# American Airlines / US Airways merger



## CHamilton

> American Airlines merger expected next week
> 
> DALLAS - A merger between American Airlines and US Airways will likely be announced next week, sources tell News 8.
> The board of directors of AMR Corp., American's parent company, will meet on Monday to consider a combination, News 8 has learned.
> Many of the details have already been worked out over recent months.
> Still, currently at issue is which executive team will lead the new company.


----------



## Texan Eagle

CHamilton said:


> American Airlines merger expected next week
> 
> DALLAS - A merger between American Airlines and US Airways will likely be announced next week, sources tell News 8.
> The board of directors of AMR Corp., American's parent company, will meet on Monday to consider a combination, News 8 has learned.
> Many of the details have already been worked out over recent months.
> Still, currently at issue is which executive team will lead the new company.
Click to expand...


....And that would the end of my carefully collected Star Alliance miles   From all my travels on Star Alliance member airlines, I accumulated my miles into US Airways Dividend Miles account.. with the hopes of getting a free ticket/free upgrade on one of my international trips between US and India... and now with the merger all those miles will go into useless OneWorld   Useless for me because OneWorld severely cuts down my options. Damnit, should have collected the miles on United MileagePlus instead. <_<


----------



## railiner

Texan Eagle said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Airlines merger expected next week
> 
> DALLAS - A merger between American Airlines and US Airways will likely be announced next week, sources tell News 8.
> The board of directors of AMR Corp., American's parent company, will meet on Monday to consider a combination, News 8 has learned.
> Many of the details have already been worked out over recent months.
> Still, currently at issue is which executive team will lead the new company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....And that would the end of my carefully collected Star Alliance miles   From all my travels on Star Alliance member airlines, I accumulated my miles into US Airways Dividend Miles account.. with the hopes of getting a free ticket/free upgrade on one of my international trips between US and India... and now with the merger all those miles will go into useless OneWorld   Useless for me because OneWorld severely cuts down my options. Damnit, should have collected the miles on United MileagePlus instead. <_<
Click to expand...

Sorry for your misfortune......I had thought that AA flew ORD-BOM, but I see they must have given up that route. You can still use One World connections on BA via LHR to get there.....


----------



## railiner

I don't know the full details, but a cursory look makes me wonder what real benefit AA would gain from the merger, besides eliminating some competition (which would also benefit other competitors), and some of US Air's valuable 'slots' at places like LGA and DCA.....

And in light of US Air still not resolving its labor issues from its own merger with America West several years ago, I wonder if AA's union'sare really doing themselves a favor, or are just 'cutting off their nose, to spite their face', due to several years of contentious relation with AA's management?


----------



## xyzzy

Eliminating a competitor. A fortress hub at CLT that competes with DL at ATL, a gap in the map that has bothered AA since the 1980s. A significant customer base in the northeast. About 250 Airbus narrow-body aircraft that mirror the A320neo/A321 aircraft which AA has ordered. The deal makes sense.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

And something like only 13 routes with overlap according to a news report I heard on the radio.


----------



## railiner

xyzzy said:


> Eliminating a competitor. A fortress hub at CLT that competes with DL at ATL, a gap in the map that has bothered AA since the 1980s. A significant customer base in the northeast. About 250 Airbus narrow-body aircraft that mirror the A320neo/A321 aircraft which AA has ordered. The deal makes sense.


Valid points.....but something tells me that after a while, CLT will go the way of AA's hubs at RDU, BNA, STL, etc.......


----------



## xyzzy

Don't think so. At 600 daily flights, US Airways at CLT is larger than American's RDU, BNA, and STL (after the AA acquisition of TW) combined. And Southwest is not a factor at CLT, where fares are relatively high.

As comparison DL has 900+ daily flights from ATL. American has about 450 from Chicago.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Texan Eagle said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Airlines merger expected next week
> 
> DALLAS - A merger between American Airlines and US Airways will likely be announced next week, sources tell News 8.
> 
> The board of directors of AMR Corp., American's parent company, will meet on Monday to consider a combination, News 8 has learned.
> 
> Many of the details have already been worked out over recent months.
> 
> Still, currently at issue is which executive team will lead the new company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....And that would the end of my carefully collected Star Alliance miles   From all my travels on Star Alliance member airlines, I accumulated my miles into US Airways Dividend Miles account.. with the hopes of getting a free ticket/free upgrade on one of my international trips between US and India... and now with the merger all those miles will go into useless OneWorld   Useless for me because OneWorld severely cuts down my options. Damnit, should have collected the miles on United MileagePlus instead. <_<
Click to expand...

Say what?

You can't exactly call it a "careful" collection if it went to US Air! :lol:

On the plus side the two frequent flier clubs probably won't merge anytime soon.

You should be able to do as much as you want with *A until then.

US Air has a pretty sweet deal where you can travel to Europe and Asia round trip in J for 90k.


----------



## Texan Eagle

railiner said:


> Texan Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Airlines merger expected next week
> 
> DALLAS - A merger between American Airlines and US Airways will likely be announced next week, sources tell News 8.
> The board of directors of AMR Corp., American's parent company, will meet on Monday to consider a combination, News 8 has learned.
> Many of the details have already been worked out over recent months.
> Still, currently at issue is which executive team will lead the new company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ....And that would the end of my carefully collected Star Alliance miles   From all my travels on Star Alliance member airlines, I accumulated my miles into US Airways Dividend Miles account.. with the hopes of getting a free ticket/free upgrade on one of my international trips between US and India... and now with the merger all those miles will go into useless OneWorld   Useless for me because OneWorld severely cuts down my options. Damnit, should have collected the miles on United MileagePlus instead. <_<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry for your misfortune......I had thought that AA flew ORD-BOM, but I see they must have given up that route. You can still use One World connections on BA via LHR to get there.....
Click to expand...

AA gave up ORD-BOM, then gave up on ORD-DEL too. Now AA no longer flies to India. And I'd stay away from BA like the plague. LHR's sick practice of specifically picking brown-skinned passengers for "random secondary checks", UK's headache rules about transit on a third country visa, and the overall mess that airport is.. having faced that twice is enough to keep me away from LHR for life. That leaves only Cathay Pacific for USA-India flights on oneWorld  Compare this with Star Alliance that gives me United, Lufthansa, All Nippon, Singapore Airlines, Thai, Turkish, Air China from west coast of US to India in one stop. Must find a way to transfer the points to a Star Alliance airline, or use them up soon. From me, this merger is a boooooo. *two thumbs down*


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AA has been one of the most cancel-happy airlines for long haul flights, never really giving new routes enough time to grow and prove their long term worth. I have no idea if being run by the folks from US will improve things, but you have to assume that Oneworld's charter members are aware that they could benefit from filling the holes in their network, eventually. Don't forget that you can purchase large amounts of US miles for less than many other *A members when they're on sale. The sales occur regularly so topping off should be easy. Then you'll be able to schedule an award flight on various *A airlines that will remain in effect regardless of what happens between US and AA. The only problem is that you'll have to talk to the DM reservations desk in the process.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> AA has been one of the most cancel-happy airlines for long haul flights, never really giving new routes enough time to grow and prove their long term worth..


I have to agree with you on that for sure. And not just long haul, either. Every time AA takes over another carrier, it seems they slowly, but surely erase almost all traces of the acquired carrier. What a shame what they did to TWA, although they would have probably gone out of business, anyway.


----------



## saxman

AA has been one of the most cancel-happy airlines for long haul flights, never really giving new routes enough time to grow and prove their long term worth..
I have to agree with you on that for sure. And not just long haul, either. Every time AA takes over another carrier, it seems they slowly, but surely erase almost all traces of the acquired carrier. What a shame what they did to TWA, although they would have probably gone out of business, anyway.


Eh, same could be said for just about every other airline merger too. Although I do think TWA employees got the short end after that merger.

And Texan: what about Japan Airlines via Tokyo? I've never taken JAL so I don't know what they are like, but it would be one-stop from DFW. I would love to see AA serve HKG though to connect with the Cathay Pacific network, but why spend the money when you can just code-share everything.

Personally, I hope the merger does not happen. Bigger does not always mean better as you can still see many inconsistencies with other mergers. I don't see CLT going away though as a hub. In fact this is one merger that I can't see any hubs going away, while others saw their hubs shrink, (ie, CVG, CLE, MEM).


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> I don't see CLT going away though as a hub. In fact this is one merger that I can't see any hubs going away, while others saw their hubs shrink, (ie, CVG, CLE, MEM).



Well, perhaps not go away, but I bet it would downsize somewhat....

And look at US Air's former Pittsburgh fortress.....a shadow of what it was.....


----------



## afigg

The Davy Crockett said:


> And something like only 13 routes with overlap according to a news report I heard on the radio.


While the overlapping routes are likely to be among the first to see cuts in service frequency, a AA - US Airways merger will lead to even more industry consolidation. More cuts in domestic flights, fewer direct flights between mid-size to bigger sized airports, consolidation of the hub flight routes. The total number of domestic flights last peaked in 2005 and I see from the latest FAA data set, the numbers are down for the first 10 months of 2012 compared to 2011. The number of domestic flight passengers is edging back up, but is still below the 2008 peak.Still, the result will be more crowded airplanes with fewer flight schedule options. Hello, Amtrak?

And more smaller to mid-sized airports that spent a lot of money back in the 90s and aughts to expand their airport that will instead see number of flights and passengers slowly shrink as the airline industry consolidates. (For the domestic flights, international flights and passenger numbers are doing much better).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

saxman said:


> Eh, same could be said for just about every other airline merger too. Although I do think TWA employees got the short end after that merger.


Calling the carcass picking between AA and TW a "merger" would be a bit of a slap in the face of the TWA employees.



saxman said:


> And Texan: what about Japan Airlines via Tokyo? I've never taken JAL so I don't know what they are like, but it would be one-stop from DFW. I would love to see AA serve HKG though to connect with the Cathay Pacific network, but why spend the money when you can just code-share everything.


Back before Japan Airlines went bankrupt they were considered a premium airline. I found their service to be similar to other Asian airlines. Nothing special in coach of course but nothing to worry about either. I stopped flying Japan Airlines after numerous safety violations and related incidents. In the process of declaring bankruptcy JL/JO lost much of their international network and haven't been much of a factor in my decision making since then.



saxman said:


> This is one merger that I can't see any hubs going away.


There is nothing special about this merger that would preclude loss of hub status. AA's fortress hubs are likely to remain relatively unscathed, but US is likely to devalue multiple conventional hubs in the process of taking over AA.


----------



## jis

I would find it difficult to conceive how US merged with AA would maintain hub/focus city at all of LGA, JFK, PIT, PHL DCA, RDU and CLT. Something has got to give in that mix.


----------



## Trogdor

RDU barely has any non-hub routes. In fact, once you merge the two networks, London would be the only non-hub route (and I'm almost certain that route is for some corporate contract AA has, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all to maintain it).

PIT only has 3 or 4 non-hub routes, and as far as I can tell they're all on regional carriers (I'm actually surprised they still have that many). I thought US Airways was pulling out of LGA except for a few flights/routes, having traded most of their slots to Delta for DCA slots instead. Searching their website, their only non-hub routes from LGA are Augusta, ME and Louisville, KY. There's also a PIT flight or two.


----------



## jis

Trogdor said:


> RDU barely has any non-hub routes. In fact, once you merge the two networks, London would be the only non-hub route (and I'm almost certain that route is for some corporate contract AA has, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all to maintain it).


IBM


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> RDU barely has any non-hub routes. In fact, once you merge the two networks, London would be the only non-hub route (and I'm almost certain that route is for some corporate contract AA has, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all to maintain it).
> PIT only has 3 or 4 non-hub routes, and as far as I can tell they're all on regional carriers (I'm actually surprised they still have that many). I thought US Airways was pulling out of LGA except for a few flights/routes, having traded most of their slots to Delta for DCA slots instead. Searching their website, their only non-hub routes from LGA are Augusta, ME and Louisville, KY. There's also a PIT flight or two.


How do you define a 'hub-route', versus a 'non-hub route'? If they are both into or out of a hub....be it a 'focus city' or a 'fortress-hub'?

To my way of thinking, a 'non-hub route' is one that goes direct from one city to another, neither being a 'hub'...........


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> I would find it difficult to conceive how US merged with AA would maintain hub/focus city at all of LGA, JFK, PIT, PHL DCA, RDU and CLT. Something has got to give in that mix.


