UA AND US Merger Talks

Status
Not open for further replies.
The good news is that if CO pulls off the UA transaction - US can go Chapter 7 and stop the misery for everyone.
 
US can go Chapter 7 and stop the misery for everyone.

Oh yes. US Going to chapter 7 will end the misery for Charlotte :rolleyes: Now all we need to do is get rid of Bank of America and Duke Energy then Charlotte will be set. :rolleyes:


US bashing gets so old. Other people are trying to inform themselves of what's going on as opposed to whiney nonsense that doesn't add anything meaningful into what this merger could mean, etc. etc.


I've done reached my opinion on what I think personally would be the outcome for the eastcoast;

IAD - International/transconinental O&D hub. Reduced to a focus city.
DCA - Nearly the same as it is today
CLT - Same as it is today
PHL - Same as it is today
LGA - Gets the axe

Or less likely imho

IAD - Increased service adding a lot of flights
PHL - Downsized to focus city
DCA - Gets the axe
CLT - Kept up to par.
LGA - Gets the axe


What I have very little understanding of is the West Coast operation. I know Denver provides Northwestern Destinations but are them cities worth keeping service to if the Denver operation is bleeding red?

I think US/United just needs to axe PHX/DIA and keep them as focus cities. If they're bleeding red badly now, most likely they always will because of WN/F9. United doesn't need to be everything to everyone from Savannah Georgia to Billings Montana. Axe whats bleeding and has bleek prospects and turn a profit. But like I said. I have no idea how the west coast hubs preform, what value they add, etc. I'd love to here from a westie on what they think will happen with SAN/LAX/LAS/PHX/DIA
 
A point that seems to be missed a lot is that international flying out of PHL, versus EWR, JFK and IAD, is essentially "SOLE SOURCE". There are only 2 long haul international carriers at PHL (BA and LH), if you exclude the "for show" DL(AF code share) CDG 757 flight. On the other hand, there are more than 15 international carriers at both IAD and EWR and even more at JFK to compete with. The PHL international O&D (and DOT travel statistics) should alone easily support FRA, CDG, LHR, MAD, FCO and TLV with reasonably low connecting traffic. PHL,JFK and EWR have very similar Domestic O&D - with IAD at only about 60% of PHL. Why would an airline move the PHL international O&D - with the assumption PHL O&D would drive/train the less than 100mi, and increase flying at equally congested EWR or JFK - even if they were permitted to do so by the government? Moving PHL to IAD iMO would do nothing but increase the likelihood of BA growing and more international carriers entering PHL - even though I bet the city would love it. The one thing that US's flying out of PHL has done is to prove there is a solid and profitable international O&D market - something that should entice international carriers to enter - if US downsizes/leaves.
 
Oh yes. US Going to chapter 7 will end the misery for Charlotte :rolleyes: Now all we need to do is get rid of Bank of America and Duke Energy then Charlotte will be set. :rolleyes:


US bashing gets so old. Other people are trying to inform themselves of what's going on as opposed to whiney nonsense that doesn't add anything meaningful into what this merger could mean, etc. etc.


I've done reached my opinion on what I think personally would be the outcome for the eastcoast;

IAD - International/transconinental O&D hub. Reduced to a focus city.
DCA - Nearly the same as it is today
CLT - Same as it is today
PHL - Same as it is today
LGA - Gets the axe

Or less likely imho

IAD - Increased service adding a lot of flights
PHL - Downsized to focus city
DCA - Gets the axe
CLT - Kept up to par.
LGA - Gets the axe


What I have very little understanding of is the West Coast operation. I know Denver provides Northwestern Destinations but are them cities worth keeping service to if the Denver operation is bleeding red?

I think US/United just needs to axe PHX/DIA and keep them as focus cities. If they're bleeding red badly now, most likely they always will because of WN/F9. United doesn't need to be everything to everyone from Savannah Georgia to Billings Montana. Axe whats bleeding and has bleek prospects and turn a profit. But like I said. I have no idea how the west coast hubs preform, what value they add, etc. I'd love to here from a westie on what they think will happen with SAN/LAX/LAS/PHX/DIA
I really dont think there's going to be a merger with UA/US. The gains do not outweigh the losses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
What I have very little understanding of is the West Coast operation. I know Denver provides Northwestern Destinations but are them cities worth keeping service to if the Denver operation is bleeding red?

It is generally accepted (but never proved since nobody has access to the books) that UA and SW are running in the red in Denver. I grew up there and I can tell you that fares have never been cheaper (sometimes $59 each way between PHX-DEN, DEN-LAX, DEN-LAS, etc.). Since F9 has the lower costs, the analysts seem to think they are doing OK.
The loads in PHX are good for most flights but I can't tell you what the yields are. I personally think keeping SFO and Denver would be a given. It would be between PHX and LAX. If the company were headquarted in PHX (with the United name) I think PHX would be safe. UA really doesn't have that many flights out of LAX besides the hubs (Hawaii, Sydney, London, Toyko, and some cities in Mexico are what I counted). So calling it a "trans-pacific gateway", I think is a stretch. They run all the same flights out of SFO plus a lot more. Phoenix has a lot of cheap office space, labor, lower taxes, etc. It has some things going for it.
On the other hand, L.A. is ... L.A. It is the 2nd largest city in the U.S. Who wants to walk away from that? The same could be said for keeping the CHQ in Chicago. It may be more expensive but ... it is Chicago after all.
 
