I like much that you have posted. This paragraph is intriguing? to me-what did you have in mind?
Well, I don't want to stray too far off topic (I'm NEVER one to do that!
😛 )....
Look at the mergers of the 80's and before. They were about expanding reach and developing national or international networks. Even the aborted 2000 UAUS was all about being the largest airline in the world with the most comprehensive network- a huge, sprawling network. This is no longer the case. In fact, the next round of mergers is pretty much about the total opposite.
One of the biggest problems with the American airline industry is overcapacity. There are too many seats flying around, or too many airlines chasing the same passenger. Too many redundant hubs serving the same areas, and too many frequencies with small aircraft.
The example US mgmt used frequently for the USDL tie-up was a good one. US has multiple RJs from Asheville to CLT a day full of obviously connecting traffic. DL also has numerous flights a day from Asheville to thier stronger ATL hub. The redundancy could be eliminated by axing the CLT service (no local traffic on that one anyway), and having less frequencies with larger aircraft to ATL. The same amount of people have been connected to the same cities, much more efficeintly and economically. Overlapping routes would be cut, token hubs would be closed in favor of the larger ones with high O&D traffic. Again, less aircraft, labor and other costs would be used overall to accomplish pretty much the same connectivity.
Fare-wise, less competition and less capacity puts the good we are selling (seats) at more of a premium. If you have six cinemas in your town showing the same movie, they will undercut each other to a point where no one is making money. Maybe you really only need three theaters. There may be enough moviegoers to fill four, but with three those seats are in demand and you can charge a higher price for them.
The current US Airways management team couldn't run a reliable operation if they had one Cessna flying from Ithaca to Elmira. They do however, probably understand the above more than any other carrier at the moment. They also realize that they don't have many great cards- two highly regionalized short haul carriers, barely merged. A nearly almost all-domestic network entirely exposed to low cost carrier competition, and worse, very little international presence with severely limited intl growth opportunities. The smallest of the Big Six by far. They are runway roadkill if the others consolidate without them.
They realize this and therefore want to make sure they are not only involved in consolidation, but in putting the deal together on thier terms (meaning best interest of mgmt and shareholders). Crappy brand and operation and disgruntled labor/customers aside, HPUS is considered a success. It's profitable in a very challenging environment. Mergers are tough, and although they haven't pulled it off in our eyes, they've accomplished an amazing feat in the eyes of others. They can claim this and get backing for another merger.
Back to my original point in the difference in yesterday's mergers and the upcoming consolidation (it is upcoming, quite soon, while we talk pie). These mergers will be about reducing overlap and competition. US has arguably the weakest network, and is willing to be the sacrificial lamb everyone wanted it to be as long as it is calling the shots. Combine capacity reduction with the traditional benefits of consolidation and you have a pretty compelling recipe for fixing the industry that doesn't involve re-regulation. The status quo of this country's airline industry is simply not sustainable and on the brink of failure. The govt does not want to regulate the industry even though comprehensive air travel is a neccesity, but after the near shutdown of 9-11 they will be much more accomodating to mergers. They already are in every other industry.
So there will be mass layoffs, hub closures, headquarters closures, you name it. As big if not bigger upheaval than post 9/11. I know, how, dear little EMBFA, is this good for any of us? Well, a stronger and profitable industry means stronger baragaining power for unions. US had great contracts, pay and work rules when it was USAir or the highway throughout a major part of the country. Larger groups also have more leverage. A combined group of 50,000 F/As is going to have more power than our measly 4000. Painful as the transition will be, a healthy industry is much better for airline employees going forward.
Sorry for the meandering post, but that's what I meant by my comments- expect no movement through growth at the current, pre-merged US Airways. The unseen blessing here for our reserves is that thier decade or two of service makes them junior here because of our disjointed, shrunken carcass of an airline. But merge them into pretty much any of the biggger boys and they are mid-level seniority on those combined lists. They will be doing okay, and will not be the ones furloughed. I personally feel it's worth hanging on to my seniority number for that. In the meantime I'm going to fight to improve our current conditions, because I consider them unacceptable and they set a precedent.
