Amr Probably Not Interested In Us Shuttle

FlyingHippie

Senior
Jan 27, 2003
283
0
Posted on Sat, Jan. 10, 2004

American probably not interested in rival's shuttle
By Trebor Banstetter
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

FORT WORTH - In 2001, American Airlines was poised to pay $1.5 billion for much of US Airways' East Coast shuttle service, which dominates business travel between Boston, New York and Washington, D.C.

The acquisition, which then-Chief Executive Don Carty called a "key strategic asset," fell apart. But three years later, as US Airways once again shops its Northeast shuttle, American is unlikely to repeat its attempt to buy the operation, a longtime industry analyst said Friday.

"I don't believe that American Airlines would be a significant bidder for the shuttle," said Julius Maldutis, president of the consulting firm Aviation Dynamics in New York. "American's focus is probably on internal expansion rather than going the acquisition route."

Speculation about the sale of some of US Airways' most valuable assets began this week when The New York Times reported that the carrier was at risk of defaulting on a $900 million government-backed loan. Later in the week, US Airways Chairman David Bronner told several news organizations that the airline had hired investment bank Morgan Stanley to identify potential buyers before a March meeting with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, which oversees airline loans.

Bronner said the carrier is considering selling its East Coast shuttle, some of its regional operations and a major hub, such as Charlotte, N.C.; Pittsburgh; or Philadelphia, to raise cash.

When the shuttle was last on the market, American was flush with cash from the booming economy and looking to expand. It coveted the shuttle because of its gates and takeoff and landing slots at congested Northeast airports. But its deal collapsed when the Transportation Department blocked United Airlines' bid to buy the remaining portions of US Airways.

Since then, American's financial state has changed dramatically. The airline has lost more than $6 billion over the past three years and was nearly forced to file for bankruptcy last year.

A costly acquisition doesn't fit well with the airline's turnaround plan, which emphasizes cost-cutting, simplifying operations and boosting efficiency, industry observers said.

Although he wouldn't comment specifically on US Airways' shuttle, spokesman Roger Frizzell said American will examine strategic opportunities that arise.

And some industry experts said American might make a play for the shuttle if it felt forced by a competitor -- primarily Delta, which also operates a Northeast business shuttle.

But sources close to the airline said that although it's monitoring developments, American isn't in negotiations with US Airways. And they say the threat to sell the shuttle might be a negotiating tactic to squeeze more concessions from US Airways' employees.

"At this point, it's hard to even know how serious this is," one industry source said.

Factors that make the shuttle less attractive for American today include:

• The price tag. Although American was willing to spend $1.5 billion for about half of the shuttle's assets in 2001, the purchase today could significantly deplete the carrier's cash cushion, which stood at about $3.3 billion at the end of the third quarter.

Under current loan agreements, American could be forced into bankruptcy if its cash level drops below $1 billion.

American's debt load is already at record levels, reaching about $23 billion, including aircraft leases, as the carrier borrowed money to subsidize losses.

"I don't know where American would get the money to spend on this," said David Ryter of the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at American Eagle, the carrier's regional affiliate.

• The complexity. American has been meticulously reshaping its route structure, slashing unprofitable routes and boosting service in moneymaking markets -- including launching a smaller business shuttle on the East Coast using regional jets.

Integrating a large piece of US Airways' operation into American's new structure could be difficult and costly, Maldutis said.

"American faces a lot of challenges right now," he said. "Why undertake another headache?"

• The airplanes. US Airways operates many of the shuttle flights with Airbus A319 aircraft, a type American does not have in its fleet.

American has been working to reduce the number of different airplanes in its fleet, to cut training and maintenance costs.

"American has spent the last two years trying to remove fleet types," Ryter said. "I can't imagine them picking up a new one."

• The employees. American's last two airline acquisitions -- TWA and Reno Air -- resulted in labor headaches, as the airline and labor leaders battled over how to integrate the new workers into American's unions.

American executives are unlikely to want a labor struggle as they work to repair relations with employees after last year's bitter fight over concessions.

Still, industry observers cautioned that it's hard to rule out any possibility in the turbulent, highly competitive environment.

