J Kat,
thanks for your words and I do believe your assessment is accurate... unfortunately, lots of people here have grown accustomed to shooting the messenger even if they are right. I stand with you in saying that AA knows what it needs to do and their problems will not be totally solved by a bunch of new airplanes... although getting rid of a lot of older planes will allow AA to dramatically cut costs - and jobs too.
.
As for what I think US mgmt should do... I have long said that I think from a finance/strategic standpoint that US execs are doing about as good as they can w/ the hand they have been dealt. The real question is why they didn't figure out how to turn the company around a whole lot earlier before they gave up so many key parts of their network. It really is quite amazing that US couldn't figure out how to use their LGA slots any better... at the very least it is hard to believe that they didn't realize that when you quit flying LGA-Florida, they would no longer be considered a viable competitor given that other carriers fly to Florida and have a whole lot of other routes as well.
.
I think US made a mistake by walking away from PIT... it wasn't the biggest market but it played a key role in US' network and without it, US now is missing a huge part of its network. Perhaps they could not have reduced the costs for operating in that new terminal enough to make a difference in BK but I would bet the airport would gladly sign a new agreement for a smaller lease that would allow US to grow in PIT. Or they could go to CLE if UA walks away from that hub... or other hubs that have been downsized... assuming the current dominant carrier decides not to fight them... not exactly a given. Rebuilding another hub somewhere in the midwest would be a whole lot less costly than acquiring another carrier and would solve much of what US needs in its domestic network.
.
US has done a good job of focusing its transatlantic network on Star hubs and they can continue to do a lot more both in Europe and elsewhere, even without ATI.
There is alot that US could fly to/from Latin America from its PHX and CLT hubs, many of which do not necessarily require widebodies.
US has to develop a presence in Asia; PHX-NRT is not the ideal route to start a presence in Asia but it can work. PHL- Asia also has potential
.
US biggest need is to deliver a product that is at least on par or superior to its peers... and that obviously comes from paying and treating people a whole lot better than the way they are treated now. US mgmt needs to understand that in a service business your employees will treat your customers only as good as the employees are treated. And US also needs to understand that a relatively small investment in product can go a long ways to improving the perception of the product overall.
.
I fully expect that US will continue to push for consolidation that would benefit US - and that is natural. But too many people think that US will get what it wants because they are the smallest... it is precisely because US has bigger competitors that they have to figure out how to make what they have work... and AA/US will still be smaller than DL or UA. If DL or UA take actions to block whatever benefit US/AA might get from a merger then whatever benefit US/AA might get is muted.
US needs to figure out how to make what it has work and needs to quit trying, among other things, to raid other carriers' hubs w/ below market pricing. There are a number of carriers that used that strategy, HP and TW included, and everyone of them ultimately failed or were acquired by other carriers.... and perhaps that is part of US mgmt's desire. But DL and UA - who are most able capable to buy out US - would rather slowly get what they can from US and slowly bleed it to death. AA and its creditors WON'T do a deal with US unless it delivers more value to them than AA reorganizing on its own.... given the number of tools AA has at its disposal, it is very unlikely to believe that will happen.
.
If I were a US employee, I would make sure I kept as much money on hand as possible, are prepared to make a career change as rapidly as possible, and realize that the future long term is not conducive to employment stability... and then be pleasantly surprised if anything better than any of that happens.
FWAAA and NYC,
If the US economy started growing again there might be some chance of increasing demand at a pace that would offset the drop in demand that will come from higher fares that will be necessary to match the increase in fuel - and the price will continue to rise because OPEC will keep pushing prices up as long as they can keep selling fuel at higher prices.
Given that the US domestic market is pretty close to fully saturated and there is little potential for increased stimulation by low fare carriers (whose model increasingly doesn't work at current fuel prices - let alone what we might see in the future), then the only real changes in the industry will be for carriers to grow where growth is still occurring - such as to/from developing economies - and by acquiring capacity from other carriers - whether that be through mergers or asset acquisitions such as the slot swap which will result in rearranging the local NYC and WAS markets (or has the potential to do so if the slots are properly used).
Size is always an asset in a commodity business which the airline industry largely is... even though AA has tried to claim that size doesn't matter, the fact is that DL and UA have managed to obtain business that AA once held as a result of their mergers.
US is a classic example of a carrier that has not managed to differentiate itself and has unsuccessfully competed against larger airlines.
.
DL and UA both understand that if further consoldiation or failures happen in the industry, they will be best prepared to compete with their nationwide and worldwide networks.
