How Soon Before The Merger?

[mweiss]

Why not have a HP/US merger?

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, assuming, of course, that it's not like the Colodny merger with PSA. Of course, there's no evidence that it would be like PSA.

The Boeing fleet would be compatible (though I don't know if the two airlines have the same exit configuration). The Airbus narrows, however, are not. HP has Rolls engines, while US has the CFMs. Granted, this isn't a huge issue, but it's not quite a perfect match.

Drop the LAS hub.

I wouldn't do that. LAS makes good use of night flights, increasing aircraft utilization. It's one of the few places in the country where night flying pax aren't that hard to find.

Resume LAX-SFO, and also begin LAX-SLC/DEN/FLL/MCO/DFW/SEA.

LAX-SFO is a highly competitive market, served directly by UA and AS, and indirectly by AA and WN. All four of those airlines offer connections at both ends of the route, which gives them a demand advantage over a newcomer. The LAX focus city is fine, but this route would be a money-loser for HP. Nearly the same thing could be said for DEN, SEA, and DFW.

FLL and MCO are interesting possibilities, however. WN doesn't serve those cities nonstop from LAX yet.

It would also be prudent to resume Express service, connecting LAX to SAN, SNA, SMF, SJC, RNO, etc.

And go head-to-head against UA, AA, and WN in another set of highly competitive markets? I don't think so.

open LAX-NRT/HKG

Leaving aside the restrictions on these markets, these would be rough to pull off. The competition is pretty fierce here, too.

Begin LAX-HNL/KOA

See SFO/SEA/DEN/DFW/HKG/NRT....

Use the B733/734 A/C as the heart of the hub & spoke operations, running the typical JAX-CLT-CMH flights. However, increase the stage length of these flights.

That hardly seems necessary. Use these for the shorter runs, perhaps some of the point-to-point service. If you feel compelled to move them back and forth across the country, go from PHL to PHX via somewhere in the middle, but I think you're better off isolating the hubs if you really want to keep them around as hubs.

I agree with pretty much everything else you suggested, though.

 

[700UW]

HP's airbus have IAE Engines, Rolls does not make an engine for the A320 family.

The multinational company IAE International Aero Engines AG manages the development, the production and the aftermarket services of the V2500 aero engine family. The V2500 engines produce between 22,000 and 33,000 lbs of thrust required by 150-seat passenger aircraft, the fastest growing market sector in the aviation industry.

Founded in 1983 IAE's shareholder comprise Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, the Japanese Aero Engines Corporation and MTU Aero Engines, four of the world's finest aero engine manufacturers representing four countries on three continents.

Each IAE partner contributes an individual module to the V2500 engine. Pratt & Whitney produces the combustor and high-pressure turbine, Rolls-Royce the high-pressure compressor, JAEC the fan and low-pressure compressor and MTU the low-pressure turbine. Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce assemble and test the engines at their respective facilities in Connecticut, USA and Derby, UK. While IAE's headquarters are located in East Hartford, Connecticut, the engineering group is based in Derby, UK. 52 field offices support IAE's customers world-wide.

The IAE V2500 engine powers the Airbus A319, A320 and A321, the Airbus Corporate Jetliner and the Boeing MD-90 aircraft.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

I think such an US/HP scenario becomes more interesting in light of a speculative drastically restructured UAL and Star Alliance N.A. So, you wouldn't be competing with UAL in the western U.S. or across the Pacific.... one way or another. Reducing or eliminating LAS would then only be to focus on LAX and/or SFO.

 

[mweiss]

HP's airbus have IAE Engines, Rolls does not make an engine for the A320 family.

[post="242831"][/post]​

I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. I was going from memory (a bad thing to do at times).

 

[ITRADE]

As I mentioned in the other posts, US and HP now have total airframe commonality except for the issue of HP's 320s having IAE engines and US's having CFM56s.

The 737s are the same (exactly); the '57s are the same (exactly). There are some differences in seating config.

HP's 37s have 2 rows of first; US has 3.
HP's 37s have a bit less pitch and place the exit row at row 11 whereas USs exit is Row 10.

HP's 319s squeeze in one more coach row that US. Both have 12F.
HP's 319s and US's exit row is row 9.

HP's 320s are F12 whereas US's are F16. This pushes HPs exit row numbers back one row in comparison to US.

HPs 757s are F14 whereas USs are F8. On the other hand, both US and HP feature two coach cabins, and have almost the same number of seats in the second cabin except for an added galley position on the HP 57s.

