Hidden Agenda?

orangeman

Advanced
Oct 5, 2003
105
0
Scottsdale, AZ.
Visit site
I haven't heard this opinion yet. Comments? :unsure:

America West foolishly bets the farm
As P.T. Barnum allegedly once said: "There is a sucker born every minute." And so it is with America West Airlines and several other companies that have decided to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into twice-bankrupt US Airways.
America West is betting the farm on this merger bid for US Airways. The Arizona-based airline has decided to commit suicide; that's the only explanation I can fathom. CEO Doug Parker and his staff must have stayed out in that Arizona sun too long if they think they can turn around an airline that lost more than $600 million in 2004 and another $190 million in the first quarter of 2005 despite billions of dollars in cost reductions and federally backed loans.

This proposed merger is fraught with problems. For starters there is a clash of cultures old and new. Launched in 1983, America West is a relative newcomer to the industry: US Airways has been around much longer. There is sure to be bad blood with many US Airways employees having far more seniority than those at America West.

Then there is the clash of culture when east meets west. Both carriers are primarily regional airlines serving opposite coasts. There is very little overlap in the airlines' route structures. This could be a good thing in a merger, and many believe the combination will create a national network that will rival the big guys. But one essential piece is missing: Each carrier lacks a major hub in the heart of the country.


US Airways serves many smaller cities along the Eastern Seaboard and America West's routes are concentrated in the Southwest. America West's hubs in Las Vegas and Phoenix are located far west and US Airways' hubs in Philadelphia and Charlotte are located far east. Having one more centrally located hub in Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Minneapolis or St. Louis could change the entire picture. But these hubs are spoken for and other airlines are already entrenched.

Both airlines already tried and failed to manage operations on the opposite coast. America West pulled down its unprofitable Columbus, Ohio, hub in 2003. US Airways abandoned an extensive West Coast route network after the carrier acquired PSA (a regional airline based in California) in the late 1980s. It's difficult to operate a bicoastal airline when there isn't much in the middle.

There is also a clash of cost structures. Now in its second bankruptcy, US Airways' survival is a long shot. The carrier is losing more than $2 million per day and its cost-per-seat mile is still more than 10 cents when low cost competitors are averaging 7 to 8 cents per seat mile. With all of the cash infusions, employee concessions and relief from creditors, US Airways will continue to lose money if it emerges from bankruptcy.

Having survived one bankruptcy from 1991-1994 and narrowly avoiding another in 2001 thanks to a federally backed loan of $429 million, America West has reduced its cost per seat mile to less than 8 cents. This allows the carrier to successfully compete in the Southwestern USA, an area dominated by low-cost airlines since deregulation. With a competitive cost structure, America West can afford to match Southwest Airlines prices, in spite of soaring fuel costs.

Discrepancy in airline size creates another clash. America West managed to turn a profit of $50 million in the last quarter. But this would not offset the enormous losses incurred by US Airways. The combined airline would not be a low-cost carrier and would still have lost approximately $140 million in the same period if the carriers merged.

Though the new airline may raise up to $2 billion in cash to begin operations, the combined carrier will still carry many more billions of dollars in debt and it won't take long to burn through the rest of that cash when they are currently losing almost $1 billion each year.

With the price of fuel more than 50% higher than at this time last year and no relief in sight, I cannot see how America West can possibly turn US Airways around. America West trying to save US Airways is like a rowboat trying to save the Titanic. Both will go under.

Amid all the doom and gloom there is some possible good news for US Airways customers…at least in the short term. The merger could breathe new life into the dying carrier. With the help of America West and other investors, US Airways could be rescued temporarily from liquidation. The infusion of cash from America West could keep the sinking ship afloat for a while longer.

If you are a member of America West's frequent-flier program, there is good news as long as the carrier survives this merger. Your miles will most likely be usable on any Star Alliance carrier, such as Lufthansa, SAS or Singapore Airlines. You will also be able fly to such US Airways destinations as Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach and many European and Caribbean ports of call.

Of course, America West could have another agenda for US Airways – liquidation. If America West gained control of the failing airline for a mere $100 million and then sold off the assets piece by piece, they could offload debt and eliminate unprofitable routes and duplicate resources. America West could essentially "cherry pick" the most profitable routes and assets, such as the shuttle or some international routes.

American Airlines deployed a similar strategy, acquiring dying TWA several years ago in a "fire sale" only to unload most of the assets and furlough most employees. Sadly, it's a lot easier to liquidate than integrate. Yes, it's nasty business, but perhaps a more rational explanation for America West's perplexing interest.