Still continues to amaze me that the pilot group thinks that the airline world revolves around them, and them only.
Well that's one way to look at it. But that's not what I said. During bankruptcy we took it in the shorts because we had no choice. No one claimed that the pilots had any say. But now, as in 2001, we are in contract negotiations and have applied for mediation. That means it is only a matter of time before we are legally allowed to strike. Anything UAL management does at this point will have to take that into consideration. It's all about leverage. In 2001 we had the big hammer. During bankruptcy the pilots had nothing but strong language. Now we have some leverage again.

I agree that all the employee groups have some degree of persuasion. And at UAL, interestingly enough, they are in contract negotiations with ALL the labor groups at one time. (Go figure.) The reason Pilots have more leverage than other groups is due to the nature of our job. Even if pilots are replaced, it takes up to 6 months time to train them on equipment and have them certified under UAL's training program. (A US AIr, or Jet blue, or Spirit, or whoever pilot for example who is licensed to fly an A320 can't simply strap on a United jet and go fly. It doesn't work that way.) There is simply too much ramp up time. Many employee groups could be replaced in days or weeks. Not the pilots. Do you think any airline out there can survive a strike of 6 months while they get pilots trained? It has nothing to do with education, position, responsibility, or ego. It is what it is.
 
Well that's one way to look at it. But that's not what I said. During bankruptcy we took it in the shorts because we had no choice. No one claimed that the pilots had any say. But now, as in 2001, we are in contract negotiations and have applied for mediation. That means it is only a matter of time before we are legally allowed to strike. Anything UAL management does at this point will have to take that into consideration. It's all about leverage. In 2001 we had the big hammer. During bankruptcy the pilots had nothing but strong language. Now we have some leverage again.

I agree that all the employee groups have some degree of persuasion. And at UAL, interestingly enough, they are in contract negotiations with ALL the labor groups at one time. (Go figure.) The reason Pilots have more leverage than other groups is due to the nature of our job. Even if pilots are replaced, it takes up to 6 months time to train them on equipment and have them certified under UAL's training program. (A US AIr, or Jet blue, or Spirit, or whoever pilot for example who is licensed to fly an A320 can't simply strap on a United jet and go fly. It doesn't work that way.) There is simply too much ramp up time. Many employee groups could be replaced in days or weeks. Not the pilots. Do you think any airline out there can survive a strike of 6 months while they get pilots trained? It has nothing to do with education, position, responsibility, or ego. It is what it is.

jetz

I think UAL needs a merger, as well as new management. Otherwise, you are no longer in the same tier as Delta. If it is to be CO then it will happen. If it is not going to happen, then USAirways is the only player left which will provide UAL with the required "heft" it needs.

I also don't think UAL's relationship with CO is in any way damaged or stressed in the event of a merger with LCC.

In fact, a merger with us could very well be the first act in a two or three act play - CO included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Piedmont1984 is probably spot on. It seems like many in the media and here believe that CO is being left out in the cold while US and UA huddle around the fire clinking mugs. IMO CO is completely aware of what their "star sisters" are doing with more of a plan for the "new" UA and CO down the road. It sure would make the Star FAR superior to Skyteam. Not that Star isn't already.
 
The one thing that US's flying out of PHL has done is to prove there is a solid and profitable international O&D market - something that should entice international carriers to enter - if US downsizes/leaves.

I agree 100%. Back in the early 90s, when US was participating in the BA wet lease, US had no London service as a condition of the wet lease deal. BA was operating 2 daily 747s with full loads. At that time, it was BA's most profitable North American route. There's money to be made in The City of Brotherly Love.
 
A USAirways and United merger, with Doug Parker in charge:

More employees to screw over,

more assets to leverage,

more passengers to piss off........then look for another merger.


This management team are like locust, they consume all they can, then move on from the devastation.
 
DO you think CO would MERGE with US and LET UA (die?)

this is what I think:

co merge with us and the following hub will be keep:

IAH-CO MASTER HUB

EWR-CO GATEWAY FOR INTL FLT to Europe and ASIA

CLT-DOMESTIC HUB (LIKE DL-KEEP LGA FOR DOMESTIC HUB AND JFK INTERNATIONAL---all International flight MOVE TO IAH or EWR/PHX)

PHX-US NEW MASTER WEST HUB and flight to ASIA's (HKG,NRT,SGN,SYD,BKK,SIN,TPE,ICN....(buying these route from UA)

Focus City

PHL-DOWNGRADE TO FOCUS CITY with Some international Services (CDG/LHR/AMS/FRA)

BOS-DOWNGRADE TO DESTINATION Like PIT

CLE-DOWNGRADE to Focus City keep flight to LAS/LAX/SAN/SFO

*****i think CO would make a perfect match for US not UAL********CO/US merge are much more sense....

regard about UA---let them DIE
 
Status
Not open for further replies.