 

[tug_slug]

The 737s are the same (exactly); the '57s are the same (exactly). There are some differences in seating config.

HP's 37s have 2 rows of first; US has 3.
HP's 37s have a bit less pitch and place the exit row at row 11 whereas USs exit is Row 10.

HP's 319s squeeze in one more coach row that US. Both have 12F.
HP's 319s and US's exit row is row 9.

[post="242873"][/post]​

Both airlines have lost a substantial amount of money and neither one can keep an employee on the payroll for an extended period of time due to low pay and little or no benefits. Yup ... sounds like a perfect match to me:blink:

 

[Fly]

I think such an US/HP scenario becomes more interesting in light of a speculative drastically restructured UAL and Star Alliance N.A.  So, you wouldn't be competing with UAL in the western U.S.  or across the Pacific.... one way or another.  Reducing or eliminating LAS would then only be to focus on LAX and/or SFO.

[post="242844"][/post]​

United has never been strong on the east coast. So why would they restructure themselves right out of the places they are strong? IMHO, if United restructures, it's away from the East Coast, not West.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

I understand. I speculate reluctantly. I don't mean to say that U and HP should replace UAL, but rather that U/HP/UA could make merger or code or star membership work in the west with some adjustments by some or all of the participants. Perhaps PHX, LAS, LAX, SFO and DIA as currently operating would not be optimum, but a large presence in all those markets structure differently could be optimum and perhaps not run afoul of the Feds. Although gate and operational efficiencies would be nice to have although they would likely not be huge. Perhaps U/HP/UA could consolidate into UAL facilites at LAX, DIA and SFO, while all three could consolidate into HP facilities at LAS and PHX. Routes flown may be adjusted to focus on higher revenue generating markets with some amount of rationalization. Considering the NW/CO/DL codeshares and proximal hubs, operational efficiencies might not be worth the headaches.

 

[ISP]

There's nothing inherently wrong with it, assuming, of course, that it's not like the Colodny merger with PSA. Of course, there's no evidence that it would be like PSA.

The Boeing fleet would be compatible (though I don't know if the two airlines have the same exit configuration). The Airbus narrows, however, are not. HP has Rolls engines, while US has the CFMs. Granted, this isn't a huge issue, but it's not quite a perfect match.
I wouldn't do that. LAS makes good use of night flights, increasing aircraft utilization. It's one of the few places in the country where night flying pax aren't that hard to find.
LAX-SFO is a highly competitive market, served directly by UA and AS, and indirectly by AA and WN. All four of those airlines offer connections at both ends of the route, which gives them a demand advantage over a newcomer. The LAX focus city is fine, but this route would be a money-loser for HP. Nearly the same thing could be said for DEN, SEA, and DFW.

FLL and MCO are interesting possibilities, however. WN doesn't serve those cities nonstop from LAX yet.
And go head-to-head against UA, AA, and WN in another set of highly competitive markets? I don't think so.

Leaving aside the restrictions on these markets, these would be rough to pull off. The competition is pretty fierce here, too.

See SFO/SEA/DEN/DFW/HKG/NRT....

That hardly seems necessary. Use these for the shorter runs, perhaps some of the point-to-point service. If you feel compelled to move them back and forth across the country, go from PHL to PHX via somewhere in the middle, but I think you're better off isolating the hubs if you really want to keep them around as hubs.

I agree with pretty much everything else you suggested, though.

[post="242817"][/post]​

Although all highly competitive markets, resuming services like West Coast Express is simply for feeder purposes, not for O&D. People in SMF would have the option to fly SMf-LAX-HNL on US metal.

 

[mweiss]

Although all highly competitive markets, resuming services like West Coast Express is simply for feeder purposes, not for O&D. People in SMF would have the option to fly SMf-LAX-HNL on US metal.

[post="242987"][/post]​

Even that model is pretty well saturated out west. AA and UA both serve that very route.

Bottom line, west coast is established and stable. Moving in will cause it to get ugly fast...and not generate profits.

 

[ISP]

HP is also firmly entrenched on the west coast. The topic discussed that company being merged into US. Would you like to see US pick up and run again like usual?

 

[funguy2]

A couple of replies to the idea of US/HP merger...