That's for sure. I think JFK is safe as the premier international gateway. LGA and DCA both safe for the shear volume of O&D business traffic. So it would be between PIT, PHL, RDU, and CLT. Since CLT is so huge now, it may be safe vs. RDU. PHL may lose some, sandwiched between NY and WAS....PIT has been losing for years, but geographically speaking is in the best location for a 'hub' between all those others.....so who knows?

Especially in light of the 'tail-wagging-the-dog', US Air taking over AA. Previous mergers all favored AA when taking over others....


----------



## railiner

afigg said:


> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> While the overlapping routes are likely to be among the first to see cuts in service frequency, a AA - US Airways merger will lead to even more industry consolidation..
Click to expand...

So who do you think will be the next to consolidate? Southwest? Jetblue? Alaska? Frontier? Not many left, other than the regionals.....


----------



## Texan Eagle

railiner said:


> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Davy Crockett said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> While the overlapping routes are likely to be among the first to see cuts in service frequency, a AA - US Airways merger will lead to even more industry consolidation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So who do you think will be the next to consolidate? Southwest? Jetblue? Alaska? Frontier? Not many left, other than the regionals.....
Click to expand...

I think Southwest got its share of merger when it took over AirTran. There were some rumors about Frontier and Spirit thinking of a merger, no idea why and what came of that. Although I would have guessed JetBlue and Frontier would make a good match (both trying to make their mark as relatively "fun" youthful airlines) rather than Spirit whose sole purpose of survival is to grab the bottom feeder extremely price conscious market and pack them into cramped planes.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> RDU barely has any non-hub routes. In fact, once you merge the two networks, London would be the only non-hub route (and I'm almost certain that route is for some corporate contract AA has, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all to maintain it).
> 
> PIT only has 3 or 4 non-hub routes, and as far as I can tell they're all on regional carriers (I'm actually surprised they still have that many). I thought US Airways was pulling out of LGA except for a few flights/routes, having traded most of their slots to Delta for DCA slots instead. Searching their website, their only non-hub routes from LGA are Augusta, ME and Louisville, KY. There's also a PIT flight or two.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define a 'hub-route', versus a 'non-hub route'? If they are both into or out of a hub....be it a 'focus city' or a 'fortress-hub'?To my way of thinking, a 'non-hub route' is one that goes direct from one city to another, neither being a 'hub'...........
Click to expand...

I mean routes from RDU that don't go to another hub. The only ones they currently operate are to National Airport (DC), and to London. If we assume that National Airport would still be a hub, then the only other flight out of Raleigh that doesn't serve an AA hub would be London. In other words, it would really just be a spoke, not a hub or focus city of any sort.


----------



## PRR 60

The speculation consensus is that, of the existing AA/US hubs, PHX(US) and JFK(AA) may be the most at risk. AA"s hubs at DFW and LAX are likely safe. While there is decent O&D business at PHX, it does not match DFW or LAX. Those hubs are just too important. That makes PHX the odd hub out in the west. ORD likely stays in some form, but AA has always been second fiddle there to UA, so I could see it cut back to a focus. ORD is an expensive operation.

In the east, MIA(AA) will continue to be the primary gateway for South America, and CLT(US) provides the southeast access coveted by AA and is a strong competitor to DL at ATL. PHL has strong O&D and business flying, and the US TATL routes are highly profitable. As long as the City of Philadelphia does not push too hard for a high priced airport reconstruction, PHL should be solid.

JFK could see a cutback since it does not make much sense to operate two TATL gateways 90 miles apart, and JFK (and NYC in general) is loaded with international competition. The shuttle ops at BOS, LGA and DCA will stay (they still make tons of money for US), plus DCA also has a pretty strong domestic non-stop route structure, which gets noticed and appreciated in a politically important city.


----------



## CHamilton

> AMR, US Airways delay meeting on merger
> 
> Posted on February 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM
> DALLAS -- The boards of American Airlines parent AMR Corp. and US Airways have pushed back meetings to consider final plans for their merger, Associated Press sources say.
> 
> A source close to the matter said Sunday that the AMR board wants to meet in person, and that the US Airways board would only meet after the AMR board approves a deal. The source requested anonymity because the talks are private.
> 
> It is not clear when the two boards would finally meet. People familiar with the matter said negotiations are continuing, on issues that include AMR CEO Tom Horton's exact title and role in the combined company.


----------



## PRR 60

CHamilton said:


> AMR, US Airways delay meeting on merger
> 
> Posted on February 10, 2013 at 3:39 PM
> DALLAS -- The boards of American Airlines parent AMR Corp. and US Airways have pushed back meetings to consider final plans for their merger, Associated Press sources say.
> 
> A source close to the matter said Sunday that the AMR board wants to meet in person, and that the US Airways board would only meet after the AMR board approves a deal. The source requested anonymity because the talks are private.
> 
> It is not clear when the two boards would finally meet. People familiar with the matter said negotiations are continuing, on issues that include AMR CEO Tom Horton's exact title and role in the combined company.
Click to expand...

The present merger-related confidentiality agreements for the key executives of AMR and LCC expire on Thursday, 2/15. That presents kind of a deadline, even though with some effort the agreements could be extended.


----------



## afigg

Wall Street Journal article on the effects of the proposed merger: AMR Stands to Gain Vast Route Network.

The article says that the merger is more to create a huge route than to cull service and flights, but I think most would agree that flight and route cuts will happen if the merger goes through. Air fare price increases on routes where AA and US Airways are the only 2 carriers are inevitable.

With regards to the fate of the two hub systems, the WSJ article states:



> There also are questions over whether the combined carrier could support eight hubs and, if not, which U.S. city might be on the chopping block. In most recent airline mergers, at least one hub has suffered deep cuts to its service, such as Cincinnati following the 2008 merger of Delta and Northwest Airlines.
> In the expected American tie-up, analysts point to Phoenix as the likely target, partly because it is sandwiched between American hubs Los Angeles and Dallas.


----------



## railiner

PRR 60 said:


> The speculation consensus is that, of the existing AA/US hubs, PHX(US) and JFK(AA) may be the most at risk. AA"s hubs at DFW and LAX are likely safe. While there is decent O&D business at PHX, it does not match DFW or LAX. Those hubs are just too important. That makes PHX the odd hub out in the west. ORD likely stays in some form, but AA has always been second fiddle there to UA, so I could see it cut back to a focus. ORD is an expensive operation.
> In the east, MIA(AA) will continue to be the primary gateway for South America, and CLT(US) provides the southeast access coveted by AA and is a strong competitor to DL at ATL. PHL has strong O&D and business flying, and the US TATL routes are highly profitable. As long as the City of Philadelphia does not push too hard for a high priced airport reconstruction, PHL should be solid.
> 
> JFK could see a cutback since it does not make much sense to operate two TATL gateways 90 miles apart, and JFK (and NYC in general) is loaded with international competition. The shuttle ops at BOS, LGA and DCA will stay (they still make tons of money for US), plus DCA also has a pretty strong domestic non-stop route structure, which gets noticed and appreciated in a politically important city.


I would agree with your views on all but the JFK vs PHL.....AA has an awful lot invested in its new terminal at JFK, has a large maintenance base there, has a large cargo operation there, and while there is a lot of foreign competition there, there is also connection with many of AA's One World and other non-One World code share partners, that depend on AA having a good range of domestic, as well as international destinations. And the New York market for O & D traffic is much larger than PHL's. Being the 'world capital' (UN), JFK is too important to eliminate as a hub....


----------



## Steel City Don

USAirways can go to hell. They are the reason Pittsburgh International Airport, where I work at, is a ghost town, made the county and airport authority build an airport to there specs, they stayed 10 yrs and left.


----------



## jis

railiner said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The speculation consensus is that, of the existing AA/US hubs, PHX(US) and JFK(AA) may be the most at risk. AA"s hubs at DFW and LAX are likely safe. While there is decent O&D business at PHX, it does not match DFW or LAX. Those hubs are just too important. That makes PHX the odd hub out in the west. ORD likely stays in some form, but AA has always been second fiddle there to UA, so I could see it cut back to a focus. ORD is an expensive operation.
> In the east, MIA(AA) will continue to be the primary gateway for South America, and CLT(US) provides the southeast access coveted by AA and is a strong competitor to DL at ATL. PHL has strong O&D and business flying, and the US TATL routes are highly profitable. As long as the City of Philadelphia does not push too hard for a high priced airport reconstruction, PHL should be solid.
> 
> JFK could see a cutback since it does not make much sense to operate two TATL gateways 90 miles apart, and JFK (and NYC in general) is loaded with international competition. The shuttle ops at BOS, LGA and DCA will stay (they still make tons of money for US), plus DCA also has a pretty strong domestic non-stop route structure, which gets noticed and appreciated in a politically important city.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with your views on all but the JFK vs PHL.....AA has an awful lot invested in its new terminal at JFK, has a large maintenance base there, has a large cargo operation there, and while there is a lot of foreign competition there, there is also connection with many of AA's One World and other non-One World code share partners, that depend on AA having a good range of domestic, as well as international destinations. And the New York market for O & D traffic is much larger than PHL's. Being the 'world capital' (UN), JFK is too important to eliminate as a hub....
Click to expand...

The projections I am seeing suggest that there is unlikely to be any cutbacks in JFK or Philly. But of course these are all prognostications by those who typically do not have any inside track on information about such things, so to be taken with a large dollop of salt. I can understand that PRR personally would like to see Philly stay put or grow, since afterall it is his primary airport.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> But of course these are all prognostications by those who typically do not have any inside track on information about such things, so to be taken with a* large dollop of salt.*


This is completely off-topic, but when it comes to comparing a position with salt, It's not about the substance so much as the size. Salt has enjoyed a long and important role in human history, but a single grain of salt by itself remains essentially worthless. So things that are given the relevance of a grain of salt have little if any intrinsic value. When people replace a single grain of salt with a measurement that is _millions of times larger_ they're inadvertently adding far more significance to a position that was originally intended to be precluded from relevance.


----------



## CHamilton

American, US Airways Boards Approve Merger


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I suppose there could still be a Justice Department roadblock or last minute creditor revolt still in the cards, but I don't expect those to be likely outcomes. If this was unlikely to be approved by everyone involved it probably would have never made it this far in the first place. Between AA and US I have around 150,000 miles and I'm starting to wonder if I should be stocking up during the next 100% bonus period or busily liquidating prior to the merger.


----------



## the_traveler

railiner said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The speculation consensus is that, of the existing AA/US hubs, PHX(US) and JFK(AA) may be the most at risk. AA"s hubs at DFW and LAX are likely safe. While there is decent O&D business at PHX, it does not match DFW or LAX. Those hubs are just too important. That makes PHX the odd hub out in the west. ORD likely stays in some form, but AA has always been second fiddle there to UA, so I could see it cut back to a focus. ORD is an expensive operation.
> In the east, MIA(AA) will continue to be the primary gateway for South America, and CLT(US) provides the southeast access coveted by AA and is a strong competitor to DL at ATL. PHL has strong O&D and business flying, and the US TATL routes are highly profitable. As long as the City of Philadelphia does not push too hard for a high priced airport reconstruction, PHL should be solid.
> 
> JFK could see a cutback since it does not make much sense to operate two TATL gateways 90 miles apart, and JFK (and NYC in general) is loaded with international competition. The shuttle ops at BOS, LGA and DCA will stay (they still make tons of money for US), plus DCA also has a pretty strong domestic non-stop route structure, which gets noticed and appreciated in a politically important city.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with your views on all but the JFK vs PHL.....AA has an awful lot invested in its new terminal at JFK, has a large maintenance base there, has a large cargo operation there, and while there is a lot of foreign competition there, there is also connection with many of AA's One World and other non-One World code share partners, that depend on AA having a good range of domestic, as well as international destinations. And the New York market for O & D traffic is much larger than PHL's. Being the 'world capital' (UN), JFK is too important to eliminate as a hub....
Click to expand...

I agree that JFK would remain safe. Besides, would AA want to give up all those slots at LHR? I think not!


----------



## saxman

New York is the worlds busiest air travel market. I don't think JFK is going much of anywhere.

But looks like its full on. Being partial to AA and seeing how it's HQ is down the road from me, I'm really glad they are keeping it here. Good luck to all those involved.


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> New York is the worlds busiest air travel market. I don't think JFK is going much of anywhere.
> But looks like its full on. Being partial to AA and seeing how it's HQ is down the road from me, I'm really glad they are keeping it here. Good luck to all those involved.


Agreed. I heard somewhere that now they are seriously considering expanding the JFK terminal to its originally designed 59 gates, which was cut back after the last business downturn in the early stages of its construction.....


