firedougparker
Member
Questions says it all. Smart money is on PHL.
Which hub will close first, post-merger?
- Thread starter firedougparker
- Start date
ChockJockey
Veteran
- Dec 18, 2008
- 1,393
- 1,350
Considering the utter failure of your prophecies to date and that embarrassing blog you hide behind (made only more laughable by recent events), I really doubt your claim to having access to smart anything, let alone money.
If I didn't know any better I'd say you're looking forward to station closures and job losses, anything at any cost to feed your creepy obsession with Parker.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Good news but those cities may still loose their hub status.
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
I've said it before: If Parker's goal is to downsize the combined airline and de-hub any of the nine hubs/focus cities (the nine on the OP's list), then he would not have merged US and AA - rather, he would have simply applied for the position of CEO and the AMR creditors would have hired him (as Horton had no chance of sticking around).
This is a merger about growth, not contraction. Since 2007, when NW and DL got hitched, the steady drumbeat has been that both AA and US were too small on their own and the only way they would thrive is to merge and grow.
Most of the analysts predicted that AMR would shrink by at least 10% in 2012. They were wrong by a country mile, as AMR shrank by about two percent and increased revenue by $900 million compared to 2011. Jamie Baker wrote in December, 2011 that AMR's bankruptcy would cause AMR to shrink and spill revenue to be picked up by the other airlines, just like what happened in the earlier bankruptcies of US, UA, NW and DL. What he failed to take into account was that AA had spent the last decade shrinking and didn't file for bankruptcy so that it could shrink a lot more.
In 2008-09, AMR retired 34 A300s. That's more widebody capacity than US currently flies. AA also put down dozens of MD-80s. Throughout the past decade, AA let go of the 19 incompatible engined 757s acquired from TWA (subsequently leased by DL). The past 10 years has seen massive shrinking by AA, on top of all the shrinking that US did 10 years ago in its bankruptcies.
This merger is about growth. If the airline closes hubs and begins shrinking right away, then that will be proof of failure by Parker. It might happen eventually, but that's not the plan.
This is a merger about growth, not contraction. Since 2007, when NW and DL got hitched, the steady drumbeat has been that both AA and US were too small on their own and the only way they would thrive is to merge and grow.
Most of the analysts predicted that AMR would shrink by at least 10% in 2012. They were wrong by a country mile, as AMR shrank by about two percent and increased revenue by $900 million compared to 2011. Jamie Baker wrote in December, 2011 that AMR's bankruptcy would cause AMR to shrink and spill revenue to be picked up by the other airlines, just like what happened in the earlier bankruptcies of US, UA, NW and DL. What he failed to take into account was that AA had spent the last decade shrinking and didn't file for bankruptcy so that it could shrink a lot more.
In 2008-09, AMR retired 34 A300s. That's more widebody capacity than US currently flies. AA also put down dozens of MD-80s. Throughout the past decade, AA let go of the 19 incompatible engined 757s acquired from TWA (subsequently leased by DL). The past 10 years has seen massive shrinking by AA, on top of all the shrinking that US did 10 years ago in its bankruptcies.
This merger is about growth. If the airline closes hubs and begins shrinking right away, then that will be proof of failure by Parker. It might happen eventually, but that's not the plan.
Similar threads
