Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Sounds like a strawman argument to me.
Taking a truncated clip from a U spokesperson regarding CURRENT revenue disadvantages and representing it as a non-alterable situation, you then mesh that in with supposed assumptions that was the reason why DAL or UAL didn't merge with U (irrelevent) and THEN, add that on the basis of that, the U plan by Parker cannot be profitable due to his proposed labor costs with AA PILOTS. It's a carefully clipped sentance to which you then add an assumption (UAL/DAL motives) and then place the U term sheet economics and come to a certain (but, erronous) conclusion. Additionally, her comment didn't say "LABOR cost structure". Costs come from many areas like vendor expenses and fleet costs that are dynamic.
There have to be some tangible benefits of a merger beforehand, and I have yet to hear anyone make a case for it. Yes, US/AA will benefit the
industry as a whole, by reducing capacity (PHL/DCA/CLT/PHX bye bye) and gaining pricing power... but how will that benefit labor at all?
It is really ridiculous to think that US has its cost advantage because it is saving pencils and paperclips in the office, as opposed to wage scales that are drastically lower than competition. US pilot costs per block hour are $100-300 million behind AA, DL, UA, WN, HA, AS.
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
The reality is that an AA/U merger would result in MAJOR realignment of current hubs, fleets, routes and frequencies and thus the economic model cannot be simply debunked (or validated) on such simplistic assumptions.
You are correct there, my guess is PHX gone completely, and PHL cut in half. Some DCA slots traded/sold away. CLT is a useful domestic hub for the AA network, I will give you that, but I wouldnt hold my breath for CLT-HKG flying. JFK/LGA is slot restricted so limited growth there, ORD will see larger RJs, LAX will grow in a few years when they finish the TBIT, DFW has space to grow, but nothing AA cant do themselves.
Again, I reference the 25April-2012 conference call transcript where Kirby is touting the US/AA merger, but using metrics from UAL/CAL and DAL/NWA in his justification. That is a serious Apples-Oranges comparison:
US Airways Group's CEO Discusses Q1 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript - Seeking Alpha
We agree with all 3 unions that the merged American needs to have contracts that have neither a competitive advantage nor disadvantage to Delta and United. This merger creates an airline that can compete effectively against United and Delta. Since the new American will have revenue-generating capabilities like United and Delta, it should also have labor costs like United and Delta.
How much of the US network wont be viable with increased costs? Honestly very little. And there is a looong gap between AA/US and a DAL, UAL type network.
Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Jeez flyby, I'm not surprised someone added 1+1+1 and got 2, but I'm surprised it was you.
Sounds like it's something you WANT to not occur as opposed to something that will or will not succeed on its own merits. Thus, one has to question objectivity here and suspect bias.
We are all biased. I want to see AA suceed and grow and someday get hired to fly for them. That would be great. You, are seeing red and unable to think clearly after the actions by Horton and Co, so willing to jump at any chance to jab at them without thinking of the consequences.
Originally Posted by
MayDaze
...or you could be a Jetblue pilot that just wants to see a codeshare in JFK.
I'd be fine if I never had to fly through JFK again in my life. We already have a ridiculous number of codeshares with other airlines, and the only thing that means for jetblue is that we will never do those routes.