----------



## Texan Eagle

saxman said:


> New York is the worlds busiest air travel market. I don't think JFK is going much of anywhere.


For what its worth, being an AAdvantage and US Airways Dividend Miles member, I got emails from both airlines about the merger news and the one by Tom Horton, CEO American Airlines, mentions this- "Together we will offer our customers more than 6,700 daily flights to 336 destinations in 56 countries by *maintaining all the hubs currently served by both airlines.*"

There you go.


----------



## jis

That is what they always say initially. What they will actually do is another matter altogether. 

(null)


----------



## trainman74

Yeah, ask Pittsburgh how good US Airways was at maintaining their hubs after the AmericaWest merger.


----------



## Trogdor

Remember, Southwest Airlines stated they were going to keep AirTran's Boeing 717 fleet when that merger was announced. Now, the planes have all been sold to Delta before a single one will ever carry the Southwest livery.

When the numbers force them to, they will change their mind about keeping all the hubs.


----------



## saxman

trainman74 said:


> Yeah, ask Pittsburgh how good US Airways was at maintaining their hubs after the AmericaWest merger.


Wasn't PIT already pretty much shut down as a hub before the merger with America West? Or at least much smaller than it was back in its heyday? I don't really know, because I never came to PIT before 2007, and by then it was an empty place.

If you're a medium sized city in the rust belt, I don't see you lasting as an airline hub much longer. (CVG, CLE, PIT, STL, MEM) As far as MEM, and CVG goes, they are large cargo hubs for FedEx and DHL/Polar has really built up CVG as a cargo hub as well.


----------



## railiner

trainman74 said:


> Yeah, ask Pittsburgh how good US Airways was at maintaining their hubs after the AmericaWest merger.


Maybe PIT was downsizing already prior to the AW merger, but then look at STL.....I don't think TWA was downsizing it, at least not in proportion to it shrinking as a whole prior to the AA takeover.....


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> trainman74 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ask Pittsburgh how good US Airways was at maintaining their hubs after the AmericaWest merger.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PIT was downsizing already prior to the AW merger, but then look at STL.....I don't think TWA was downsizing it, at least not in proportion to it shrinking as a whole prior to the AA takeover.....
Click to expand...

TWA was basically dead when AA took over. If AA hadn't taken over, TWA's STL hub would have been downsized 100% within a few months, along with the rest of the carrier (and that's not even taking into account 9/11).


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Trogdor said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trainman74 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, ask Pittsburgh how good US Airways was at maintaining their hubs after the AmericaWest merger.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PIT was downsizing already prior to the AW merger, but then look at STL.....I don't think TWA was downsizing it, at least not in proportion to it shrinking as a whole prior to the AA takeover.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> TWA was basically dead when AA took over. If AA hadn't taken over, TWA's STL hub would have been downsized 100% within a few months, along with the rest of the carrier (and that's not even taking into account 9/11).
Click to expand...

AA simply took their time and waited them out until they were just shy of liquidation. Hard to demand much when you've been left to dangle by a thread. Bravo AA?


----------



## xyzzy

WN didn't sell the 717s to DL. WN is leasing them but retaining title. WN is also paying to refit the aircraft to DL specs.


----------



## CHamilton

The End of Cheap Airfare


> Time to shed a tear into your tiny plastic cups of tomato juice, because the merger between US Airways and American Airlines announced last week marks the end of the era of cheap domestic airfares. Thanks to Northwest’s takeover by Delta, Continental’s takeover by United, and AirTran’s takeover by Southwest, and now this, four giant airlines will soon control about 70 percent of the American market.* That’s not exact a monopoly situation, but it does mean that the 30-plus year run of robust competition and ever-falling airfares is almost certainly over.
> American Airlines is a much larger company than US Airways, yet it’s in effect being acquired by the smaller company. That’s because the larger company was bankrupt. The new firm will be owned by a blend of US Airways shareholders and American Airlines creditors, and run primarily by US Airways’ top management. US Airways itself was the product of a similar merger back in 2005. It had filed for bankruptcy in 2002 and then again in 2004, and found itself de facto taken over by the smaller America West Airlines. That merger saw America West’s brand subsumed under the better-known US Airways, but it was America West’s CEO Doug Parker who ran the merged entity and who now, with the American merger, will be CEO of the country’s largest airline.
> ...
> A key stated goal of this merger—as in the Delta/Northwest and United/Continental deals—is to reduce “excess capacity” in domestic passenger aviation. That’s a polite way of saying less competition and less service. This will take a few forms. There are currently a half dozen US Airways flights from its hub in Philadelphia to Dallas. Dallas is a key American hub, so American also flies six times a day from Philadelphia to Dallas. The combined entity probably won’t need 12 flights a day to serve the route and definitely will have more power to raise prices than either airline would separately. Smaller cities will also see the pinch. Right now, US Airways and American both serve Tallahassee, the former seeking to route passengers through its Charlotte hubs and the latter through its Dallas and Miami hubs. A merged airline might cut that Charlotte service, figuring that network access through Dallas and Miami is ample to compete with Delta’s service through Atlanta. By the same token, when airlines merge the smallest hubs in the new larger airline tend to lose out and shrink.


----------



## jis

I think what has happened with mergers is right sizing capacity for each individual system while protecting the flanks from destructive competition. Some routes have actually gained capacity as a result, and others have lost capacity. Specially hard hit have been secondary hubs. Gainers have been hub to hub, at least in terms of better distributed capacity if not net capacity. For example Newark to Chicago changed from a mish mash of ERJs and a few mainline flights to regular interval 737 flights as a result of the United - Continental merger.

And in both the case of Amtrak and the airlines we a re seeing a consolidated effort to get fare levels to a point where the service and the fares are sustainable. This while a pain in many peoples' pocketbooks, is probably not an overall bad thing.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

jis said:


> And in both the case of Amtrak and the airlines we a re seeing a consolidated effort to get fare levels to a point where the service and the fares are sustainable. This while a pain in many peoples' pocketbooks, is probably not an overall bad thing.


Agreed. ...With the caveat that they are 'sustainable' with government assistance in BOTH cases.


----------



## jis

The Davy Crockett said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in both the case of Amtrak and the airlines we a re seeing a consolidated effort to get fare levels to a point where the service and the fares are sustainable. This while a pain in many peoples' pocketbooks, is probably not an overall bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. ...With the caveat that they are 'sustainable' with government assistance in BOTH cases.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely! The discussion about what is the proportion of government assistance in each case is a worthy one to have, but for the moment I don;t see a huge change in whatever it is. Either way the service have to be paid for. What is negotiable is what proportion is paid by all in taxes in support of sustainable infrastructure as a common good, and what proportion is paid by the actual users in the form of ticket and other user fees.


----------



## xyzzy

Since deregulation, hardly any airline has consistently earned more than its cost of capital. Even WN has entered the phase of regression to the mean. Consolidation is not only inevitable, but proper under these circumstances. AA+US will be approved after concessions to mitigate the very high market share they would have at DCA. It's very rare for DOJ to block a merger when one of the parties to the merger was in authentic bankruptcy.


----------



## The Journalist

Slightly tangential, but how did Southwest's abbreviation become "WN?"


----------



## AmtrakBlue

The Journalist said:


> Slightly tangential, but how did Southwest's abbreviation become "WN?"


Why Not :giggle:


----------



## xyzzy

I googled and there is no clear answer, but one can safely assume that the SW code was already in use by an airline somewhere in the world. In the newer three-letter codes, Southwest has SWA but the two-letter codes are still used by most reservation and ticketing systems.


----------



## Texan Eagle

xyzzy said:


> I googled and there is no clear answer, but one can safely assume that the SW code was already in use by an airline somewhere in the world. In the newer three-letter codes, Southwest has SWA but the two-letter codes are still used by most reservation and ticketing systems.


SW is Air Namibia. Now do not ask me why Namibia got SW :huh:


----------



## xyzzy

Some say Air Namibia (which began life as South West Air Transport in the 1940s) took SW. Others argue that SW was Seaboard (a freight airline) but still others dispute that, saying that Seaboard was SB.


----------



## jis

xyzzy said:


> I googled and there is no clear answer, but one can safely assume that the SW code was already in use by an airline somewhere in the world. In the newer three-letter codes, Southwest has SWA but the two-letter codes are still used by most reservation and ticketing systems.


Actually the only officially blessed 3 letter code in use is the ICAO code which is not what is used in any reservation system. Oddly enough the IATA standard does allow 3 alphanumeric code too, but there is a binding resolution that restricts IATA to using only 2 alphanumeric codes only for compatibility reasons. And all major interconnected reservation systems use IATA codes not ICAO codes and are thus subject to the IATA resolution, which BTW is there in the first place to accommodate reservation systems that are incapable of handling 3 character codes!
As it turns out that entities that are not airlines also sometimes have IATA codes to be able to interwork with airline reservation systems. Example of such are 2A for DB, 2C for SNCF and 2V for Amtrak. OTOH all air carriers do have an ICAO code but not an IATA code, and IATA code is not necessarily unique either.


----------



## Ryan

In addition to 2V for Amtrak, several Amtrak stations have IATA codes assigned for the same reason, including ZFV for PHL, ZWU for WAS, ZWI for WIL and ZBP for BAL.


----------



## Trogdor

SW is Air Namibia. Namibia was once known as South West Africa, hence Air Namibia's prior name.


----------



## Michigan Mom

After many years in the biz I never heard the term fortress-hub. it's either a hub or it isn't, maybe a mini-hub.

A non-hub flight, within the industry is called point-to-point-flying, as opposed to flying to different spoke cities out of the airline's hub operation. in other words you'd be able to fly directly from Point A to B, without being routed through ORD or ATL.

AA merger with TWA was more an acquisition.

in this merger, the US CEO is staying on and the AA CEO will be stepping down. What that means for employees and customers is not going to be known at this point. Right now the FF programs are continuing to operate as normal. For now.


----------



## Oldsmoboi

railiner said:


> I don't know the full details, but a cursory look makes me wonder what real benefit AA would gain from the merger, besides eliminating some competition (which would also benefit other competitors), and some of US Air's valuable 'slots' at places like LGA and DCA.....And in light of US Air still not resolving its labor issues from its own merger with America West several years ago, I wonder if AA's union'sare really doing themselves a favor, or are just 'cutting off their nose, to spite their face', due to several years of contentious relation with AA's management?


North East Shuttle service.

Basically owning PHL.

Much better connections in Europe.

In one of the press releases about the merger, they stated that there are only 12 routes that directly overlap. If that is to be believed, then their route map would end up being extremely complimentary to each other.

I was incredibly disappointed with the merger announcement, but I'm warming up to it. I use United when US Airways doesn't route where I need to go, but by the looks of it, American will drop right in as a suitible replacement for United in those cases.


----------



## xyzzy

Oldsmoboi said:


> Much better connections in Europe.


Huh? I think most people would say that US is an insignificant transatlantic player.


----------



## jis

xyzzy said:


> Oldsmoboi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Much better connections in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? I think most people would say that US is an insignificant transatlantic player.
Click to expand...

Yeah US is an insiginifcant player, but whatever they have they willg et better connection.
Definitely better connections through London Heathrow with BA. Blech! I avoid Heathrow like the plague. These days even when I need ro go to London I am known to have flown to manchester and taken the train. I get into central London almost about the same time as if I had flown into Heathrow, the lines are so rediculous in Heathrow.


----------



## PRR 60

I'm not sure I would call a carrier with fifteen daily TATL round trips "insignificant." I'm sure they are far from being a major player, but the service out of PHL and to a lesser extent out of CLT offers non-stops to a pretty wide range of European destinations, plus TLV.


Daily non-stops to and from PHL with aircraft type (US metal only - not code share). Seasonal service is late spring through fall:


Amsterdam – 752
Brussels - 767
Frankfurt - 333
Dublin – 767
London (LHR) - 332
Madrid – 333
Manchester – 333
Munich - 333
Paris – 333
Rome – 333
Tel Aviv – 332
Zurich – 767
Athens – 767 (seasonal)
Glasgow – 752 (seasonal)
Venice – 332 (seasonal)
Barcelona – 333 (seasonal)
Lisbon – 752 (seasonal)
Frankfurt – 332 (seasonal second freq.)
Daily non-stops to and from CLT:


Frankfurt – 333
Munich – 333
London (LGW) – 332
Paris -332 (seasonal)


----------



## railiner

It has been a few years....the last time I flew JFK-LHR on AA, in January, 2008, on an overnite, I was off the plane, thru customs and passport control, had a quick shower in their Flagship arrivals lounge, had breakfast, and boarded a morning National Express coach for the two hour ride down to Southampton (evenutally to board the QE2 for its final winter crossing back to New York before retirement). All in all, a very pleasant experience. And the previous times I visited London, I used the very reasonably priced Underground Picadilly Line to and from my hotel located at the Gloucester Road station....I wouldn't hesitate to use LHR again.


