be divestitures in order to pay for the merger and because the combined carrier's higher costs would render a lot of current US routes as no longer economically viable. AA/US is saying they want to reduce capacity which is precisely what is problematic.

And, once again, antitrust law does not require the DOJ to do for one competitor what it has done for others and DOES allow them to stop the merger process because competition is being harmed.

Look at the grocery and cellular business just for starters and see that there have indeed been mergers that have been blocked or altered even after other companies have been allowed to merge.

As for the notion about Wal-Mart growing and knocking off small businesses as noted by someone, the DOJ doesn't get involved in internal growth strategies for companies unless those companies are using illegal tactics. I don't like seeing small stores being lost across America but Wal-Mart is not acting illegally by undercutting their small business competition.

Remember, US has been undercutting other network carriers for years....

 

[767one]

Perhaps that is why DL moved quickly to be the first carrier to pull off a merger with NW... precisely because they knew there would be issues related to size at some point.

And again, you continue to think that all things were equal even between AA/US and the other three... and they are not.

Just to recap... no other airline that we know of sent emails and made speeches saying that the merger would allow them to reduce capacity which we would be good for the merged company and the industry. BTW, if you recall, Parker said the same thing about the DL-US merger attempt which is why gov't authorities shot it down so quickly. The whole DL employee thing was great for DL's internal PR but Parker hung himself with what he said about his plans with the DL merger - and then he repeated the same thing with AA/US.

No other airline sent emails or had internal communications saying that the Advantage Fares or similar consumer friendly programs would have to go as part of the merger.

No other airline pair would be as concentrated in one region of the country as AA/US will be on the east coast based on size. NW and UA were much smaller on the east coast than DL and CO.

And the only other case that resulted in an airport where the combined carrier would have more than 50% of the slots at a slot-controlled airport was at EWR with UA/CO - and UA had to divest all of its own pre-merger slots.

DL still does not have over 50% of the slots at any slot-controlled airport.

There are facts involved and dealing with those facts instead of "they are treating us differently" is what is necessary to solve the case.




The gov't is NOT trying to make or prevent every company the same in the US airline industry and they haven't done that in other industries.

They are enforcing antitrust laws which require that mergers not result in combinations that would hurt consumers. They have spelled out why they are taking action against AA/US and it is not merely about size.

Of course, let's remember that AA/US touted early on that they would be #1 after the merger even though many of us were saying that there would have to be divestitures in order to pay for the merger and because the combined carrier's higher costs would render a lot of current US routes as no longer economically viable. AA/US is saying they want to reduce capacity which is precisely what is problematic.

And, once again, antitrust law does not require the DOJ to do for one competitor what it has done for others and DOES allow them to stop the merger process because competition is being harmed.

Look at the grocery and cellular business just for starters and see that there have indeed been mergers that have been blocked or altered even after other companies have been allowed to merge.

As for the notion about Wal-Mart growing and knocking off small businesses as noted by someone, the DOJ doesn't get involved in internal growth strategies for companies unless those companies are using illegal tactics. I don't like seeing small stores being lost across America but Wal-Mart is not acting illegally by undercutting their small business competition.

Remember, US has been undercutting other network carriers for years....

I don't know about where you live but in western md we have one choice of cable provider and the price goes up way beyond the cost of living index. I don't see anybody doing anything about that.

It's funny but you mention US as undercutting other carriers. I'm surprised that the government has not done something about that. Also when you mention WN to the average passenger they see them as the low cost carrier. I rarely agree with analysts but I saw an article where WN was referred to as the PERCEIVED low cost carrier not THE low cost carrier. I guess it is all about perception! For years WN was also touted as the on time carrier. Also what percentage of flights does WN have at BWI? I realize that BWI is not slot restricted but they do have pretty much the whole airport and that does give them somewhat of an advantage.

 

[flyer63]

I agree Bob uup here in NH comcast is the only choice. Vios is not in my town. This wt guy comes across as some expert even going as far as ssying DL NWA jumped in early because they knew there would be issues down the road. Highly unlikely although I think some DL guy did utter those words

 

[jimntx]

Well that may be the dumbest reply that I have ever seen, you win Jim.
Childish replys set aside, if you think that ANYONE can effectively compete with DL & UA, you truly are clueless about the industry.

No, it's not dumb. It's the final distillation of what you and everyone else on the LCC side of this merger has been saying everyday since the DOJ filed suit. Go back and read your own posts. Despite it being pointed out to you time and time again that anti-trust laws do not work that way. Never have. Never will.

You all keep bringing up the same tired argument. "You let DL and UA do it. You have to let me do it, too." No, they don't. And, "That's not fair" won't work either. Life ain't fair. There ain't no free lunch. And, nothing is gonna come in the mail. Get over it.

As to what I see in the future regarding New York, Chicago, etc...I don't much care what happens. AMR executives made some really dumb decisions-such as, giving flying to B6. As did LCC executives--look again at the LGA slot swap and tell me who won in that deal. (Surely, someone at LCC must have wondered how long LCC would be allowed to control over half the slots at DCA.)

In this great democratic republic, you are free to do just about anything you want to do (and the Supremes have ruled that the corporations are people just like you and me) up to and including buying a gun and killing someone...as long as you are willing to pay the price. Seems that neither corporations nor people in this country feel like they have to suffer the consequences of their dumb decisions.

What I think is going to happen is that AMR will walk away from this merger given half a chance. The execs have proven time and time again that they do not care what the unions think. Why should they? The RLA is one of the most pro-management labor laws in the history of mankind. And, in the long run, the union will just go along and tell the membership that "we'll get them in the next negotiation." If the unions really cared about much other than their officers' jobs, they would be working to get the airlines out from underneath the RLA, or the law modified, or the Taft-Hartley Fair Labor Standards Act airline exclusion eliminated.

