US Air(ways) CEO predicts more airline mergers

Paul

Veteran
Nov 15, 2005
1,102
0
A reduction in capacity at U.S. airlines lessens the need for airline consolidation, but the merger of former US Airways and America West may be a model for other carriers to make the same move, the chief executive of the new US Airways Group (LCC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Friday.

The combined airline is five months into its integration, focusing on such key issues as blending labor forces and reservation systems. The process has gone smoothly so far and may inspire other carriers to follow suit, said Doug Parker in an interview.

Parker, long a proponent of airline consolidation, said the industry still aches for consolidation to alleviate excess capacity -- the number of airline seats for sale. In recent months, however, airlines have managed to eliminate flights on less profitable routes, enabling them to raise fares and increase revenue.

"Our consolidation was largely driven by crisis. US Airways needed it to survive," Parker said. "And as the industry improves, there will be fewer crises."

"The flip-side of that though is if you create value, you create value. And I think we're showing that you can create a lot of value -- much more than I think people thought -- by putting two airlines together."

Reuters
 
Yup...it's about money....the consolidation thing is nothing new for DP. He has been "preaching" that for some time. :)
 
Yup...it's about money....the consolidation thing is nothing new for DP. He has been "preaching" that for some time. :)


Folks, if it weren't for the money (big bucks and small), wouldn't we all be doing something else...Doug included, I suspect? I'm just glad Doug has "the vision" or more of us would probably be passing out carts at Wal-Mart (or some other equally exciting vocation)!
 
Isn't that what it is all about?
Yeah....for the exec's. Everytime we have something major happen in the industry such as BK,reorginization, merger, sale etc. you seem to notice a lot of golden parachutes opening and a lot of the higher ups leaving (ala Wolfe,Gangwal,Siegel,Lakefield). What's left is a company with a bunch of employees trying to make it work.
 
Yeah....for the exec's. Everytime we have something major happen in the industry such as BK,reorginization, merger, sale etc. you seem to notice a lot of golden parachutes opening and a lot of the higher ups leaving (ala Wolfe,Gangwal,Siegel,Lakefield). What's left is a company with a bunch of employees trying to make it work.

Or you get a viable company with a future vs one dead on the vine!
 
Or you get a viable company with a future vs one dead on the vine!
I am not sure your understanding me. A viable company with a future may be the result or it may just be the by-product of someone orchestrating a deal for their own benefit. Case in point, the UA/US would have been disastrous if it had gone through. It also would have put millions in the pockets of some of the higher up execs. Call me cynical if you want but I feel some execs just use companies to enrich themselves with no corcern for the long term existence of those companies.
 
Seatacus: why do you work for US? Is it for the money or do you volunteer your time for some greater good? Your argument is just sour grapes, we all make choices in this life and in business these choices are usually money driven. Your choice to work for an airline aren't much different than those trying to make that airline profitable.
 
Seatacus: why do you work for US? Is it for the money or do you volunteer your time for some greater good? Your argument is just sour grapes, we all make choices in this life and in business these choices are usually money driven. Your choice to work for an airline aren't much different than those trying to make that airline profitable.

You're talking right past him and trying to spin this the wrong way ( I suspect deliberately...see defination of a "strawman" argument )

Re-read the posts. It wasn't anti-profitable company, it was anti pocketing cash to be made brokering a deal and leaving questionable enterprises to limp along. Hence, the wry comment "that's where the money is to be made".
 
You're talking right past him and trying to spin this the wrong way ( I suspect deliberately...see defination of a "strawman" argument )

Re-read the posts. It wasn't anti-profitable company, it was anti pocketing cash to be made brokering a deal and leaving questionable enterprises to limp along. Hence, the wry comment "that's where the money is to be made".
Hey High Iron..thanks for putting it better words. Now I even understand me better

Hey Qwerty......for your info I don't work for US. After thirty-five years I said good bye..During those years I gave 100% and had a good attitude. It didn't seem to make a difference. Several CEO's came in with their rah-rah and hoopla about how things are going to be so wonderful only to leave after BK or merger or sale with a lot more money in their pockets than me. Good for them. As for me I got tired of the paycuts and the uncertainty of the airlines and left when I turned 55. I waited til then because I still wanted to have non-rev priviledges. Well, we know how that turned out. Whatever. I don't wish any bad luck to anyone still with US (and I still have many friends all over the system in all depts.) but want everyone to be wary of what can happen. Parker may be a great guy and he may want to run this airline for a long time. But if you flash enough cash to someone they may change their tune. Given the choice of taking a few million or running an airline in this volatile industry, some may go for the bucks.
 
Hey Qwerty......for your info I don't work for US. After thirty-five years I said good bye.

That would explain why I haven't seen you for a while! I haven't seen a lot of other SEA faces either. How many of you have left over the past year?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top