----------



## xyzzy

I believe AA is operating 30 TATL each way this month, not to mention the deal with BA which is more than the usual code-share. In some cases AA has pulled aircraft off TATL routes and reassigned them to Latin America while relying on BA for TATL (Boston would be an example).


----------



## Ryan

I guess this means that the current US Airways birds are going to get the new ugly as sin American paint jobs? I doubt that AA would come up with a new livery blending the two airlines like United and Continental so soon.

Since it isn't on a lot of planes yet, maybe they'll tweak it some (and in the process make it less godawful).


----------



## PRR 60

Ryan said:


> I guess this means that the current US Airways birds are going to get the new ugly as sin American paint jobs? I doubt that AA would come up with a new livery blending the two airlines like United and Continental so soon.
> Since it isn't on a lot of planes yet, maybe they'll tweak it some (and in the process make it less godawful).


Doug Parker (CEO of US and future CEO of the new AA) has been non-commital about the livery. When asked if the new AA scheme will be used for the merged carrier, he said it was among the items to be decided. I hope he decides to come up with something else, at least for the tail. It's hideous.


----------



## Ryan

That's great news, there's still hope.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

That is good news that AA's new livery might go away! Its so ugly, IMHO, I'd _almost_ be embarrassed to ride in a plane with the new livery. The poor flight crews!


----------



## xyzzy

The new tail is ugly, although people who have seen it in person (I haven't yet) report that it's better in person than in photos. I suspect Parker is thinking more about the long-term cost of painting the elaborate tail. I don't mind the new fuselage paint although as many have said before, the logo looks like Greyhound of the 1970s.


----------



## saxman

Seeing how the new livery was released just a few days before the merger, I'm thinking they made the design with that in mind. I would like to see them bring back the "AA" on the tail though, perhaps a different design.


----------



## jis

> I'm not sure I would call a carrier with fifteen daily TATL round trips "insignificant." I'm sure they are far from being a major player, but the service out of PHL and to a lesser extent out of CLT offers non-stops to a pretty wide range of European destinations, plus TLV.


 I meant to say "not a major player"..


----------



## railiner

As far as AA's paint scheme.....I think that AA had the best in their former scheme. It was beautiful on a highly polished aluminum aircraft, was instantly recognizable due to its longevity, and the weight savings of no paint saved plenty in fuel costs. The former logo was excellent as well. While the composite surfaces had to be painted a grey color to attempt to match the silver, it wasn't bad either. I agree that the new scheme, especially the tail, is terrible. The reasoning put forth for it was because the new aircraft, like the 787 is all composite, and also, as they emerged from bankruptcy, they wanted to "break away" from the familiar image of the 'old company'.

I think they should go back to the old scheme, and if they want to "freshen it up" a bit, they should perhaps do so by modifying the font on the American Airlines lettering some....

perhaps throw US Airways a bone by utilizing their current lettering style.....

Another thought I had was what to do with the wholly owned American Eagle regional, as well as US Air's Piedmont, etc.

They could rebrand all their regional holdings as "US Air"......


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AA's design was so timeless.

For a couple decades anyway.

It worked exceedingly well with almost everything nothing but aluminum covered aircraft introduced prior to 1974.







On the other hand, I never thought twice about seeing stained carpets, sooty tugs, beat-up carriers, and half-functioning CRT's in particleboard at AA's gates thanks to a logo scheme that screamed "BRING BACK THE 1970's!"


----------



## lb27608

jis said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> RDU barely has any non-hub routes. In fact, once you merge the two networks, London would be the only non-hub route (and I'm almost certain that route is for some corporate contract AA has, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense at all to maintain it).
> 
> 
> 
> IBM
Click to expand...

No, GlaxoSmithKline. They subsidize the route to connect their US headquarters in Research Triangle Park with corporate headquarters in London.


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> Doug Parker (CEO of US and future CEO of the new AA) has been non-commital about the livery. When asked if the new AA scheme will be used for the merged carrier, he said it was among the items to be decided. I hope he decides to come up with something else, at least for the tail. It's hideous.


Still up in the air:

http://skift.com/2013/03/26/american-airlines-new-design-not-a-done-deal-post-merger-says-incoming-ceo/



> American Airlines shouldn’t let the paint dry on that new livery design: Incoming American CEO Doug Parker, who currently heads US Airways, told employees the livery issue is “one of the integration issues we need to work through…”


----------



## railiner

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Parker (CEO of US and future CEO of the new AA) has been non-commital about the livery. When asked if the new AA scheme will be used for the merged carrier, he said it was among the items to be decided. I hope he decides to come up with something else, at least for the tail. It's hideous.
> 
> 
> 
> Still up in the air:
> 
> http://skift.com/2013/03/26/american-airlines-new-design-not-a-done-deal-post-merger-says-incoming-ceo/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Airlines shouldn’t let the paint dry on that new livery design: Incoming American CEO Doug Parker, who currently heads US Airways, told employees the livery issue is “one of the integration issues we need to work through…”
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good....let's hope they come up with something better. I was about to say anything would be better, but then there's that old caveat--be careful what you wish for....so, who knows?


----------



## Ryan

In an unexpected move, DoJ says "NO!".

This should be interesting...

http://thepointsguy.com/2013/08/us-justice-department-suing-to-block-american-us-airways-merger/



> In a surprising move today that shocked industry analysts and sent US Airways’ stock value plummeting more than 10% and American’s by as much as 30%, the US Department of Justice announced that it is suing to block the merger of US Airways with American, which had been proceeding smoothly up until this point.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

> The suit says, “The merger, which would result in the creation of the world’s largest airline, would substantially lessen competition for commercial air travel in local markets throughout the United States and result in passengers paying higher airfares and receiving less service.” Though this issue is a bit murky since as this CNN Money article points out, a PricewaterhouseCoopers study found airfares have only risen 2% per year on average since 2004, and there have been several major mergers since then including those of Delta and Northwest, and the United-Continental merger.


Domestic fares that used to cost around $250 are now running me $450 or more. Intercontinental fares that used to cost me $800-950 are closer to $1,400 today. In addition to that the fare itself covers even less of your travel related fees than it used to. So, where is this 2% nonsense coming from? I trust the airline industry about as much as I trust Fox News, so color me skeptical that these numbers are anything close to transparent. To be perfectly frank I like having more options rather than fewer and there's already been more than enough consolidation in the US air market. Most flights are full or nearly full these days with few empty seats. US and AA have different alliances with different rules that work better when they have to compete with each other.


----------



## PRR 60

Hit me with the paddles! I never thought DOJ would give it a thumbs down. I can't say I'm sorry, but it sure seemed like a done-deal.

Somebody buy Doug Parker a drink!


----------



## railiner

I wouldn't be too quick to think the merger is not going to happen....maybe just a bit of posturing by the DOJ to show they are 'on-the-job'.....

As Yogi would say: "It aint over, till it's over".....I believe it will happen, with perhaps AA and US throwing in a few more concessions to insure more competition.


----------



## PRR 60

Concession I would require: The merged airline cannot use the new AA livery. Having those hideous tails all over PHL would be an assault on the senses.


----------



## Bob Dylan

PRR 60 said:


> Concession I would require: The merged airline cannot use the new AA livery. Having those hideous tails all over PHL would be an assault on the senses.


True this and with both Airlines finishing consistently Low in Satisfaction Polls, hopefully a Merger wouldnt result in even worse Service to go along with the Hideous Makeover Paint Job on the AA Planes! :help:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

This merger isn't that big of a problem. The DoJ should just let it proceed. There's plenty of carriers out there to fight the new AA and it could use the combined capital for a makeover.

They should never have changed the livery. NEVER!


----------



## railiner

Swadian Hardcore said:


> This merger isn't that big of a problem. The DoJ should just let it proceed. There's plenty of carriers out there to fight the new AA and it could use the combined capital for a makeover.
> They should never have changed the livery. NEVER!


Agreed. On both counts.....


----------



## afigg

There is a Steven Pearlstein column in today's Washington Post that provides some insight into the DOJ decision: Why the Justice Department blocked the American-US Airways merger. It is now up to the US Airways & American legal team to convince that he/she should overrule the DOJ to allow the merger to proceed. I have not followed the merger story or what has been going on in the airline industry closely, but the attempts to try to damper the price and city pair competition are interesting. An excerpt:



> One pillar of the government’s case concerns US Airways’ current Advantage Fare program, in which it has defected from the industry practice and prices one-stop trips at a 40 percent discount from the non-stop flights offered by competitors. In a truly competitive market, of course, all carriers would do that, reflecting the significant value passengers assign to non-stop service. But the other airlines have a tacit agreement not to “undercut” each other’s non-stop fares. US Airways has refused to play along. The government cites e-mails and analyses from American and US Airways executives suggesting Advantage Fares will go the way of free baggage check once the merger is complete.
> The government suit also shines a spotlight on another cute industry practice that goes by the name of “cross-market initiative.” An example: Back in 2009, US Airways lowered fares and relaxed restrictions on flights from Detroit, then a Delta/Northwest stronghold, to Philadelphia. Delta responded by lowering its fares on US Airways’ lucrative Boston-Washington route. US Airways’ pricing team got the message loud and clear and concluded it had far more to lose by going ahead with the Philly-Detroit move and walked it back.
> 
> Among the more embarrassing documents unearthed by the government was a string of e-mails among US Airways executives from 2010 complaining about a new “triple miles” promotion launched by Delta as it sought to move into new markets and bring some mothballed planes back into service. US Airways chief executive Douglas Parker complains that the aggressive move would hurt the profits not just at Delta but at all the other airlines that would be forced to match it. Then he suggests bringing pressure on Delta by contacting industry analysts to have them criticize the move. To reinforce the point, Parker even sent the e-mail string to Delta’s chief executive, who quickly remonstrated Parker for his ham-handed attempt at price fixing and forwarded the whole thing to his general counsel.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

How are the airlines supposed to lower fares if most of them are losing money? It's better for US Airways to play along for fair competition's sake. The Advantage Fares are unfair and cause losses for US because it's impossible to have lower operating costs with a one-stop flight then a non-stop flgiht.

Most of these problems are caused by US. AA is recovering nicely, but US could get squished by the others if it dosen't merge with AA. I think AA should take over US instead of vice versa, because Doug Parker seems to be a terrible airline executive.

For consumers, it's better to let them merge into a new big AA. Don't think UA and DL are minor competitors. The industry is still ruinous and essentially killing itself slowly until only a few majors remain.


----------



## railiner

If you read many of the reply's to that Washington Post blog, you will see some very strong pro-merger arguments and logic. And a good petition drive to ask the DOJ to drop their objection with valid reason.

I don't think that the merger will eliminate competition. Even with three strong legacy carrier's after such a merger, you would still have the likes of Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, and others growing. And if that still is not enough, the government could always modify regulations preventing foreign airlines from competing here domestically.....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> If you read many of the reply's to that Washington Post blog, you will see some very strong pro-merger arguments and logic. And a good petition drive to ask the DOJ to drop their objection with valid reason.
> I don't think that the merger will eliminate competition. Even with three strong legacy carrier's after such a merger, you would still have the likes of Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, and others growing. And if that still is not enough, the government could always modify regulations preventing foreign airlines from competing here domestically.....


Oh god, think about the likes of BA, LH, or QF flying US Domestic! QF still does the JFK-LAX, but no tickets are sold on that segment, only through to SYD.

Besides, can't US secretly reduce the Advantage Fares to a discount of 20% or less? It would still undercut the other prices, while possibly recovering more costs.

And US sure is acting a lot like an LCC right now.


----------



## PRR 60

Since PHL is my home airport, I fly US a lot. I've never heard of "Advantage Fares."

In what way is US acting like an LCC (other than using "LCC" as their stock code)? US fares are only low when competition dictates. PHL-BOS was $400 each way until jetBlue entered the market with low fares in May. Now the fare can be under $100. US is in no way, shape, or form a "low cost carrier', at least if that means cost to the customer.


----------



## jis

PRR 60 said:


> Since PHL is my home airport, I fly US a lot. I've never heard of "Advantage Fares."
> In what way is US acting like an LCC (other than using "LCC" as their stock code)? US fares are only low when competition dictates. PHL-BOS was $400 each way until jetBlue entered the market with low fares in May. Now the fare can be under $100. US is in no way, shape, or form a "low cost carrier', at least if that means cost to the customer.