"There's no question that it's a valuable asset," Maldutis said. "I just have a lot of doubts that American would be very interested right now."
 
I would love to know what Morgan Stanley's cut is going to be in this "Non-Event" ??

I wonder if this is a straight commision deal...or a retainer that the Employees' will have to subsidize with proposed Concessionary Funding regardless of the actual outcome of this mess?

Does anyone have any facts on this?....are we paying yet another consultant or lawyer for something that will net nothing but discord and more red ink for our floundering company ???? :shock:
 
AOG-N-IT said:
Does anyone have any facts on this?....are we paying yet another consultant or lawyer for something that will net nothing but discord and more red ink for our floundering company ???? :shock:
The company vendors out work (skycaps/maint outsourcing/sabre/etc) and drops the numbers in the ranks so who are we dropping at CCY when they contract out on the financial side of things? Is someone being let go or are these "extra" people being hired to do a job that someone at the company should be handling, meanwhile those people are still around? Just seems like if we are having to get outside help on certain things, why have our own people still around? This isnt the way its handled in the field. Just curious. :p
 
It makes no sense to have M&A experts on staff when such activity is typically sporadic and "one time" in nature. Consulting companies exist for a reason. Folks from Morgan Stanley working on this do this type of work for a living, so they know precisely what to do and how to go about doing it. It would cost US lots more in the long term to hire such experience and keep them on staff. Plus, having outside folks do this limits some of the emotion insiders might inject into the process. Now, I know I'll get slammed saying that consultants are the ones who frequently get companies into jams. Unfortunately, people only tend to hear when consultants screw up, not when they do things that really add value.
 
The article is correct in stating that today AMR would not want the Shuttle, per se. However, AMR very much would like to have the landing slots at LGA and DCA that the Shuttle currently holds. They have plenty of people and planes, they just don't have the "permission" to push any more flights through those two airports. After all, they've applied to be given that one new DCA-LAX slot that is being awarded.
 
PineyBob said:
AOG-N-IT said:
I would love to know what Morgan Stanley's cut is going to be in this "Non-Event" ??

I wonder if this is a straight commision deal...or a retainer that the Employees' will have to subsidize with proposed Concessionary Funding regardless of the actual outcome of this mess?

Does anyone have any facts on this?....are we paying yet another consultant or lawyer for something that will net nothing but discord and more red ink for our floundering company ???? :shock:
It's probably a billable hour deal as opposed to a fixed fee. Actually knowing that would tell all of us how serious they are in selling assets.
Well Piney Bob,

After reading Dave Siegels comments in the CLT observer today...I'm more inclined to believe that Bronners ramblings is more of a hook to try to get the unions to the table than anything else...yet the fact remains that U is spending tons of money on nothing that contributes to actual revenued operations. Seigel sounded like a cat in the litter box covering up another kitty's manure to me.

Yes the unions need to sit down with Siegel to get this so called plan out in the open...and NO the unions do not need to roll in with OUR wallets open just to listen to what Seigel has to say.

If work rule changes can get it done?...if the headcount can remain status quo until better times allow the return of people to our ranks ?...I say lets listen with great earnest.

If Seigel starts off with wage , benefit and headcount reductions ad nauseum of more doom and gloom...then it's time for all the labor unions to tell them point blank to go pound sand with a chisle as PITbull would say.

The only reason I'm making that last comment is this....it would clearly show that their plan has no wiggle in it to make it work...becasue it means they are firmly in a status quo mindset themselves.

U cannot continue to do what it has always done , least of all with fewer than we have at present. I shudder to think what 60 added acft would do beyond greasing a few ALPA members for awhile. The rest know exactly how they would fall in the pecking order..and fall would certainly be the operative term.

To coin an old phrase "If you always do what you've always done...what you will get is what is what you've always gotten"...and in our particular case it won't be for much longer.
 
And didnt that also include the entire MD80 and B757 (F100) fleet as well as Shuttle assets? If I recall correctly, AA announced the purchase of TWA and some assets from US on the same day as both a competitive response to UA-US and to help it pass.