I really don't think AS has any interest in being bought, and I don't think UA/AS would pass the DOJ. UAL already has a strong west coast presence. Plus, AS won't be cheap.

Not sure I see UAL and AS, nor that AMR will have the lowest costs, but they do have a strong brand and network. AMR alliances in Europe and the Pacific are associated with fairly strong brands (BA and JAL). So they have LHR and HND dialed in.

It's going to be 3 powerhouse networks, and without an alliance in Japan, and with AF/KLM vs LH or BA, we're going to have to differentiate ourselves in terms of great service. Ergo, we'll have to invest in the employees with more than lip-service. Good news is, we've done it before. We also have a head-start, a rapidly improving balance sheet, and the better CEO.

Which brings me back to agreeing with you about a LCC that is weak, and exposed. Let UAL get them out of Star, let the hope of a merger die, and they have little to offer, except DCA, and more importantly, an involuntary capacity cut. Seems like AMR would be silly to pick them over JB.

If we only put 6 pax on their flights, then why does the company need 35% or even 50% in many cases?

Could it be that the 6 pax average figure is taken entirely out of context? Who cares if that's what it ends up being because the vast majority of their "flights" are to tiny little niche airports? 35% to 50% of DL pax on their flights, on large narrowbody aircraft, being filled with DL pax is entirely unacceptable.

If its only 6, then let's limit it to 6. The company should have no problem with that. Right? Heck let's double it and limit it to 12! I'd be cool with that.

JH,
Here you go.

Go on Deltanet.
Click on Chief Pilot Support Center CPSC (Left side of Page)
Click on Los Angeles (Left side of Page)
Click on CPO parking guide.

Shows everything. And you can print it for better visual.

TEN

It doesn't have to be either/or. LCC did a major divestment in NYC just in time for all this to play out perfectly in the next year or two potentially. That will also force SWA's hand though. AA, LCC and SWA will need a bigger NYC presence, particularly at JFK for international feed.

We blew a billion and a half dollars on a terminal extension/demolition that will end up giving us about the same number of gates or less as we have now, plus a long busride to connect terminals. A billion and a half dollars just for a nice alleyway for ramp flow? Not buying that theory for a second. Something is up big time and it could involve a lot of players and some interesting deals.

Completely agree with your last statement!

Continuing the Thanksgiving partying? Give yourself time to recover.

Hi Sink,

The pilots already have a deal Parker if the need arises so I don't think the end of the exclusivity period is that big of a deal with the pilots. Obviously it will be for Horton but my guess is that he will somehow get another extension.

The APA board may have put as much thought into what will happen in the future but I don't think the line pilot will. How can they? They have no access to the "Plan." I don't think the new TA is significantly different from the first one (from what I can gather) and I get the impression that a lot of guys over there want to "burn the place down." I don't get that attitude and I don't think it will happen even if they vote it down because of the agreement with Parker.

If it works out like you think (AA tries to buy JBLU and Parker takes all his marbles and goes home), I would guess there would have to be significant divestiture of slots at JFK.

They definitely would rather "assimilate" than merge, just look at their past!!:)

Anyway, I just thought it would be fun to get some "wags" going on and see who comes closest!:D

Denny

Gloopy we all know that you know the answer to your question but, me being the type of person I am, I will rise to the bait!:)

The key to Sailings post is "average." I can see that figure being correct/accurate. You get none or one, possibly two passengers on AK's flights to, as you put it, tiny little niche airports and then you can get 30 passengers on SEA to LAX or SFO for example. Hence the need for 35% and 50%. The average over all code share flights is still 6.........

I don't particularly like the codeshare but I don't see it going away anytime soon and we do need the feed on the west coast. Though, just one time I would like to see us/Delta move into one of there markets like they have been doing to ours over that last few years. We could start with SEA-LAX-SEA. Heck they do it to us to MSP, ATL, and soon SLC..... I'd like to see us move in on some of their routes "in the spirit of competition."

Denny

I agree that the code share can be good for the network, and I disagree with anyone that thinks we are simply going to overfly their entire network, route for route, gauge for gauge and/or frequency for frequency. That would be stupid indeed.

But there is no instance where we need to be filling half of a 737-900ER. None. Ever. No instance where they dump thousands of seats a day between major markets where we can't put a single flight. Where we give them almost 100 pax per flight on any route, anywhere, for any reason.

They are also becoming our defacto transcon DCI carrier. That is entirely unacceptable also.

I'm not against the AS code share. I'm against the abuses within it as its currently structured and against the trend vector for shifting more and more narrowbody lift to them. If 6 pax per flight was what was boosting our pacific international then I would be fine with it. But 35%-50%, including flights to ATL, MSP and other major markets, while they keep growing and we keep shrinking is proof that it is not working, not proof that it is working.

They have a lot more growth planned. We can't keep shifting pax to their fake little virtual DL network between major markets with large narrowbody aircraft at high percentages of DL pax.

Add to that the so called LCC's that are not only barfing capacity into the market as we pull it out (most have taken a breather on that for now, although JB keeps right on adding) and they are tying their ever growing networks into every flag carrier on earth, putting negative pressure on our international which we've seen over all, despite some bright spots here and there.

Capacity dicipline is unsustainable and eventually we will have to take it to the LCC's, the ponzi sheme foreign growth bubble airlines and AS, even if that means less than stellar quarterly results in the short term.

If we need AS so badly we need 35-50% in major markets, then we need to buy AS. Their share price isn't even that high when you compare it to their outstanding shares. They are about what ours is, recent growth we gave them notwithstanding.