Exactly the thing I was wondering about. US Airways behaves exactly like any of the other legacy carriers as far as fare policy goes. It is another matter that some other legacy carriers are able to command higher premium than US obn certain routes for reasons that I don't quite understand.


----------



## railiner

I don't consider US as quite an exact 'legacy carrier' in the sense that AA, UA, and DL are.....

US Air evolved not from a so-called 'trunk carrier', but rather from Allegheny Airlines, a regional carrier.

And they merged with America West, which I think of as a LCC........


----------



## Anderson

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read many of the reply's to that Washington Post blog, you will see some very strong pro-merger arguments and logic. And a good petition drive to ask the DOJ to drop their objection with valid reason.
> I don't think that the merger will eliminate competition. Even with three strong legacy carrier's after such a merger, you would still have the likes of Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, and others growing. And if that still is not enough, the government could always modify regulations preventing foreign airlines from competing here domestically.....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, think about the likes of BA, LH, or QF flying US Domestic! QF still does the JFK-LAX, but no tickets are sold on that segment, only through to SYD.
> 
> Besides, can't US secretly reduce the Advantage Fares to a discount of 20% or less? It would still undercut the other prices, while possibly recovering more costs.
> 
> And US sure is acting a lot like an LCC right now.
Click to expand...

Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.

The only issue I can sort-of see with a few foreign carriers is that some of them do have fairly protected markets, and I believe a few (not European at this point due to EU rules IIRC) may get government support of one kind or another...so you could see some fair competition issues there. Just as I would have no problem with VIA running a train to New York (actually, I think a lot of us would go ape over it!), I don't see issues with foreign competitors running airline services in the US as long as they're not getting oodles of protection somewhere else.


----------



## railiner

Anderson said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read many of the reply's to that Washington Post blog, you will see some very strong pro-merger arguments and logic. And a good petition drive to ask the DOJ to drop their objection with valid reason.
> I don't think that the merger will eliminate competition. Even with three strong legacy carrier's after such a merger, you would still have the likes of Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, and others growing. And if that still is not enough, the government could always modify regulations preventing foreign airlines from competing here domestically.....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, think about the likes of BA, LH, or QF flying US Domestic! QF still does the JFK-LAX, but no tickets are sold on that segment, only through to SYD.
> 
> Besides, can't US secretly reduce the Advantage Fares to a discount of 20% or less? It would still undercut the other prices, while possibly recovering more costs.
> 
> And US sure is acting a lot like an LCC right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.
> 
> The only issue I can sort-of see with a few foreign carriers is that some of them do have fairly protected markets, and I believe a few (not European at this point due to EU rules IIRC) may get government support of one kind or another...so you could see some fair competition issues there. Just as I would have no problem with VIA running a train to New York (actually, I think a lot of us would go ape over it!), I don't see issues with foreign competitors running airline services in the US as long as they're not getting oodles of protection somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The US government would probably only "open our skies" to airlines whose home countries would grant similar opportunities to US carrier's....


----------



## CHamilton

Anderson said:


> Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.


Ryan, are you planning an airline?   Oh, wait...


----------



## AmtrakBlue

CHamilton said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, are you planning an airline?   Oh, wait...
Click to expand...

Or maybe he's just full of air. :lol:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read many of the reply's to that Washington Post blog, you will see some very strong pro-merger arguments and logic. And a good petition drive to ask the DOJ to drop their objection with valid reason.
> I don't think that the merger will eliminate competition. Even with three strong legacy carrier's after such a merger, you would still have the likes of Southwest, JetBlue, Alaska, and others growing. And if that still is not enough, the government could always modify regulations preventing foreign airlines from competing here domestically.....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god, think about the likes of BA, LH, or QF flying US Domestic! QF still does the JFK-LAX, but no tickets are sold on that segment, only through to SYD.
> 
> Besides, can't US secretly reduce the Advantage Fares to a discount of 20% or less? It would still undercut the other prices, while possibly recovering more costs.
> 
> And US sure is acting a lot like an LCC right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.
> 
> The only issue I can sort-of see with a few foreign carriers is that some of them do have fairly protected markets, and I believe a few (not European at this point due to EU rules IIRC) may get government support of one kind or another...so you could see some fair competition issues there. Just as I would have no problem with VIA running a train to New York (actually, I think a lot of us would go ape over it!), I don't see issues with foreign competitors running airline services in the US as long as they're not getting oodles of protection somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. The US government would probably only "open our skies" to airlines whose home countries would grant similar opportunities to US carrier's....
Click to expand...

The "Oh God" comes from the possibility of even more ruinous competition in the airline industry.



AmtrakBlue said:


> <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="CHamilton" data-cid="462591" data-time="1376856316"><p><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Anderson" data-cid="462583" data-time="1376855750"><p>Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.</p></blockquote>
> 
> Ryan, are you planning an airline?  <span style='font-size: 14px;'> Oh, wait...</span></p></blockquote>
> 
> Or maybe he's just full of air. :lol:


What's this?


----------



## Ryan

AmtrakBlue said:


> CHamilton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the "Oh God" coming from? No, really...I'd get that if RyanAir got in on the game, but not most of the major airlines.
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, are you planning an airline?   Oh, wait...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or maybe he's just full of air. :lol:
Click to expand...

Hot air, to be sure.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> The US government would probably only "open our skies" to airlines whose home countries would grant similar opportunities to US carrier's.


Thanks to asymmetrical bilateral agreements US carriers often have rights of carriage in other countries that foreign carriers either do not have or cannot make practical use of here. If you look at the history of international travel agreements US carriers have benefited greatly from the disproportionate power of their government to set the terms largely in their favor. Even in cases where the agreements would appear to limit the rights of US carriers they are sometimes overridden or simply ignored.


----------



## Bob Dylan

It's because we're like the 10,000 Pound Gorilla who does whatever he wants! (But it doesnt work with some Countries, Canada comes to mind right off hand! International Treaties and Diplomacy are like something that Machevelli or Merlin dreamed up in the days of Camelot, part Statecraft, part Magic and part Treachous Deception!! h34r:


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US government would probably only "open our skies" to airlines whose home countries would grant similar opportunities to US carrier's.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to asymmetrical bilateral agreements US carriers often have rights of carriage in other countries that foreign carriers either do not have or cannot make practical use of here. If you look at the history of international travel agreements US carriers have benefited greatly from the disproportionate power of their government to set the terms largely in their favor. Even in cases where the agreements would appear to limit the rights of US carriers they are sometimes overridden or simply ignored.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that.....could you give some examples?

The only case that I am aware of, was back when Germany was divided, I believe Pan Am had the exclusive authority to fly between Berlin and Frankfort where they operated the "Internal German Service", or something to that effect. I believe that even Lufthansa was not allowed to fly that route. Not sure of the entire history of that, perhaps something to do with the Berlin Airlift earlier, when the Soviet's blocked the land routes between Berlin and West Germany.......

As for the US having an advantage in some trade agreement, I say that's nice for a change....we usually get the short end of it with countries like China or Japan.....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US government would probably only "open our skies" to airlines whose home countries would grant similar opportunities to US carrier's.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to asymmetrical bilateral agreements US carriers often have rights of carriage in other countries that foreign carriers either do not have or cannot make practical use of here. If you look at the history of international travel agreements US carriers have benefited greatly from the disproportionate power of their government to set the terms largely in their favor. Even in cases where the agreements would appear to limit the rights of US carriers they are sometimes overridden or simply ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was not aware of that.....could you give some examples?
> 
> The only case that I am aware of, was back when Germany was divided, I believe Pan Am had the exclusive authority to fly between Berlin and Frankfort where they operated the "Internal German Service", or something to that effect. I believe that even Lufthansa was not allowed to fly that route. Not sure of the entire history of that, perhaps something to do with the Berlin Airlift earlier, when the Soviet's blocked the land routes between Berlin and West Germany.......
> 
> As for the US having an advantage in some trade agreement, I say that's nice for a change....we usually get the short end of it with countries like China or Japan.....
Click to expand...

Chinese air travel is greatly regulated but growing like an explosion. They could rise to challenge the air traffic numbers in the US. Japan is basically just the two big JAL and ANA battling against each other with virtually no consideration to outside competitors. LCCs in Japan can't even try to match JAL or ANA.


----------



## CHamilton

Justice Reaches Deal To Allow American, US Airways Merger




> The Justice Department has reached a deal that will allow for the merger of American and US Airways, opening the door to the creation of the world's largest airline.
> 
> The merger still needs final approval from a bankruptcy court.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The last two holdouts from one of the worst years of loyalty program devaluation finally cleared to proceed largely unhindered.


----------



## saxman

Looks like they will drop a few slots in DCA and LGA and promise to keep the smaller hubs in place for 3 years. Merger mania seems to be quite similar to the railroads merging a decade or two ago.


----------



## railiner

After the three year period is over, who knows what will happen to those smaller hubs.....

Looking back at AMR's last three acquisition's. (can't really call them merger's). TWA, Reno Air, Business Express.....there is barely a trace left to show they existed.

The difference this time is that US Air's top management will actually be in charge, so things might be different. Only time will tell.........


----------



## jis

saxman said:


> Looks like they will drop a few slots in DCA and LGA and promise to keep the smaller hubs in place for 3 years. Merger mania seems to be quite similar to the railroads merging a decade or two ago.


Effectively 12 slot pairs in LGA, since the other 5 pair are already leased by WN from AA and they get to keep those. Much larger number of slot pairs in DCA.


----------



## the_traveler

Devil's Advocate said:


> The last two holdouts from one of the worst years of loyalty program devaluation finally cleared to proceed largely unhindered.


AGR didn't have any devaluation. HHonors didn't have any devaluation. I don't believe any hotel or car rental programs had any devaluation. I'm not certain, but I don't think Southwest or Jet Blue had any devaluation.
Maybe American Airlines, Untied Airlines or Delta Airlines did (I don't know), but they are not the only airlines in the world. So the way I see it, your blanket statement of "one of the worst years" is not very credible.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

I think the New AA will try to expand in LAX and might start to disband PHL in favour of JFK. CLT is anybody's guess, they might keep it to compete against Delta's ATL.

I don't think they'll order any more 777-300ER, they will focus on more modern aircraft. And please deal with that ugly livery!


----------



## CHamilton

> The two carriers are now free to combine and create the world's largest airline, but they must make room for low-cost competitors at seven airports....
> 
> Under the agreement, consumers will find new travel options at Boston Logan International, Chicago O'Hare International, Dallas Love Field, Los Angeles International, Miami International, New York's LaGuardia and Ronald Reagan Washington National.


http://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244815552/airline-antitrust-deal-seen-boosting-competition-at-airports?ft=1&f=1001


----------



## Ispolkom

the_traveler said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last two holdouts from one of the worst years of loyalty program devaluation finally cleared to proceed largely unhindered.
> 
> 
> 
> AGR didn't have any devaluation. HHonors didn't have any devaluation. I don't believe any hotel or car rental programs had any devaluation. I'm not certain, but I don't think Southwest or Jet Blue had any devaluation.
> Maybe American Airlines, Untied Airlines or Delta Airlines did (I don't know), but they are not the only airlines in the world. So the way I see it, your blanket statement of "one of the worst years" is not very credible.
Click to expand...

True, AGR's last devaluation was April 2012. Hhonors, on the other hand, had a major devaluation in February of this year, on top of one announced in 2012. Marriott did the same the same month. Hyatt just announced one. United has a new partner award schedule costing significantly more miles in effect next year. Delta announced another devaluation effective next year. Heck, even Southwest has announced that it will cost more points to book award travel starting next year.

I know that it's all in the game, don't get me wrong, but 2013 hasn't been a very good year for my points portfolio. That's why I'm an earn and burn kind of guy.

FWIW, Mrs. Ispolkom and I both got US Airways credit cards just in hopes that this merger will got through, since American has a bit more coverage in the MSP market, and American miles are absurdly easy to amass. So we're happy that the merger is more likely to go through. I'm sure that there are further devaluations to come, but that's how the game works, isn't it?

ETA: Starwood also devalued this year, as did Wyndham Rewards and Hertz. And Air Canada.


----------



## the_traveler

The AGR "devaluation" had absolutely no effect on me, and many others.

Before the "devaluation" , the points needed for a Roomette award was:

1 zone = 15,000 points

2 zones = 20,000 points

3 zones = 35,000 points

After the "devaluation", the points needed for a Roomette award are:

1 zone = 15,000 points

2 zones = 20,000 points

3 zones = 35,000 points

I think just the bedrooms, special routes and northeast zone amounts increased.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

the_traveler said:


> The way I see it, your blanket statement of "one of the worst years" is not very credible.


