This is too bad. I enjoyed this thread and the ease it provided in sifting through various merger related articles. Thread discipline never works unfortunately, and the demise of this thread speaks to the futility of trying to impose that discipline. Thanks for the effort.
US-AA Merger Articles (Merged Topics)
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
This is too bad. I enjoyed this thread and the ease it provided in sifting through various merger related articles. Thread discipline never works unfortunately, and the demise of this thread speaks to the futility of trying to impose that discipline. Thanks for the effort.
signals
Veteran
Show me don't tell me. Your inflated ego is what keeps you posting.
signals
Veteran
You actually take a megalomaniac serious?
Freighterguynow
Veteran
- Jan 5, 2004
- 1,276
- 1,207
signals
Veteran
OK, I finally found true evidence that US will merge with AA. I mean you can't argue with this one because it is the holy grail. I now believe that a merger will happen.
Rush is on tour and on Nov. 25 they play Phoenix at the US Airways Center. But wait it doesn't stop there. On Nov. 28 they play Dallas at the American Airlines Center.
Welllll...there is the true evidence. I'm convinced, it's a sign!
Rush is on tour and on Nov. 25 they play Phoenix at the US Airways Center. But wait it doesn't stop there. On Nov. 28 they play Dallas at the American Airlines Center.
Welllll...there is the true evidence. I'm convinced, it's a sign!
If true, that sounds like a reason to disqualify US pilots from posting at all. No pilots posting = no East v West issues.
signals
Veteran
New here?
IberiaMAL
Advanced
- Dec 30, 2008
- 118
- 23
Regarding the merger,
I find it a little odd that people think Charlotte would get reduced because the new airline wi be a higher cost airline. That doesn't change the fact that Charlotte is leaps and bounds cheaper than PHL and MIA etc.
So to me it would make sense that if the new American is gonna be so high cost, it wouldn't make sense to cut clt because it's low cost?
Maybe I'm looking at it the Wrong way but common sense tells me high cost airline + low cost airport is better than high cost airline + high cost airport
I find it a little odd that people think Charlotte would get reduced because the new airline wi be a higher cost airline. That doesn't change the fact that Charlotte is leaps and bounds cheaper than PHL and MIA etc.
So to me it would make sense that if the new American is gonna be so high cost, it wouldn't make sense to cut clt because it's low cost?
Maybe I'm looking at it the Wrong way but common sense tells me high cost airline + low cost airport is better than high cost airline + high cost airport
signals
Veteran
If airlines are like corporations, then the one that goes against common sense is the way to go!
IberiaMAL
Advanced
- Dec 30, 2008
- 118
- 23
I mean. Even charlottes international system might benefit American to the extent that they can offer lower fares to Europe than connecting through JFK. No one would connect through MIA and if you're gonna connect mass groups of people, Charlotte is a lot cheaper than JFK/PHL. Not to mention AMR shouldn't be routing the entire system through JFK to get to London/Paris so Charlotte would also be good for dumping some of the heavy volume routes on (and PHL) so JFK can be used for routes that Only JFK could sustain.
I just remember reading somewhere Charlotte was nearly 10$ or more cheaper per passenger than any of the other hubs for AMR. If I remember correctly.
There are a few AMR cheerleaders who think clt would be reduced because amr will be higher cost than us airways and that clt doesn't fit the bill for a high cost airline... I think clt might lose a few flights but I could also see us gaining more flights from AMR strongholds and some deep south cities around the gulf and such.
I'm just trying to be realistic on what to expect without emotions from either side. I'm not sure that since I'm from clt I'm just looking at it too rosy or if I got an accurate idea on what to expect (maybe a loss on international, especially rio d., but not to drastic. Europe would stay
Mainly intact minus Rome and Dublin and Munich and perhaps Madrid. On the domestic side, legacy AMR strongholds would gain clt flights along with additional gulf coast and Midwest cities) maybe in the end clt might come out with more daily flights and less seats (or maybe more seats if the hub to hub flying increases)
I saw a US Airways top guy from the control tower (forgot what his exact title was. I think senior operations or something) and he said expect employment opportunities from us at clt in a year because of big changes... I responded back "if us still exist" and he still sounded positive about next year for clt? As far as employment goes...
I just remember reading somewhere Charlotte was nearly 10$ or more cheaper per passenger than any of the other hubs for AMR. If I remember correctly.
There are a few AMR cheerleaders who think clt would be reduced because amr will be higher cost than us airways and that clt doesn't fit the bill for a high cost airline... I think clt might lose a few flights but I could also see us gaining more flights from AMR strongholds and some deep south cities around the gulf and such.
I'm just trying to be realistic on what to expect without emotions from either side. I'm not sure that since I'm from clt I'm just looking at it too rosy or if I got an accurate idea on what to expect (maybe a loss on international, especially rio d., but not to drastic. Europe would stay
Mainly intact minus Rome and Dublin and Munich and perhaps Madrid. On the domestic side, legacy AMR strongholds would gain clt flights along with additional gulf coast and Midwest cities) maybe in the end clt might come out with more daily flights and less seats (or maybe more seats if the hub to hub flying increases)
I saw a US Airways top guy from the control tower (forgot what his exact title was. I think senior operations or something) and he said expect employment opportunities from us at clt in a year because of big changes... I responded back "if us still exist" and he still sounded positive about next year for clt? As far as employment goes...