Oddly enough, the liquidation of US Airways is the one scenario in this merger that could save America West. But integration or liquidation, US Airways' fate is sealed. The carrier will cease to exist in the long term whether the merger goes through or not.
 
orangeman said:
I haven't heard this opinion yet. Comments? :unsure:



Of course, America West could have another agenda for US Airways – liquidation. If America West gained control of the failing airline for a mere $100 million and then sold off the assets piece by piece, they could offload debt and eliminate unprofitable routes and duplicate resources. America West could essentially "cherry pick" the most profitable routes and assets, such as the shuttle or some international routes.

[post="272443"][/post]​

This scenario makes a lot of sense. When it comes right down to it, the only assets really worth much at U are the slots at DCA and LGA. The rest of it could be tossed without much notice. International presence is paltry at best. The few flights U operates to Europe wouldn't be missed as other much larger carriers would easily fill the void. And the article was spot on regarding costs. U's CASM is still north of 10 cents. The only way I can see this thing surviving and flurishing is through a lot of cuts coming on the U side of the house.

Cheers,
Z
 
Cherry picking? now that could get real interesting for the U folks. You hit a nerve that i think AWA may /will pursue. look out U employees here comes the axe.

:unsure:
 
Interesting. The writer (David Grossman) is a former marketing executive with the old USAir. His columns tend to be 'wimpy' when it comes to airlines. I suggest it is USA TODAY that has the motive. My old lady is a journalist; and has worked with USA TODAY in the past on certain columns and web related content. She says she would not put it past USA TODAY telling Grossman to write the type of column they desired. You know "Point - Counter Point" from SNL aka "Jane you ignorant slut." Controversy sells. Negativity sells. She calls it 'Pitbull journalism' (no reflection on PITBULL on the US board ;) ) If you want fair and balanced airline reporting stick to the Wall Street Journal - this is coming from somebody that has worked with these papers. The WSJ has a long history of accuracy and integrity. They have numerous fact-checkers making sure what they print is indeed accurate. Don't waste 50 cents on USA TODAY - they do not have the best integrity in reporting.
 
ZMAN777 said:
This scenario makes a lot of sense. When it comes right down to it, the only assets really worth much at U are the slots at DCA and LGA. The rest of it could be tossed without much notice. International presence is paltry at best.

Obviously you aren't familiar with the U network. U serves 12 cities in Europe with more planned, and over 30 in the Caribbean. Our CLT and PHL presence is powerful. The Star Alliance wants us in JFK (part of the reason for the AWA deal). There's so much you just don't know. Do your homework, for you get a D- on this report.
 
phasersonstun2 said:
ZMAN777 said:
This scenario makes a lot of sense. When it comes right down to it, the only assets really worth much at U are the slots at DCA and LGA. The rest of it could be tossed without much notice. International presence is paltry at best.

Obviously you aren't familiar with the U network. U serves 12 cities in Europe with more planned, and over 30 in the Caribbean. Our CLT and PHL presence is powerful. The Star Alliance wants us in JFK (part of the reason for the AWA deal). There's so much you just don't know. Do your homework, for you get a D- on this report.
[post="272572"][/post]​

phasersonstun2, ZMAN777 is another UAL soothsayer. Between the AA, UAL, LUV, and DAL employees you can tell this merger is annoying the heck out of them.
 
phasersonstun2 said:
ZMAN777 said:
Obviously you aren't familiar with the U network. U serves 12 cities in Europe with more planned, and over 30 in the Caribbean. Our CLT and PHL presence is powerful. The Star Alliance wants us in JFK (part of the reason for the AWA deal). There's so much you just don't know. Do your homework, for you get a D- on this report.

[post="272572"][/post]​


Okay, now don't get your knickers all in a twist. What I was referring to was the TOTAL international operation. When compared to the largest carriers the international routes the combined company would operate are fairly few in number. Most would contend that Caribbean routes are little more than domestic vacation destinations, not exactly the high-end revenue routes most covet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing your "new" airline or the employees. Actually I really hope you guys make a good go of it, Star could use a stronger U. Just trying to interject a bit of objectivity to this thread.

Cheers,
Z
 
EyeInTheSky said:
phasersonstun2, ZMAN777 is another UAL soothsayer. Between the AA, UAL, LUV, and DAL employees you can tell this merger is annoying the heck out of them.
[post="272576"][/post]​

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AA could'nt give a "$hit" about what US and HP are up to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NH/BB's
 
The Caribbean network is high yield markets, not low yield. U is currently number two in the Caribbean, behind AA. It seems a new destination to the Caribbean or the area is added every month or so. 12 European destinations and growing (U just started Barcelona); who else flys to that many European destinations? AA, UAL, DAL, who else? U is worth a lot or it would have been allowed to die along time ago.
 