Dave, are you're intentionally picking a fight with me? You're challenging something nobody who follows loyalty programs would bother to question at this point. Which I suppose is why you're making such a scene about it.


----------



## the_traveler

I'm not going to argue about this anymore, or say anything else, except this. I probably belong to more loyalty programs (including Amtrak, airlines, hotels and car rental companies) than you do. I have nothing more to say on the subject.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Come on guys, I know I've threadjacked too, but can't we just talk about the New American and stop fighting?

Anyone interested in A321s, 77Ws, and MCE?


----------



## CHamilton

Judge OKs American Airlines-US Airways merger, American’s exit from bankruptcy





> U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane said Wednesday that AMR and American Airlines are free to exit bankruptcy court and close their merger with US Airways Group.
> 
> UPDATE, 9:55 a.m. CST: American Airlines says it will close the deal, close the merger, exit from bankruptcy on Dec. 9, 2013.


----------



## railiner

But when is the 'important' news release coming, (9DEC?), on a new tail paint scheme?


----------



## Ryan

Not soon enough.


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> But when is the 'important' news release coming, (9DEC?), on a new tail paint scheme?


True this!


----------



## xyzzy

I assume the first step would be reciprocal privileges in the two frequent flyer programs -- earning and redeeming miles on either airline, plus mutual recognition of elite status in the two programs. Second step would be mutual admission to clubs. I fly both airlines and I'm looking forward to this. I'm sure there will be some devaluation of benefits, but I'm an ExecPlat on AA and not too worried about losing anything... more miles and upgrades than I can use as it is.


----------



## saxman

Me thinks the paint scheme will remain the current AA one. That's just my opinion though. I'm guessing US will leave Star Alliance and join One World very soon? Let the fun and headaches begin!


----------



## PRR 60

saxman said:


> Me thinks the paint scheme will remain the current AA one. That's just my opinion though. I'm guessing US will leave Star Alliance and join One World very soon? Let the fun and headaches begin!


US has said that they will leave *A and join OW, so that is pretty much a done deal. The only question is when. I'm betting sooner and not later.
As for the livery, I sadly suspect you are correct. I like the present US scheme. The new AA scheme: no comment. The good news: you can't see the outside of the plane from inside the plane.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

xyzzy said:


> I assume the first step would be reciprocal privileges in the two frequent flyer programs -- earning and redeeming miles on either airline, plus mutual recognition of elite status in the two programs. Second step would be mutual admission to clubs. I fly both airlines and I'm looking forward to this. I'm sure there will be some devaluation of benefits, but I'm an ExecPlat on AA and not too worried about losing anything... more miles and upgrades than I can use as it is.


I was seriously considering EXP on AA before the merger was approved. My experience with US has been almost laughably bad. Around half of my trips on US and predecessor lines have been hit with some sort of mechanical failure. Yesterday alone I was delayed by two separate flights on US that were plagued by mechanical difficulties including an eventual substitution that reduced the number of seats substantially. Color me unimpressed with US.


----------



## PRR 60

The merger completes today (December 9). For the time being, US and AA will continue to operate as separate carriers. US will leave Star Alliance and join One World on March 31, 2014.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PRR 60 said:


> The merger completes today (December 9). For the time being, US and AA will continue to operate as separate carriers. US will leave Star Alliance and join One World on March 31, 2014.


I wonder if there will be a 1:1 ratio US > AA > CX path available prior to April. Or a 1:1 US > CX path with 90K return J after the switch to OW. Sky Dream and Stardust Alliance have been killing off positive network benefits for years now. In my view One World retains much of their original benefits and has even added a few more over the years. So in that sense I think this is a positive change. Other than that it's almost universally bad though. Seriously, US is every bit as much of a joke as America Worst.


----------



## PRR 60

It appears US>AA will happen in January, but onward to CX and other OW carriers waits until OW membership on March 31. Interestingly, USDM will retain earning/redeeming relationships with Aegean, Air China, Air New Zealand, Avianca, Ethiopian Airlines, Eva, Shenzhen Airlines, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, TAM, TAP and Turkish Airways even after leaving *A.


----------



## railiner

When they finally merge under one operating certificate in a few month's, that should be (I hope) the last of the "Cactus" call sign on air traffic radio.....


----------



## saxman

railiner said:


> When they finally merge under one operating certificate in a few month's, that should be (I hope) the last of the "Cactus" call sign on air traffic radio.....


I kinda like the Cactus call sign. Kinda like Citrus, and Blue Streak.


----------



## jis

AFAIK they can still choose to use whatever they want to use as call sign irrespective of which operating certificate they use.

The combined United operating certificate is based on the Continental operating certificate. The old United one was retired. The call sign used is United, not Continental.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Unless I'm mistaken the primary purpose of a call sign is that of a clear and concise alias. It's intended to quickly and clearly differentiate airlines that may otherwise sound too similar or be too tedious to repeat in short rapid communications. So far as I'm aware it's not really intended for passengers to hear or even to be aware of such names. Unless you were scanning for airline transmissions or listening to CH9 on UA metal or reading airline forums I'm not sure how you'd ever come across such terms. As a result I'm not sure why any given passenger would even care what their callsign was. You might as well pick your routing based on how the flight numbers are interpreted by your synesthesia.


----------



## jis

While it is certainly true that a random passenger would not know or care, clearly the discussion here is among people who are aware for various reasons and at least a couple that seem to care for whatever reason.


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they finally merge under one operating certificate in a few month's, that should be (I hope) the last of the "Cactus" call sign on air traffic radio.....
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda like the Cactus call sign. Kinda like Citrus, and Blue Streak.
Click to expand...

I always liked "Clipper"......


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> While it is certainly true that a random passenger would not know or care, clearly the discussion here is among people who are aware for various reasons and at least a couple that seem to care for whatever reason.


Right On!


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> AFAIK they can still choose to use whatever they want to use as call sign irrespective of which operating certificate they use.
> 
> The combined United operating certificate is based on the Continental operating certificate. The old United one was retired. The call sign used is United, not Continental.


True. And since US Air CEO is now in charge of the merged company, a fair chance that the US Air certificate will be the surviving one in this case.

But confident that they will use "American" as the call sign, just as they have kept the American identity, similar to the United merger...

I wonder what made them decide to use Continental's certificate in that case? I don't know what advantages or legalities choosing one over the other involves...


----------



## tp49

railiner said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they finally merge under one operating certificate in a few month's, that should be (I hope) the last of the "Cactus" call sign on air traffic radio.....
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda like the Cactus call sign. Kinda like Citrus, and Blue Streak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always liked "Clipper"......
Click to expand...

I'm partial to "Dynasty."


----------



## railiner

Here's another question....will the new American quit flying into Tel-Aviv before the certificates are combined?

Just like they did before fully absorbing TWA into American a dozen years ago........

To refresh memories, the Israeli government was not too thrilled with them for pulling out without giving severance pay to its employee's based there....


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> True. And since US Air CEO is now in charge of the merged company, a fair chance that the US Air certificate will be the surviving one in this case.
> 
> But confident that they will use "American" as the call sign, just as they have kept the American identity, similar to the United merger...


The surviving CEO and the operating certificate are two different things, and the latter would be decided based on what makes the most sense operationally.


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> True. And since US Air CEO is now in charge of the merged company, a fair chance that the US Air certificate will be the surviving one in this case.
> 
> But confident that they will use "American" as the call sign, just as they have kept the American identity, similar to the United merger...
> 
> 
> 
> The surviving CEO and the operating certificate are two different things, and the latter would be decided based on what makes the most sense operationally.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But do you happen to know what might be the differences that they would base that decision on?


----------



## Trogdor

I'm by no means an expert, but AFAIK, it has to do with things such as operational procedures, fleet maintenance practices, training standards, etc.


----------



## railiner

Interesting that the FAA would allow different standards in those area's.....I would have thought the regulations would dictate those, and they would be more or less uniform across the board....


----------



## Trogdor

The regulations state what requirements must be met, but not necessarily how those requirements are met.


----------



## railiner

American ordered a bunch of Bombardier and Embraer regional jets for their regional subsidiaries....http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/pressrelease/american-airlines-announces-large-regional-jet-purchase


----------



## PRR 60

The aircraft livery decision for the new AA has been opened up to a vote by the employees of AA and US. The choice is between the new AA livery, including the flag tail, and the new AA livery, but with the old AA tail. My vote would be for the traditional AA tail, but I'm beginning to warm just a tiny little bit to the new tail.

In other news, AA will retain existing US heritage livery aircraft (Allegheny, PSA, Piedmont), and will add new heritage livery aircraft representing pre-merger AA and US, and TWA.

Wings


----------



## jis

Depending on which of the several liveries of TWA they choose, it could be either something of beauty or something quite mundane. So we'll have to wait and see on that one.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I never much cared for the TWA Red and White but always thought hat the Traditional AA Silver Planes with Red was the Classiest thing in the Air!!! (I miss Braniff's "Flying Colors" and Pan AM's Blue and White! )

I'd vote for the old AA Tail also! Agony Airlines, uh US Air i never cared for! Eastern Ditto!!!


----------



## jis

My favorite TWA livery was this one:







Pardon, my age is showing  That is a TWA Boeing 707 (one of my all time favorite airliners) at London Heathrow, many many moons ago.

Then again, my favorite Air India livery was also on a 707-420, Rolls Royce powered one no less:






Frankly, many of the modern liveries are pretty boring compared to these. Incidentally I have flown in this specific aircraft back the heyday of 707s.

Here is a 747 in the same TWA livery that I like:


----------



## tp49

I loved the last TWA livery before AA took them over. There was something about the addition of blue and the gold globe that at the time looked fresh and new after all the issues they had post flight 800.


----------



## jis

Yeah, that one is nice too.


----------



## Bob Dylan

tp49 said:


> I loved the last TWA livery before AA took them over. There was something about the addition of blue and the gold globe that at the time looked fresh and new after all the issues they had post flight 800.


I Never saw this one, it's Not Bad Compared to the Older One that I thought was Bland and Generic! :hi:


----------



## PerRock

tp49 said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they finally merge under one operating certificate in a few month's, that should be (I hope) the last of the "Cactus" call sign on air traffic radio.....
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda like the Cactus call sign. Kinda like Citrus, and Blue Streak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always liked "Clipper"......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm partial to "Dynasty."
Click to expand...

British Air still uses "Speedbird" which I've always liked. They took it from BOAC; and abandoned BAE's "Bealine" (which is kinda cute...)

peter


----------



## railiner

PRR 60 said:


> The aircraft livery decision for the new AA has been opened up to a vote by the employees of AA and US. The choice is between the new AA livery, including the flag tail, and the new AA livery, but with the old AA tail. My vote would be for the traditional AA tail, but I'm beginning to warm just a tiny little bit to the new tail.
> 
> In other news, AA will retain existing US heritage livery aircraft (Allegheny, PSA, Piedmont), and will add new heritage livery aircraft representing pre-merger AA and US, and TWA.
> 
> Wings


My favorite AA livery was the 'Astrojet' era. come to think of it....I like just about all of the airline liveries that came in the early sixties as the 'jet age' took off....

AA can cetainly field a huge collection of 'heritage' liveries, like an airborne Norfolk Southern, if they wanted to.....


----------



## railiner

railiner said:


> American ordered a bunch of Bombardier and Embraer regional jets for their regional subsidiaries....http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/pressrelease/american-airlines-announces-large-regional-jet-purchase


That news release indicated that the new Bombardier's would be operated by former USAir regional subsidiary PSA, but that they haven't decided which carrier would get the new Embraer's. Today, an internal communication http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/12/union-american-eagle-pilots-receive-new-contract-proposal-warning-from-management.html/  revealed that they are negotiating with former AA's regional subsidiary, American Eagle Airlines, ALPA pilot's union for certain concession's in order to award them the new Embraer's. It should be known that USAir owned PSA and Piedmont as regional subsidiaries, AA owned American Eagle Airlines. In additon, AA had previously contracted with other non-owned regional carrier's to operated at first as 'American Connections', but later also marketed them under the American Eagle brand. Now with the merger, they will market all the owned and nonowned regional's under the American Eagle brand....it gets kind of confusing..... :huh:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Someone I know just flew US and AA back-to-back. This person has ridden both Amtrak and Greyhound multiple times, but he's not a transport enthusiast, doesn't know the equipment well. Basic report on the experience:

1. Airports at Phoenix and Dallas were both very nice.

2. Legroom was poor, much worse than Greyhound and much much worse than Amtrak.

3. Seats on US were not as comfortable as AA.

4. Service on US was better than AA.

5. AA's MD-83 was very loud at the back.

6. Both have some slight delays.

I can ask for more details if anyone's interested.