The primary difference between AL/PS and US/HP is this... HP and US serve (or could) a number of points in the middle of the country. A merged US/HP would offer a comprehensive nationwide network (instead of just 1/2 the country) to all of the cities between PHX and CLT... like DFW, IAH, MCI, ORD, MKE, MSP, etc, etc, etc. Furthermore, you would presumably use A319's to connect smaller cities which either airline would never fly on its own, but together makes sense. For example, maybe DAY-PHX makes sense given US's historically large presence is DAY. Maybe TUS-CLT makes sense given HP's "home-state" advantage. This was not the case with AL/PS.

Don't drop LAS. Its a huge O&D Market, where HP serves more nonstop destinations than LUV (although fewer flights). LAS has very high appeal and increasing demand to/from Hawaii and across the Pacific. It would be a much better jumping off point for trans-pacific service than LAX for a merged HP/US. Even PHX would be better than LAX because the hub, infrastructure, etc, is already developed. LAX, in the meantime is virtually tapped out for now. Where would a merged US/HP drop 100-150 flight focus city/hub at LAX? Not to mention that there is already a great deal of service between LAX and the Pacific but very little, nonstop, from LAS or PHX.

Another reason to keep LAS: there is probably no other city in the world, in which you can profitably operate a hub/focus city, primarily in the middle of the night! However, due to its very unique tourist attractions and "culture", LAS is truly a city that doesn't sleep. (Not to mention how much better it is for the rampers to work at midnight in the summer heat rather than 2pm). And, obviously, running some airplanes all night long increases utilization and efficiency.

Also, between Hawaiian, Aloha, and other carriers, here are the airports on the west coast with nonstop service to Hawaii... SAN, SNA, LAX, BUR, SJC, OAK, SFO, SMF, PDX, SEA, and PHX. RNO has one-stop service to the islands on Aloha. So my guess is that these markets are already well served, so why develop a feeder market to serve them at LAX. Furthermore, US/HP could already offer from day 1 SMF-DFW, RNO-MCO, and SAN-CMH via PHX and LAS... Why duplicate this again at LAX, when you already have that feeder system developed at LAS/PHX? Furthermore, the real market for US/HP to Hawaii could be served via LAS or PHX by connecting the midwest/rockies/east coast to Hawaii, not California or other west coast cities which already have nonstop service.

While with two hubs so close to each other (like PIT and PHL) I would ordinarily say phase one out, I think this system works for HP... Make PHX the primary connecting hub (like CLT) and make LAS a rolling hub focused on local demand (like PHL).

Also, the two fastest growing cities in the USA: 1. LAS 2.PHX. A valuable reason to stay in both. Their growth leads to increased airline passengers, which would be a "natural" growth strategy for the major airlines in those markets.

Now having said all that... I agree with the comment that you are essentually putting together a BK airline and a financially weak airline. While AWA is not BK, and has made great progress since 9/11 & ATSB loans, they still have a lot of debt and a weak balance sheet. And, this merger, on the surface, still does little weed out any of US Airways' structural problems such as two fleets for every mission, PIT not completely "de-hubbed", lack of increased service created by more efficiently scheduling aircraft, etc. Lastly, the overlap with LUV would be huge. While LUV won't be flying to FAT or BGM, the major markets (like PHL-MCO and LAS-LAX) have a big LUV presence nationwide. With their strong cash and financial positions, they would still have the edge, for now.

Interesting thoughts though. And, this makes more sense now than ever before (with US BK and HP stock cheap, US has made progress on costs via labor concessions, fleets are more similar than 10 years ago, both use Mesa as a feeder, etc). But, just because it makes more sense now, doesn't make it a perfect fit.

 

[midnight cowboy]

About Time

It's about time somebody showed a set of nuts. 😎

 

[mweiss]

HP is also firmly entrenched on the west coast.

[post="243045"][/post]​

No, they're not. If you lived out west, you'd understand.

HP does well in Nevada and Arizona, but you will not see them serving people flying among destinations in the Pacific-touching states. That market belongs to UA, AS, WN, and AA.

Thus, a merged HP/US will not be serving those coastal markets, either.

That's not to say that the two airlines couldn't make decent music together. They can, particularly since they'd be able to address a pretty good sized part of the country. PHX makes a good hub for traffic to and from much of the desert southwest, and LAS has all of the advantages to which funguy2 alluded.

 

[delldude]

About Time

It's about time somebody showed a set of nuts. 😎

[post="243137"][/post]​

they sure as hell didn't find them here at U.....