UA/CO............ AA ?

[Hopeful]

i don't think a merger of AA with anyone is necessary. AA was the world's largest airline for nine years and i don't think it made much of a difference. i know the numbers crunchers will give the technical analysis of it and I'm sure there are advantages, but I don't believe it was the end all.

Basically, given the current size of AA in every aspect, they may not be the largest, but are certainly a major player even thought they sit in 3rd place.

 

[FWAAA]

I agree with Hopeful's concise post.

There were two airlines out there with somewhat "difficult to replicate" attributes, and those two airlines are now off the market. AA's gonna have to go it alone and hope it has what it takes.

 

[star power]

Some experts say, from their crystal ball, that without a new strategic direction and significant change at AA and US, they will contiue on the slow path to BK, pre- package for AA, and BK liguidation for US.

The strategic direction, shrinking to profitibility, and labour unrest will help to assist these two companies to failure.

AA/US merger would probility be a major mistake. with the fleet type problems a give me, Boeing Vs. Airbus, parts supply, equipment, training and hanger facilities for overhaul of the Airbus fleet, if it were kept in-house, or contract out like US current does. The AA ground service employee union would probility want to keep the new Airbus fleet maintenance in-house, where the AA would rather contract it out to the lowest bidder and even have AA maintenance union bid on the work.

The AA flight crews would have to get use to the left and right seat joysticks and flyby wire design/feel touch control, flight deck layout and aircraft performance, execpt for some of the military reserve pilots, the flight deck layout and aircraft performance would be their only concern, since most military non-transport aircraft are joystick and flybe wire design.

For the AA flight attendants, the Airbus doors operation, cabin layout and the flight attendant/ maintenance panel at the forward entry door would be some what of a safety concern, because the different from the Boeing design passenger door operation and the emergency power assist which is similar to the B-752.

The US personnal would probility not work a B-772, thats is flight or cabin crews. the ground crew may if a AA B-772 where to be routed in and out of PHL or CLT.

The unions intergration of a AA/US merger would be a disaster. AA unions would perfer to staple US unions employee to the bottom of the AA unions senority list. and US employee would perfer date of hire. AA unions already have a set practices, but since the United States Congress passed labor laws after the TWA disaster, the AA unions will fight to get the lowest intergation plan possible, because the AA unions employee would say that US bring minimal amount of assets to AA.

A AA/B6 merger deal would probility be the same, with the fleet type and crew manning problems, but the unions intergartion problem would be minimal because AA unions could give B6 at the max their date of hire, since most of B6 employees have no more than a company hire date of 1999, which would effect the lowest part of the AA unions senority list . the best thing for the B6 employees to retain their employement would possibility be join Oneworld alliance and stay with their business model, which does not fit with AA bussiness model.

With the DL/NW and the UA/CO merger deals. AA look like they maybe lacking about 20 B-773er, 25 B-763er and /or B-764er, 150 B-738 and/or B-739er in capacity, with AA removal of the 30+ A-300 and the 300+ MD- 80s from the fleet, with the reduce capacity AA will be at a disadvantage to compete on the international and domestic routes. AA does not have the creditworthly to finance these acquisition, but they do have the creditworthly to finance a merger with a carrier with WB long range and NB domestic aircraft, through TPG, since TPG and AA were going to assist JAL financing to stay in Oneworld.

AA will still be at a disadvantage to the business customer to more business markets, because DL and the new UA will have more Europe and Asia/Pacific business market choices and frequencies for the higher yielding business travelers, and both DL and UA can still rely on their alliance members and AA would have to rely on their alliance member very heavy, which puts AA at a financial disadvantage to DL and UA in the international markets by contracting out to their Oneworld members and the domestic markets opportunities will be under serve due to AA size.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Why do employees from other airlines insist on coming here and telling the AA employees what we would prefer or what our unions would prefer to do in the event of a merger?

 

[Hopeful]

f PHL or CLT.

The unions intergration of a AA/US merger would be a disaster. AA unions would perfer to staple US unions employee to the bottom of the AA unions senority list. and US employee would perfer date of hire. AA unions already have a set practices, but since the United States Congress passed labor laws after the TWA disaster, the AA unions will fight to get the lowest intergation plan possible, because the AA unions employee would say that US bring minimal amount of assets to AA.

Nice try with the flame baiting......Not gonna work here..

Just worry about your own hide when the new and improved UAL starts chopping heads and cutting capacity. Are you gonna get your pension back? How about all those UAL people that hit the street,,are they going to all come back to the world's largest airline??????????


Both UA and CAL's revenues are both down...
I don't believe two negatives equal a positive....
Is the new UAL's fuel cost going to go down because of this merger?

Just remember, we at AA were fed this "TWO GREAT AIRLINES, ONE GREAT FUTURE" mantrA...Well, we all know how that turned out.

DAL/NWA? I don't think they're over there singing KOOMBAYAH....especially after shedding thousands of jobs separately.

As Southwest Airlines has proved long ago.....Size Doesn't Matter.....

 

[star power]

Nice try with the flame baiting......Not gonna work here..

Just worry about your own hide when the new and improved UAL starts chopping heads and cutting capacity. Are you gonna get your pension back? How about all those UAL people that hit the street,,are they going to all come back to the world's largest airline??????????


Both UA and CAL's revenues are both down...
I don't believe two negatives equal a positive....
Is the new UAL's fuel cost going to go down because of this merger?

Just remember, we at AA were fed this "TWO GREAT AIRLINES, ONE GREAT FUTURE" mantrA...Well, we all know how that turned out.

DAL/NWA? I don't think they're over there singing KOOMBAYAH....especially after shedding thousands of jobs separately.