I don't think that CLT will be significantly downsized but I don't think it will gain any new international flights unless O&D demand increases substantially. About the "can offer lower fares to Europe" part, I disagree. Airlines don't intentionally atttempt to offer lower fares, they do everything they can to increase fares. Look at London, for example. US has one daily flight from each of PHL and CLT. BA/AA offers two daily flights from PHL and AA/BA have 13 daily flights from JFK plus three more from Newark.
AA/BA don't fly 16 daily flights to/from London from NYC so they can fill them with tons of connecting traffic; those 16 daily flights exist because of the substantial O&D front cabin traffic between NYC and LON. Sure they fill any extra seats with connections, but those flights don't require lots and lots of connections to fill the front cabins. And nobody from NYC paying front cabin fares would willingly connect at CLT.
AA/BA aren't routing everyone thru NYC to get to London and Paris. From ORD, AA/BA have six daily flights. From DFW, another five daily flights. From BOS, AA/BA have six daily flights. MIA has four daily flights. Systemwide, AA/BA have about 61 daily flights to LON this summer from 21 gateways. Including those two daily flights from PHL. AA has flights to Paris from BOS, JFK, ORD, MIA and DFW.
It's certainly true that CLT has a per-passenger cost that is much lower than other cities. Landing fees are just $0.42 per 1000 pounds. PHL is $2.76 per 1000 pounds. JFK is more than $5 per 1000 pounds. But landing fees and terminal rents don't tell the whole story. One premium cabin passenger fare pays the landing fee for AA's 777 at JFK. The terminal rent is a fixed cost. AA/BA won't be moving NYC-LON flights to CLT to chase a few dollars worth of landing fees and rent savings.
If you disagree, then ask yourself why US continues to fly so many A330s and 762s from PHL to Europe with its very high costs. Why doesn't US move those flights to the ultra low-cost CLT? You know the answer (or at least you should): PHL has far more O&D (especially International O&D) than CLT ever will, at least in our lifetimes. Airlines don't move flights to cheap hubs - they fly long-haul flights to and from where the passengers want to be and then they bus in some el cheapo connecting passengers to round out the load.
If CLT is reduced, it won't have anything to do with airport expenses; it will happen if it makes more sense for AA/BA/US to fly the route from JFK or MIA or PHL or BOS or DFW or ORD. Consider the US flight to GIG from CLT: almost nobody from Brasil wants to visit CLT and there are very few people in CLT who are going to Brasil. So US has to fill it, almost entirely, with connecting passengers who by definition won't pay the high fares that nonstop passengers will pay. If they're going to connect anyway, might as well connect them at MIA where AA flies five daily flights to GIG, GRU and CNF. Or DFW. Or JFK. All told, AA has 64 weekly widebody flights to Brasil and is starting more.
There won't be as many PHX-CLT flights, as DFW eliminates a lot of double connections presently made on US between the west and the east (connecting at both PHX and CLT). If CLT has value, it's in connecting people around the southeast, not inefficient barbell double connections for long-distance flights.
LAX stands to perhaps gain some international flights, and those might come at CLT's expense. How? US passengers in the west are currently flown to CLT (or PHL). AA already flies a lot of connections between many southwestern cites and LAX, and adding US PHX customers might help make flights like LAX-CDG viable again. They won't be flown from PHX. Too much heat and too little O&D. With the BA/IB hub at MAD, CLT and PHL might see increased flights to Spain. And there won't be much justification for FRA flights anymore. More flights to LON and MAD instead.
I don't think that CLT will get the STL treatment, but it's crazy talk to think that international flights currently flown from BOS or NYC or PHL or MIA would move to CLT so that the airline can save a couple grand on landing fees. I don't see CLT growing as fast as Orr thinks it will. Charlotte is a great place, but it is a fairly small metro area, not all that much larger than RDU. Additionally, at some point, WN will invade CLT and siphon off some passengers while lowering fares. That won't be good for CLT. Not one bit. CLT is as big as it is because US does not possess a DFW or MIA. not because CLT residents fill any substantial portion of those flights.
signals
Veteran
CLT may be cheaper as a whole, but in any game, it may cost the flier less to fly from JFK, when you factor in the costs to fly TO CLT as oppose to JFK or Philly.
Example:I doubt a flier from the Northeast would get a better rate flying to CLT.
Example:I doubt a flier from the Northeast would get a better rate flying to CLT.
Yes, it requires the support of the unsecured creditors committee. We are discussing this here as well...
http://airlineforums.com/topic/53626-is-usairways-hostile-takeover-of-aa-for-real/page__st__140
nycbusdriver
Veteran
So then, instead of $999 to London, going through CLT could be priced at $989? THAT much cheaper?
Similar threads
