US/AA merger settlement imminent!

The world traveler delta marketing person seems to want to make the american airline board a delta board. I see that most of the discussions over there end with this person's posts or the moderators locking it?
 
Good question....I think history will show a discussion about Latin America. something about AA's strength in the region and open skies

Kev
The new route awards became available Oct 1 by treaty.
 
eolesen said:
Now that there have been a couple pages dedicated to this, what exactly does GRU have to do with the US-AA merger?...
Click to expand...
 
 
This thread kinda of reminds me of that river that flows from downtown Sao Paulo to near the Guarulhos airport. It should be a stream of life that provides life and inspirational views. Instead it's a best avoided sewer of slow moving stinking.............oh well, you know what I mean.
 
E u should know that answer bro it has nthing to do w the merger it just that no matter what regardless of aa us merger dl starting latin america rules as dl is the master king of all aviation :)
 
Delta has had the ability to operate an additional flight to Sao Paulo since Halloween. It has voluntarily chosen not to use frequencies until March, despite originally planning to begin service in December. It did not have to apply to DOT to delay, that was my error, but it did have to apply with Brazil's ANAC to delay the start date. 
 
Therefore, it is not using all it's frequencies to Sao Paulo. AA was awarded it's additional Brazil frequencies at the same time, and was able to start up service in line with it's November and December schedule changes. 
 
yes, and AA has had the opportunity to fly to ICN for decades since the US has had Open Skies with S. Korea for years.  AA has had the opportunity to add flights to China but hasn't.  AA isn't even starting its LAX-GRU flight on the first day it could have so what is your point?
 
You apparently want to argue that DL can't compete because it hasn't started every new route on the first day it could... but the logic falls apart when we look at what AA has done in regions where it could have started service but didn't.
 
It also doesn't change that the fundamental strategic flaw in the AA/US merger is that they are willing to give up dominance in key markets  such as DCA in order to gain a larger network but AA's history at JFK shows they have not competed well w/ lower cost carriers including DL which continues to have a cost advantage.  Now the scope of competitive advantage is shrinking dramatically with the fall of the WA, slot divestitures from the settlement, the opening of Latin América - all of it - to true competition - and the beginning of the DL-VS joint venture - all of which are targeted to AA's key markets.
 
We can debate this for another year but the results will be here sooner than you want to admit. 
 
Sounds like a repeat of what they and UA did with their route authorities to Guangzhou in China... DL sat on them for ~18 months before they ran out of waivers and had to return them to the DOT's pool.


But again, none of this has anything to do with the topic.... which is the imminent approval of US-AA.
 
MAH4546 said:
Delta has had the ability to operate an additional flight to Sao Paulo since Halloween. It has voluntarily chosen not to use frequencies until March, despite originally planning to begin service in December. It did not have to apply to DOT to delay, that was my error, but it did have to apply with Brazil's ANAC to delay the start date. 
 
Therefore, it is not using all it's frequencies to Sao Paulo. AA was awarded it's additional Brazil frequencies at the same time, and was able to start up service in line with it's November and December schedule changes. 
Click to expand...
 
 
Good info. Thank you.
 
Looks to me that the concerns which DL raised regarding the complete disregard for direct service from DCA to small/medium sized cities that was part of the original complaint but is not present in the settlement agreement is also shared by bipartisan leaders in both the House and the Senate. Further, DL’s concerns about the preferential bidding positions by B6 and WN are noted. Finally, the Senate and House leaders do not address the concerns that were raised in the original complaint regarding network competition to small/medium sized cities throughout the US but which are not addressed in the settlement agreement.
So, I wouldn’t eat all the popcorn just yet since the DOJ, as I have said all along, might decide that it isn’t worth going to the mat over an industry specific issue that is hard to defend based on previous DOJ actions in light of a lot bigger political issues.

Also doesn’t change that DL likely took its concerns expressed in its early press releases to political leaders.

The merger has not been green-lighted. Even if it does move forward in the form proposed it doesn’t change the strategic flaws that exist. AA/US is giving up (or having taken from it) key revenue benefits which each have enjoyed as standalone carriers while increasing costs. No other carrier has given up (or had taken away) near as many of their key strategic benefits in order to pull off their mergers.