As Southwest Airlines has proved long ago.....Size Doesn't Matter.....

Size Doesn't Matter at WN with a Point-To-Point system, but with the HUB and SPOKE it has to, that's the only way it works with the legacy's.

 

[eolesen]

Size Doesn't Matter at WN with a Point-To-Point system, but with the HUB and SPOKE it has to, that's the only way it works with the legacy's.

Ah, the Myth of Critical Mass.

Well, keep watching. The Myth of Critical Mass is about to meet The Law of Diminishing Returns.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that WN is a point-to-point airline is in serious need of a drug test.

They might not call their hubs a hub, but they sure do function like a de-peaked hub carrier...

 

[mweiss]

Ah, the Myth of Critical Mass.

It's not a myth. It's just not a binary condition. Beyond a certain point, being bigger doesn't provide better margins. It does, however, provide more furniture to burn when things get bad. That's how GM lasted for over 20 years of failed business practices.

Oh, and by the way, anyone who thinks that WN is a point-to-point airline is in serious need of a drug test.

At it's core, WN is a point-to-point airline. Connect enough points with enough flights, and it starts to look like an airline with a lot of hubs. This, too, is not a binary condition. The difference between a very large point-to-point airline and a depeaked hub-and-spoke airline is, in many ways, one of perspective. In others, it's about corporate philosophy, which impacts how you address issues when they arise.

 

[frontline]

Let's take a moment and look what we've accomplished this year in terms of alliances/revenues/new routes:

* Immunity with BA and others in Oneworld
* Kept JAL in Oneworld (and likely immunity here too)
* Slot to Haneda

It is stuff like this, stuff that costs us almost nothing and brings in revenue, that is the future. Let UA and CO digest each other. Same with DL and NW. US is a crap carrier that no one likes. Smisek was right, she is the ugly girl. I've said it before, but biggest is not best. Most profitable is best.

 

[The Goose]

Let's take a moment and look what we've accomplished this year in terms of alliances/revenues/new routes:

* Immunity with BA and others in Oneworld

Don't know if there were any costs associated with this filing.

* Kept JAL in Oneworld (and likely immunity here too)

... to the tune of approx 2 billion dollars - some of which was actually AMR's with the balance being kicked in by an investment bank - not free.

* Slot to Haneda

I'm not certain I'd be crowing over over non-viable slots - look at the times.

It is stuff like this, stuff that costs us almost nothing

BS

and brings in revenue, that is the future. Let UA and CO digest each other. Same with DL and NW. US is a crap carrier that no one likes

as American has become.

Have you checked into being a writer for Arpey?

​

 

[FWAAA]

... to the tune of approx 2 billion dollars - some of which was actually AMR's with the balance being kicked in by an investment bank - not free.

Despite AA and TPG and other Oneworld members (plus DL and Skyteam) offering JAL piles of money to sway its decision, JAL ultimately turned down all outside investment and instead filed for bankruptcy, so AA got to keep JAL in Oneworld at no cost. I'd say dumb luck more than genius.

 

[The Goose]

Despite AA and TPG and other Oneworld members (plus DL and Skyteam) offering JAL piles of money to sway its decision, JAL ultimately turned down all outside investment and instead filed for bankruptcy, so AA got to keep JAL in Oneworld at no cost. I'd say dumb luck more than genius.

OK - for once, I have a serious question of you being the numbers person you are:

How much does AMR stand to gain from the present and future exclusion the bridge/retiree medical insurance from this contract and passing it all to O'BummerCare as a function of this pitiful TA we're about to be presented with??

 

[FWAAA]

Excellent question, and I have no idea. I'm stumped when looking at the bullet points in the summary of the TA on the subject of retiree medical and sick bank time traded for insurance coverage, etc. Perhaps at some point the worthless union will provide its members with at least an estimate of the dollar value the company assigned to this proposal. Or maybe AA could do the union's job and inform the membership on how much it looks to save by changing the rules for those not yet 50 years old.

 

[eolesen]

Don't know if there were any costs associated with this filing.

Sure there were. AA's been fighting for this for over a decade. That said, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the filing fees for the past decade will be paid back within a matter of weeks of the alliance being implemented.

... to the tune of approx 2 billion dollars - some of which was actually AMR's with the balance being kicked in by an investment bank - not free.

As pointed out by FWAAA, JAL turned down foreign investment, so there was no money out of pocket from AMR or TPG. That said, they probably spent a lot of lawyer time which will in turn be paid back in spades when they get ATI between JAL and AMR.

I'm not certain I'd be crowing over over non-viable slots - look at the times.

Are you confusing Haneda with Beijing?... The route awards were just issued last week, so I doubt that there have been any slot allocations just yet.

 

[eolesen]

How much does AMR stand to gain from the present and future exclusion the bridge/retiree medical insurance from this contract and passing it all to O'BummerCare as a function of this pitiful TA we're about to be presented with??

Just a guess, but I'd put the possible savings at around $300-500M annually for all of AMR. Last week, it came out that AT&T's costs would be cut from $2.4B to 600M if they dropped coverage and paid the Obamacare penalty.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/news/companies/dropping_benefits.fortune/index.htm

Using the same figures -- approx $8K per employee to provide coverage, and $2K per employee to drop it, you get a $6K per employee savings... Take that number across your actives and retirees, and you should have an estimate.

If AMR's cost per employee is higher (quite possible), then the savings just get bigger.

I wouldn't expect too many corporations to look at this now, but you can guarantee that if the law survives the first few court challenges, they'd be foolish not to start to look seriously at this come 2012.