----------



## xyzzy

I don't think there is anything earthshaking there. I've done both US and AA countless times. Head-to-head comparisons of US and AA in-flight will flip from one circumstance to another. Any aircraft with engines on the tail will sound loud near the back of the cabin, just as any turboprop will sound loud in the row of seats that is aligned with prop rotation.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

xyzzy said:


> I don't think there is anything earthshaking there. I've done both US and AA countless times. Head-to-head comparisons of US and AA in-flight will flip from one circumstance to another. Any aircraft with engines on the tail will sound loud near the back of the cabin, just as any turboprop will sound loud in the row of seats that is aligned with prop rotation.


Well of course, I made it clear to him that the MD-83 was very loud because he was sitting right by the engine. I personally quite like the old Mad Dogs. I do agree that US seats are probably worse than AA. Service, I mean, it depends on the crew.


----------



## saxman

Coach seats on the AA Super 80 near the front are the best IMO. I'm going to miss that plane when it goes.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

saxman said:


> Coach seats on the AA Super 80 near the front are the best IMO. I'm going to miss that plane when it goes.


Yeah, I do like the MD-80, even though some people hate them. Just like how some people love MCI coaches and other think they're "American junk."


----------



## railiner

I like the MD-80's, too.....like the classic Douglas nose, like the flat ceiling, like the two and three seating. I especially like to watch them "power-back" from the gates without the use of a tractor---something you won't see on a 'plane with engine mounted wings....


----------



## railiner

The votes are in....

Doug Parker, CEO of American Airlines Group announced on its Jetwire yesterday that the votes were:

31,355 for the new 'flag' tail

29,063 for the legacy 'AA' tail......

So, the ugly tail wins by a small majority.....

Just as well.....I personally would just as soon not see the classic tail on what AA has become nowadays.....


----------



## PRR 60

This will put the idea that the tail might grow on me to the test. In the end, it is what happens inside the plane that really matters. Just because other airline crews are laughing and hiding their eyes is not a factor.

Next, AAdvantage and US Dividend Miles members will be assuming the crash position in anticipation of the program "enhancements" coming soon. I guess I always have the option to go back to my first love, United. You always remember your first.


----------



## Ryan

I saw a bunch of the tails on my 4 trips through HNL in the past 2 weeks. My reaction has softened from "EWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!" to "Jeez, that's ugly".

But you're dead on, they can put anything they want to on the outside, it's the product on the inside that really matters.


----------



## SarahZ

I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread about the new tail design:



> I like the brushed silver with the modern font, but that tail graphic makes me think, "'Murrica..."
> Edit: Okay, okay... I know the company is "American", so of course they're going to use red/white/blue, but it's just... it screams at me. There are more subtle ways of incorporating the colors, especially since it has "American" plastered on the side.
> 
> It just reminds me of everyone trying to out-patriot-pride each other. I feel like the plane needs truck nuts and an NRA sticker.
> 
> tl;dr - they need a different tail graphic.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

SarahZ said:


> I'll just repeat what I said in the last thread about the new tail design:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the brushed silver with the modern font, but that tail graphic makes me think, "'Murrica..."
> 
> Edit: Okay, okay... I know the company is "American", so of course they're going to use red/white/blue, but it's just... it screams at me. There are more subtle ways of incorporating the colors, especially since it has "American" plastered on the side.
> 
> It just reminds me of everyone trying to out-patriot-pride each other. I feel like the plane needs truck nuts and an NRA sticker.
> 
> tl;dr - they need a different tail graphic.
Click to expand...

You forgot missiles and machine guns.


----------



## Bob Dylan

PRR 60 said:


> This will put the idea that the tail might grow on me to the test. In the end, it is what happens inside the plane that really matters. Just because other airline crews are laughing and hiding their eyes is not a factor.
> 
> Next, AAdvantage and US Dividend Miles members will be assuming the crash position in anticipation of the program "enhancements" coming soon. I guess I always have the option to go back to my first love, United. You always remember your first.


Back in the Day when I was a Regular Business Traveler I was among the First Members of the AA Advantage and United's Frequent Flyer Programs! I Earned Many,Many Free Flights, Used the Lounges and other Perks over the Years and Enjoyed Them Greatly! Unfortunately Due to the Millions of Members and the Ever Increasing Number of Airline Passengers Coupled with Flight Cutbacks, these Programs are Becoming Less Valuable all the Time! Those Fortunate Enough to have their Employer Pay for their Travel still get to Enjoy these Programs but if Paying Yourself they are Not a Value IMO!!

I Choose to Fly Amtrak Now that I'm Retired so I'm Glad we still have AGR (and the AGR Credit Card and Rewards Cards from Chase), it's Still One of the Best Loyalty Programs Out There! Hopefully Amtrak wont Follow the Airlines Policies when it comes to Loyalty Programs! 

And I'm with the "Butt Ugly"Crowd when it Comes to AAs New Flying Colors Design!!


----------



## railiner

Judging by the reactions here....I can't help wondering how credible those 'vote results' really are.....


----------



## Bob Dylan

railiner said:


> Judging by the reactions here....I can't help wondering how credible those 'vote results' really are.....


Sounds like they "Cooked the Books" to Me!!  (Their Election "Consultant" was from Chicago!  )


----------



## jis

So how many posters on the AU forum are employees of AA or US?  what do the opinions of those that are not even eligible to vote matter in that particular decision making process?


----------



## SarahZ

jis said:


> So how many posters on the AU forum are employees of AA or US?  what do the opinions of those that are not even eligible to vote matter in that particular decision making process?


No idea, but they had a voting contest on Facebook if that says anything. Of course, I highly doubt they took those votes into consideration, but it was fun to watch the comment thread.  Some people came up with some pretty cool designs.


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> So how many posters on the AU forum are employees of AA or US?  what do the opinions of those that are not even eligible to vote matter in that particular decision making process?


It doesn't matter.....but, ...whether an employee or not, the opinion's expressed here can be taken as a 'barometer' of opinion's in general of that design.

My opinion is that the person(s) who paid a lofty fee to a consultng firm to come up with that new design would be embarrassed if they had to give it up, and repaint the aircraft back to the old design....

Just sayin'.......


----------



## railiner

Speaking of designing firms, I would be shocked if the new design was done by the firm that did their former classic design--none other than the house of Henry Dreyfuss...yes, that Henry Dreyfuss, of The Twentieth Century Linmited, among others, fame.....


----------



## CHamilton

LAX seeking court permission to sue American Airlines for back rent



> In an attempt to recover back payments from American Airlines for space at Los Angeles International Airport, the city has asked a federal bankruptcy judge in New York to allow it to proceed with legal action against the carrier in a California federal court.
> 
> American, now the world’s largest carrier, exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy in December when it completed its merger with US Airways. According to a court filing, Los Angeles World Airports officials contend they are owed $21.5 million, plus interest, which the airline should now pay since it is no longer in bankruptcy. But the old company — AMR Corp. — no longer exists. It was replaced last month by American Airlines Group.
> 
> “Since December 31, 2010, American has underpaid its rental invoices from LAWA by a total of $21,556,915.70,” lawyers for Los Angeles wrote in court documents. “Of this amount, $5,710,738.65 accrued prior to American’s chapter 11 petition on November 29, 2011 and $15,846,177.05 has accrued since the filing of American’s chapter 11 petition.”
> 
> According to the bankruptcy court filing, Los Angeles wants to take legal action against American in federal district court in Los Angeles regarding a contractual issue. It needs permission from a bankruptcy judge to do so.
> 
> At issue is American’s long-term lease for Terminal 4. The city contends, according to court documents, that it can recover not only rent, but also funds for “maintenance and operations” of Terminal 4. The sides disagree on whether American can continue to avoid paying these costs, called “M&O,” and the city seeks to have a federal judge in Los Angeles decide the question. M&O fees pay for matters such as security and roadway upkeep.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

railiner said:


> Speaking of designing firms, I would be shocked if the new design was done by the firm that did their former classic design--none other than the house of Henry Dreyfuss...yes, that Henry Dreyfuss, of The Twentieth Century Linmited, among others, fame.....


Speaking of Henry Dreyfuss, here is the original "Henry Dreyfuss" interior on the Braniff 707. Yes, it's a 707-227, a very rare airliner.


----------



## Ispolkom

Swadian Hardcore said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of designing firms, I would be shocked if the new design was done by the firm that did their former classic design--none other than the house of Henry Dreyfuss...yes, that Henry Dreyfuss, of The Twentieth Century Linmited, among others, fame.....
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Henry Dreyfuss, here is the original "Henry Dreyfuss" interior on the Braniff 707. Yes, it's a 707-227, a very rare airliner.
Click to expand...

Wow, every gentleman in the shot is wearing a suit. Now I'm grateful when the guy I sit next to has a shirt with sleeves.


----------



## PerRock

What's the interesting patterning on the walls?

peter


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PerRock said:


> What's the interesting patterning on the walls?
> 
> peter


I'm not sure, but I know Braniff did use quilted uniforms for their employees, so maybe they put the same quilt pattern inside their planes.


----------



## Guest_Is_Here

I received the dreaded email from US Airways informing that they are leaving Star Alliance on March 30, 2014 and joining oneworld. I have about 49,000 Dividend Miles carefully collected over years of travel to use on Star Alliance airlines in the future, and come April they will all be dragged away into stupid oneworld 

Does anyone know if there is any way to salvage these miles? (I collected 90% of them on Star Alliance carriers, I am not some US Airways fanatic)

On related note, I also have about 5,000 AAdvantage miles sitting around. Will there be an opportunity to combine 49,000 Dividend Miles and 5,000 AAdvantage miles into a combined 54,000 WhateverTheyWillCallTheCombinedProgram miles?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Guest_Is_Here said:


> Does anyone know if there is any way to salvage these miles?


Spend them on *A flights before they leave the alliance. Any tickets awarded remain in good standing after the switch.



Guest_Is_Here said:


> On related note, I also have about 5,000 AAdvantage miles sitting around. Will there be an opportunity to combine 49,000 Dividend Miles and 5,000 AAdvantage miles into a combined 54,000


If history is anything to go by you'll have a combined 54k usable with OneWorld, which at this point is probably is a more useful alliance than Star anyhow, at least in the practical sense. Star airlines just seem to make up their own rules as they go along. Almost as if the alliance was disbanded and reformed every couple years with new rules and restrictions. Who needs that? There was a time when *A was great for points arbitrage, take easy to earn points from a US program and spend them on fancy Asian airlines with much better service, but those days are being written out of existence by the bureaucrats. Meanwhile that's still possible with OW. I never found a purpose for SkyTeam on the points side. Not for earning, not for burning, not for status, not for anything. Some of the SkyTeam airlines actually have good onboard service, but most of their frequent flyer memberships seem to be treated like a reluctant afterthought.


----------



## xyzzy

To each his own. I am Executive Platinum on AA and have flown extensively on OW partners since the alliance was created. Works fine for me. I'm sure that eventually Dividend Miles will be merged into Advantage with pooling of miles, just like NW+DL and CO+UA (I still have miles earned on Eastern Airlines in Mileage Plus). The downside is that award levels are certain to be raised soon.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Guest_Is_Here said:


> I received the dreaded email from US Airways informing that they are leaving Star Alliance on March 30, 2014 and joining oneworld. I have about 49,000 Dividend Miles carefully collected over years of travel to use on Star Alliance airlines in the future, and come April they will all be dragged away into stupid oneworld
> 
> Does anyone know if there is any way to salvage these miles? (I collected 90% of them on Star Alliance carriers, I am not some US Airways fanatic)
> 
> On related note, I also have about 5,000 AAdvantage miles sitting around. Will there be an opportunity to combine 49,000 Dividend Miles and 5,000 AAdvantage miles into a combined 54,000 WhateverTheyWillCallTheCombinedProgram miles?


Book an international flight, burns away your miles fast but it's worth it. 49,000 doesn't sound like a huge a amount compared to the guys with 500,000 or 1,000,000 miles.

Edit: typo


----------



## jis

54,000 miles probably won't get you that far these days either. OTOH you could probably get your self a decent hotel night or three or a reasonable gift with it too.


