It reads less like “TBNT” and more “it’s our understanding the administration wouldn’t like it, so it’s not something we are thinking about.”

I’d even charitably say they are interested and simply acknowledge it’s a pipe dream, unless the Trump admin comes around to it.

 

Some comic relief is always appreciated.

 

I don’t think that they have been trying to drive anyone into bankruptcy, they’re just focused on knocking Delta out of the number 1 slot. To do that they have been actively chasing every available dollar of revenue, which includes price sensitive basic economy customers while also improving the brand. The LCC’s are just caught in the crossfire. Don’t think for a second that the management of the big 4 would mourn the loss of a low cost competitor, but I don’t think that they are really in their sights either.

 

First of all you're right. I don't think management is trying to kill LCCs. That's just a byproduct of the post pandemic United growth and expansion of basic economy.

Secondly, they aren't focused on "top spot". United is already the #1 airline in the world by every reasonable metric. More mainline planes, more passenger miles flown, and more revenue from flying passengers than any other airline in the world. Yes I'm aware American counts their RJ fleet flown by their express carriers. United has over 1,100 planes and Delta about 960. We also have nearly double the number of widebody planes than Delta has.

Delta insists that "total corporate revenue" is the only metric that matters, because they make $5B a year from an oil refinery that is included in their annual passenger revenue. But absent the oil refinery revenue, Delta has less passenger revenue than United.

Also being in "top spot" isn't really anything exciting because it doesn't actually mean anything other than bragging rights.

Throughout the 2010s the airlines all played nice and just kept in their lanes, but as soon as Kirby took over he put his foot on the pedal and that made it harder for the little airlines because we took so many of their passengers. Its just going to get worse as Starlink is expanding (331 installs already) and we get those 500 more planes in the next 5 years.

Other than the mid-late 90s, these last few years have been fun to watch a management team that's really interested in running a great airline. Too bad the last 30 years weren't like this. It would have been a lot more fun.

 

They released the statement on a Friday afternoon which is the typical time for statements that companies want to bury. They announce earnings next week. They knew they'd get asked about it on the earnings call so now they can just say refer to the statement.

 

This won’t age well.

 

The defining document would be the JetBlue contract. I suspect it has good fragmentation protections. I am surprised however no one has posted it. If United were to make an offer for only a portion of JetBlue it would apply. JetBlue management could not agree to the sale without including the fragmentation protections and transfer of jobs in the sale agreement. At the point ALPA merger policy goes into effect. ALPA merger policy in the end is quite simple. Both sides meet in an unsuccessful attempt to reach a negotiated settlement. It then goes to binding arbitration. The arbitrator can do almost anything he wants.

 

Tell me this…several seniority integrations took place before the existence of the McCaskill-Bond amendment. Also, pilots (ex. - Pam Am) were transferred with routes and aircraft. Why did any of this happen absent McCaskill-Bond? Because that amendment isn’t the end all with respect to required integrations.

Contractual provisions are applicable and enforceable, as is ALPA’s Merger and Fragmentation Policy. You may have read a book or took a class at some point. But I’ll side with Cohen, Weiss & Simon and ALPA’s Representation Department attorneys over your repetitive soapbox pronouncements.

 

Nope. In an asset deal the buyer is typically not automatically bound to the seller’s CBA unless it expressly assumes it.

 

They are not bound by the sellers agreement. The seller however is bound by the agreement and would need to negotiate the agreement to comply with the fragmentation clause. United could decide at that point not to accept the deal. If it were simply up to the buyer if they wanted to comply or not fragmentation clauses would be worthless.