Yeah.. Southwest is really upset.. With a net worth approaching 16 billion dollars, 1.5 billion in cash in the bank and ownership of 75% of its fleet they are scared silly of this merger.

DAL.. Yeah they probably wish US was dead.. UAL, they don't have a clue and AA could care less.

Dont think for one min that Southwest is going to sit back and just watch what happens.. They have plenty of tools in their tool box to attack all of this with. Don't be suprised to see Southwest "Insert" themselves into CLT very soon and start a major battle in PHX and PHL against its new enemy in the skies!!


EyeInTheSky said:
phasersonstun2, ZMAN777 is another UAL soothsayer. Between the AA, UAL, LUV, and DAL employees you can tell this merger is annoying the heck out of them.
[post="272576"][/post]​
 
autofixer said:
The Caribbean network is high yield markets, not low yield. U is currently number two in the Caribbean, behind AA. It seems a new destination to the Caribbean or the area is added every month or so. 12 European destinations and growing (U just started Barcelona); who else flys to that many European destinations? AA, UAL, DAL, who else? U is worth a lot or it would have been allowed to die along time ago.
[post="273185"][/post]​

Well... Since you asked, I did a little research, and here is what I found. The following is how many European cities each North American carrier flies to on its own metal (i.e., alliances excluded):

AA: 11 European cities (12 airports - both LHR and LGW)
AC: 7 European cities (8 if you count TLV)
CO: 21 European cities (23 including TLV and Delhi, i.e. transatlantic)
DL: 20 European cities (21 including Mumbai)
NW: 5 European cities
UA: 7 European cities
US: 13 European cities

Frankly, I am surprised at how US Airways compares. I am guessing that AA flies more total flights than US, but not to more destinations.
 
The amount of "destinations" appear irrelevent. The important context is RPKs/ and REVENUE generated. Who cares if you fly to 100 destinations in Europe when your RPKs are tiny and your revenue is the same. Example : Northwest serves 5 European capitols YOY 2004 AA (ATLANTIC only) 16,748,693 Ual (ATLANTIC only) 15,374,708
DAL (Atlantic only) 18,930,448
Cal (Atlantic only)13,436,594 NWA (Atlantic only) 10,457,621
US Airways (does not give divisional breakdown) total International* 750,029

2004 International Ranking RPM: #1 AA/Ual tied roughly 41 million , #2 NWA 30.5 million, #3 Cal 27 million, #4 Dal 24.9 million, #5 U 750,029 thousand.
 
Zman777 said:
Okay, now don't get your knickers all in a twist. What I was referring to was the TOTAL international operation. When compared to the largest carriers the international routes the combined company would operate are fairly few in number. Most would contend that Caribbean routes are little more than domestic vacation destinations, not exactly the high-end revenue routes most covet.


autofixer said:
The Caribbean network is high yield markets, not low yield. U is currently number two in the Caribbean, behind AA. It seems a new destination to the Caribbean or the area is added every month or so. 12 European destinations and growing (U just started Barcelona); who else flys to that many European destinations? AA, UAL, DAL, who else? U is worth a lot or it would have been allowed to die along time ago.

Sure, there are a few Caribbean markets with decent yields, but at the end of the day, the bulk of the Caribbean markets are tourism driven like Hawaii or Mexico. Unlike Mexico, it has safe drinking water, and unlike Hawaii, there are casinos in most resorts.

As North by Northwest said, the number of destinations is totally irrelevant as a performance metric. AA may only operate to 13 cities, but has 39 flights a day. London alone accounts for 19 of those departures. I'll wager that those 19 departures from LHR and LGW bring in a far higher yield than all of US's or UA's destinations combined. Perhaps an unfair comparison, since UA has outsourced so much of its Europe flying to LH, SK, and BD...

Zman777 said:
Okay, now don't get your knickers all in a twist. What I was referring to was the TOTAL international operation. When compared to the largest carriers the international routes the combined company would operate are fairly few in number.

There's a lot more to the world than North America-Europe....

In addition to Europe, AA has another 54 destinations with mainline service, plus another dozen or so served by Eagle. Overall, CO serves the most international destinations, mainly because they have a huge RJ presence in Mexico, plus they have another dozen or so destinations served via CO Micronesia.