There have been frequencies available for US carriers to begin new service to China and still are. Frequencies to GRU are fully allocated and will be until Open Skies begins. AA enjoys a market advantage because other carriers cannot fully begin new service. The US-GRU market is the largest in Latin America. DL is no more hoarding frequencies by not starting service than AA is since neither carrier is starting service on the first day on which the service could have been started based on the bilateral between the US and Brazil.
The continued assertion by some appears to be that DL can't compete against AA and AA isn't enjoying a protective status because DL isn't even taking advantage of the rights it could use.
Problem is that the statement that was made is true only if AA is doing the same thing - and protecting its market position - by not starting its own new route to GRU on the first day it could with frequencies still open for other carriers. All of the frequencies to GRU are allocated which means the market is restricted access.

The whole subtheme about Latin America is part of the larger discussion that the AA/US merger involves AA/US losing key revenue advantages, some of which were going to happen anyway such as changes to the Wright Amendment, the DL/VS JV which gives AA/BA a bigger competitor to LHR than they have ever had, and Open Skies in Latin America, and some of which AA/US is giving away as the price of getting the merger approved including slots at DCA and gates at DAL,

At the same time, AA/US had to promise pay increases to labor in order to get their support for the deal so costs will go up.

AA/US is losing key revenue and cost advantages that defined the success each had as standalone carriers.

Add in that the whole basis of the settlement agreement which was designed to ensure that AA/US would gain a size advantage over its network peers is being challenged and there are many reasons to question the strategic basis of the merger and the success it is supposed to provide.
 
That 3rd question is quite interesting while there are good points I do wonder how those same clowns did not question dl/nw and fl/wn and co/ua and thats despite ua leasing all their ewr slots those same clowns sure as heck didnt give a dam when dl sliced cvg mem and other cities but theyre "worried bout the same small cities"
 
because you don't want to admit that CVG and MEM did not cut service to small cities. Those small cities attached to CVG and MEM weren't cut from DL's route network... they simply are served from other hubs.

In the case of the small cities that DL cut - mostly from the MSP hub - the merger had nothing to do with them. They were small cities which couldn't even support 100 seats per day of nonstop capacity to a hub; many also had been in the Essential air service program or could be but DL said the subsidies weren't large enough to cover the losses.

The cities that were cut predominantly in the upper Midwest were done on a completely different basis than why the AA/US merger is being challenged. CVG and MEM are not small cities and there are still multiple carriers serving them.

Many people have tried to argue that AA/US are being picked on because the DOJ is challenging AA/US when they let 3 other mergers go thru, some like DL and WN's with no divestitures and UA with much smaller divestitures.

The basis of the AA/US mergers and the remedies that correct the problems for the AA/US merger are completely different.

Understanding and accepting the difference is precisely what is necessary to realize the DOJ and not Congressional leaders are not picking on AA/US but are challenging the merger for reasons that are completely different from previous mergers.
 
So true kev...

wt aa doesnt have much presence I the east but theyre strong in the midwest and the west us is the one who has a lot of small cities served by commuters... do those same croked arse clowns not think that once our dash 8s srs done chances ars good that they wont be serving those small cities anyhow

I do know cvg n mem are decent size cities but the point is dl still sliced both cities but they could havd probably done w say couple commutef flights a day in some of those markets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
US Airways stock halted; Bloomberg News reports AMR settlement could come Tues
Replies
4
Views
1K
robbedagain
robbedagain
767jetz
Merger Not Imminent.
2 3
Replies
30
Views
4K
PITbull
PITbull
J
Airline Merger Appears Imminent
2
Replies
16
Views
3K
BoeingBoy
BoeingBoy
S
OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT
2
Replies
18
Views
4K
LGA Fleet Service
LGA Fleet Service
U
  • Locked
Are DOJ, US Airways, & American Airlines Settlement Talks in the Works?
Replies
1
Views
2K
swamt
S

Latest posts

Back
Top