And, don't think that the APA or the APFA will strike in violation of the RLA. The union execs are neither willing to go to jail for the sake of principle, nor are they willing to risk that a strike might possibly put AA out of business resulting in them having to go work at a real job.

AA as a standalone is #3 behind DL and UA. By the time the DOJ (who really hold all the good cards here--just those copies of the DP emails trumps almost anything AMR or LCC holds) gets through with this merger, the resulting merged company will be #3 behind DL and UA. So, why bother?

 

[robbedagain]

jim i may be on the us side but as far as the merger goes i dont give a rats just as long as i get a paycheck every other week. if it happens it happens thats how i see it.. but the bigger quest is if it doesnt happen then what happens down the road to both aa and us just my own opins.. 767 just fyi wn owns terminal a and b and thats combined with FL as well and theres been ongoing construction not sure if wn is trying to put customs in for the intl departures but it seems like it.. this whole merger is just gonna get more interesting as the wsj is reporting that aa and us extended the deadline til jan 18 for either carrier to walk away

 

[jimntx]

I don't know about where you live but in western md we have one choice of cable provider and the price goes up way beyond the cost of living index. I don't see anybody doing anything about that.

It's funny but you mention US as undercutting other carriers. I'm surprised that the government has not done something about that. Also when you mention WN to the average passenger they see them as the low cost carrier. I rarely agree with analysts but I saw an article where WN was referred to as the PERCEIVED low cost carrier not THE low cost carrier. I guess it is all about perception! For years WN was also touted as the on time carrier. Also what percentage of flights does WN have at BWI? I realize that BWI is not slot restricted but they do have pretty much the whole airport and that does give them somewhat of an advantage.

Again, you are using a facetious argument. Your single cable company is not doing anything to prevent other cable companies from coming in to the area, is it? The fact that no other cable company chooses not to provide service to your area of MD is not the fault of the existing company, is it? If you can provide proof that is happening, I'm sure the DOJ would be willing to step in. WN and BWI...The fact that WN has the great majority of flights at BWI, and for that matter that AA has the majority of flights at DFW, is NOT an anti-trust issue. By your own admission, BWI (and DFW) is not a slot-controlled airport. Anyone who wants to provide service at that airport can. Problem: no one wants to provide that service.

It has been a given for a long time that WN is not always the lowest priced ticket available. But, Herb Kelleher never played the game that the rest of us have played--gouge the last-minute traveler for every dime in his pocket. Yes, under him WN charged more for a walk-up ticket, but there was none of the $900 for a walk-up DFW-TUL one-way like the rest of us did. (Don't get your panties in wad. It's just an example, and not a real one. You know what I mean.) WN has always charged a reasonable fare. In the public's mind that translated into "the lowest fare."

It doesn't matter that the snake oil salesman can't really heal people by laying on hands as long as some of his audience perceives him as a healer.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Cable is not the only means of high speed data communications either. Satellite and telephone companies also compete to provide much of the same service.

Rules have changed to allow cable companies to offer telephone service and vice versa just because of the argument that has been put forth regarding lack of choice.

Utilities have been and still are heavily price regulated and some states have deregulated electricity and/or gas in order to provide more choice to consumers.

But the DOJ has and will take communications companies to court if they are engaged in anticompetitive actions.

And yes, Jim, it is not the DOJ's responsibility to allow any competitive to engage in anticompetitive activity to make up for strategic errors that those companies have made.


And yes the merger agreement has been extended, robbed, which means both companies are in it for the long haul and are signally to the DOJ that they are willing to go to trial and wait for the outcome.

 

[nevergiveup]

Cable is not the only means of high speed data communications either. Satellite and telephone companies also compete to provide much of the same service.

Rules have changed to allow cable companies to offer telephone service and vice versa just because of the argument that has been put forth regarding lack of choice.

Utilities have been and still are heavily price regulated and some states have deregulated electricity and/or gas in order to provide more choice to consumers.

But the DOJ has and will take communications companies to court if they are engaged in anticompetitive actions.

And yes, Jim, it is not the DOJ's responsibility to allow any competitive to engage in anticompetitive activity to make up for strategic errors that those companies have made.


And yes the merger agreement has been extended, robbed, which means both companies are in it for the long haul and are signally to the DOJ that they are willing to go to trial and wait for the outcome.

So should the DOJ be free to change its mind at will on how mergers are approved? Are they being strong armed by Southwest, United, and Delta?

 

[FWAAA]

So basically, they have let everyone else merge which has reduced competition to the point where consumers MAY suffer. But they are blocking a merger that will effectivey compete with the 2 big boys that will dominate the industry, and have the size and power to crush AA & US as standalones. Not to mention that they will eventually control enough of the domestic market to control pricing and fees as they wish.....

I didn't know you were a management puke in Tempe; I had you pegged as a worker bee.

Real nice way of thinking by the DOJ.
Why do they let Walmart keep expanding and crushing small businesses accross America one town after another? Does anyone think that they may be slowly eliminating competition with a goal of total consumer control at some point?

The Clayton Act does not address companies that get very large due to organic growth. The Clayton Act proscribes mergers and acquisitions that are likely to reduce competition. Walmart simply opened more and more stores and grew, just like US Airways should have done if your CEO wasn't such a cowardly p*ssy.

Giving up on NYC only to watch Delta add larger planes and garner more market share in the country's biggest air travel market? US has had the lowest pilot and FA costs of any legacy since 2005 and your dumbass drunken CEO didn't grow US to take advantage of that. And here you are, a union worker, mad at the government for finally enforcing the antitrust laws. It boggles the mind.

So what if US and AA fail because they aren't allowed to merge? As Bob Owens has often said, someone will pick up the pieces and hire you if you have some skills.