----------



## Guest_Guest

jis said:


> 54,000 miles probably won't get you that far these days either. OTOH you could probably get your self a decent hotel night or three or a reasonable gift with it too.


I'm a bit naive since I have never used my miles for anything so far, but won't 54,000 miles give me two roundtrip domestic tickets? Domestic US roundtrip flights are 25,000 miles, isn't it? I have a couple of transcontinental flights planned for this year, each of which would cost around $500, can I get those on miles? Or are there hidden fees or caveats about booking tickets using miles? Should I do it over the phone or online, what works better to get preferred flights on miles?


----------



## jis

Usually the problem with getting free tickets is getting them when you want them. But yes, I believe you should be able to get a couple of domestic round trips with 54k miles.

I believe you should be able to do the entire booking on line through their reservation portal. But first let them complete the merging of the two systems, and see what the new award levels are. OTOH, you could get one domestic with just th 47k miles or whatever that you have on a single pre-merger airline using the pre-merger awards too.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Guest_Guest said:


> I'm a bit naive since I have never used my miles for anything so far, but won't 54,000 miles give me two roundtrip domestic tickets? Domestic US roundtrip flights are 25,000 miles, isn't it?


Depends on the flight and the day you want to travel. Generally there are round trip saver awards at 25K and standard round trip awards at 50K. AA allows one way trips at half the round trip points cost while US does not.



Guest_Guest said:


> I have a couple of transcontinental flights planned for this year, each of which would cost around $500, can I get those on miles?


The only way to know is to check for availability and even then it will only be true for that specific moment in time. The next day (or even the next hour) those flights may no longer be available.



Guest_Guest said:


> Or are there hidden fees or caveats about booking tickets using miles?


You'll be paying taxes and government imposed fees at a minimum. That's been true for as long as I can remember. I currently have six awards ticketed myself. One flight has fees totaling $5 per person while the other flight has fees totaling nearly $150 per person. Both of these flights are of nearly identical distance, costing the same number of points, and ticketed on the same website through the same award program. Some frequent traveler programs now collect fuel surcharges as well, sometimes nearly equalling the cost of buying a ticket outright and completely negating the benefit of collecting miles in the first place. With US or AA fuel surcharges do not apply to domestic flights or to US/AA aircraft traveling abroad.



Guest_Guest said:


> Should I do it over the phone or online, what works better to get preferred flights on miles?


Since calling the reservations desk almost always incurs an additional fee the only time you want to book an award over the phone is if there is no way to accomplish the same task on the website, which is rare. Unlike with AGR most airline websites have all the rules programmed in and let you book awards on your own without any human involvement. It's quick, easy, and effective. Just make sure you double check your dates and times because if you screw up it can be a painful and costly mistake to correct. These days the only time you need to call anyone is if you're trying to get really creative or you're using domestic points to book a foreign carrier that is impossible to book online. Although it may take years to earn enough points to book anything the actual booking process itself is generally very quick.


----------



## railiner

For those interested, AA revealed that the original, AA wholly owner subsidiary regional carrier, American Eagle Airlines, Inc., will soon rebrand itself as "Envoy Airlines", a move made to eliminate confusion between the name of that particular carrier, and the generic brand name, American Eagle, that American Airlines is giving to all regional carriers serving it, both wholly owned, or not.

It is ironic that they chose a name that currently depicts premium service on US Airways. Perhaps a better choice would have been "Flagship Airlines", to show it's heritage as both an name used currently by AA to depict premium services, as well as the actual name of one of the former carriers that were consolidated into the original American Eagle Airlines...They did say that US Airways will soon drop the 'Envoy' reference to its premium service.

Prior to the bankruptcy, and US Airways merger, AMR, owner of AA and AE, was trying to divest American Eagle Airlines, but that plan was put on hold (who would buy it?).

Since AA has given certain flights to non wholly owned regional carriers that were formerly operatied by its own regional, they wanted to separate it and even allow it to bid on serving competing carrier's like UA and DL or others, if it could win a contract. Another reason to let it get it's own name. It would have been interesting to see a hypothetic situation with an aircraft painted up as a United Express aircraft, with the small letters 'operated by American Eagle Airlines' on it.....


----------



## xyzzy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Airlines has a good history of all the companies that found their way into the AMR-owned American Eagle, now Envoy. After 1988 when AMR adopted a strategy of acquiring the Eagle operators, there were intermittent situations where an airline not owned by AMR operated American Eagle flights.


----------



## railiner

xyzzy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Eagle_Airlines has a good history of all the companies that found their way into the AMR-owned American Eagle, now Envoy. After 1988 when AMR adopted a strategy of acquiring the Eagle operators, there were intermittent situations where an airline not owned by AMR operated American Eagle flights.


IIRC, in those cases, at least in later years, those carrier's, (such as Trans-States), were identified as "American Connection", rather than American Eagle....


----------



## xyzzy

railiner said:


> IIRC, in those cases, at least in later years, those carrier's, (such as Trans-States), were identified as "American Connection", rather than American Eagle....


I think you're right. I don't remember American Connection as a brand being used in the late 80s or early 90s. It happened about the time when Corporate, Chataqua, and Trans-States entered the picture.


----------



## railiner

More bad news for Envoy Airlines employees's ......http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/american-airlines-plans-to-transfer-planes-from-envoy-air-to-psa-airlines.html/

I would imagine morale there must be pretty bad, especially after this latest slap.

It's only a matter of time, before Envoy becomes just a non-flying, ground services subsidiary of the American Airlines Group, sort of like a throwback of the old "AMR Services" that once existed.....


----------



## xyzzy

Yes, Envoy is toast unless they give in. All the EMB-135/40/45 jungle jets will be gone within a few years.

One of Gerard Arpey's failures as AA CEO was that he retained an aging fleet of aircraft for both the mainline operation and the commuter operation. AA kept flying 35-45 seaters while DL was taking a leap forward by getting rid of 50-seaters in favor of larger commuter aircraft. Will take time for Doug to undo that damage.


----------



## PRR 60

Another step in the US/AA merger is taking place this weekend. The US Airways Dividend Miles (DM) program is being merged into the AAdvantage (AA) program. For members with accounts in both programs, the DM balances are going to the AA account, and for those (like me) who only have a DM account, a new AA account has been opened and everything is moving there. The work started midnight Friday night and is still on-going. By the end of the weekend, US DM will, for all practical purposes, cease to exist. It's a little disconcerting to have a half a million miles disappear for a day, but as of this morning, they are safely back and in their new AA home.

It ls also reported that, on April 8, American and US Airways will receive a Single Operating Certificate from he FAA. Beginning then, from an air traffic control standpoint, all AA and US flights will be AA flights. This means that the venerable "Cactus" ATC call sign for US Airways flights (originally from Phoenix-based America West) will be no more. All AA flights, whether operated by AA or US crews, will now have the "American" call sign for ATC. I'll miss Cactus.

From the public standpoint, the last, and by far the scariest transition, is set to take place later this year. This is when the the US Airways computer reservation system, presently on SHARES, will be moved to the American Airlines system, on SABRE. I'm not aware of one single case where this type of large-scale CRS transition has gone well, and in some cases, total chaos has occurred. When the legacy US transitioned to the America West SHARES system after that merger, nothing worked. It was a complete Charlie Foxtrot that lasted for a week or more. This one is still over six months away, but I'm already breaking into a cold sweat.


----------



## railiner

AA is taking extraordinary steps to insure as trouble free a transition as possible....they are hiring a large number of additional agents, are setting up a special department to quickly handle any snafu's that result from unforeseen glitches in the transition, and furthermore, are experienced in similar transition's not too far back, when they merged with TWA, as well as the US Air and America West as mentioned. They also learned from some of the problems the Delta-Northwest, and United-Continental mergers encountered....

I would not worry so much about it, but if you are, I can understand. If possible you might want to plan to avoid travel that weekend...


----------



## white rabbitt

i am a DM member and i love US AIR

i am flying on US AIR on april 22 from Detroit to Austin tx

i am not useing AA routes or planes, going threw Charlotte

i want nothing to do with AA


----------



## PRR 60

white rabbitt said:


> i am a DM member and i love US AIR
> 
> i am flying on US AIR on april 22 from Detroit to Austin tx
> 
> i am not useing AA routes or planes, going threw Charlotte
> 
> i want nothing to do with AA


Well, good luck with that. By tomorrow, you will be an AAdvantage member, with nice new number and all. Even on usairways.com, you will open your account into AAdvantage, not Dividend Miles. By this time next year, US Airways will officially be a fallen flag with only a handful of soon to be repainted aircraft and a retro-plane or two to show for it.

I liked US as well (I knew there had to be someone else somewhere), but its days are numbered. I have to say that, so far, AA has been fine. My occasional trips in F show a noticeable upgrade in meal service, and in the back of the bus, having access to AA Main Cabin Extra is very nice. Even the new aircraft livery is growing on me. It certainly is "distinctive." I think I have chilled and now I am just going with the flow.


----------



## white rabbitt

PRR

thats why i am only flying routes serviced by US Airways


----------



## PRR 60

The final public impact piece of the AA/US merger begins Saturday (July 18). The two carriers will merge their computer reservation systems (CRS). The legacy AA system (Sabre) will become the system for the combined airline.

They are approaching this differently than the prior disastrous system migrations by US Airways with America West, and Continental with United. The migration will be phased in over a three month period.

On July 18, all US Airways flights beginning October 17 will be re-designated American Airlines flights. Any existing reservations on the US Airways CRS for travel after October 16 will be migrated to the AA CRS. This forced migration will affect about 4% of all the existing AA/US reservations. Also beginning July 18, any reservation requests on the US Airways website for travel after October 16 will be redirected to the AA website for fulfillment. US Airways travel for trips between July 18 and October 16 will still be booked on the US site and held by the US CRS. As the days count down to October 16, more and more reservations will be made on the AA CRS and fewer and fewer will be made on the US CRS. As of October 17, there will be nothing left on the US CRS, everything will be on the AA CRS and all flights will carry the AA career designation. On the carrier side, overlays are being developed to transition the US agents to the AA system, and new kiosks will be installed to replace the old US versions.

The presumed advantage of this plan is that Instead of every single reservation being migrated or changed at once, only a relative few will require intervention. The rest will disappear by attrition. At least, that's the plan.

I'm not quite as scared as I would have been with an all at once change-over (like UA/CO), but it remains to be seen how this works in practice. The fun begins Saturday. I've got some fall travel to book, and I'm doing it this week.


----------



## the_traveler

I'll miss US!  But because they combined their FFPs and then I got the AA credit card (including the required spend for the bonus), I now have 80K on AA - even thou I last flew AA in the mid 1980's!


----------



## Ryan

PRR 60 said:


> On July 18, all US Airways flights beginning October 17 will be re-designated American Airlines flights. Any existing reservations on the US Airways CRS for travel after October 16 will be migrated to the AA CRS. This forced migration will affect about 4% of all the existing AA/US reservations.


That number amazes me. Out of all of the open reservations held by US/AA, 96% of them are for travel in the next 2 months?


----------



## jis

That does not surprise me too much, considering that the lowest fares are generally available about three months before departure!  why would people unnecessarily lock in higher fares in a non refundable booking?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> That does not surprise me too much, considering that the lowest fares are generally available about three months before departure!  why would people unnecessarily lock in higher fares in a non refundable booking?


Airline tickets can move hundreds of dollars in the span of a single day. Over the course of a few weeks or months they can potentially move thousands of dollars. When I make my decision to purchase a ticket it is based on a known and definable price rather than some vague assumption of cost. Maybe in other cultures it's not unusual for working age people to lock in their dates, times, and locations and then sit and wait for months before buying airline tickets, but nobody I know does that. When we're ready to plan we buy. If the cost is too high we choose another location. Most Americans don't have three or four weeks of annual vacation to play around with so they do what they can to make the most of the one or two weeks they do have. Maybe they'll end up leaving some money on the table as a result, but it's not like most folks can move their approved vacation dates around just because the airline prices changed.


----------



## xyzzy

I'm in the air often on business, and three weeks is as far in advance as I can ever book. There is just too much likelihood that my schedule will have to change if I look farther out, and then I'm into the change fees.


----------



## PRR 60

Ryan said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On July 18, all US Airways flights beginning October 17 will be re-designated American Airlines flights. Any existing reservations on the US Airways CRS for travel after October 16 will be migrated to the AA CRS. This forced migration will affect about 4% of all the existing AA/US reservations.
> 
> 
> 
> That number amazes me. Out of all of the open reservations held by US/AA, 96% of them are for travel in the next 2 months?
Click to expand...

Per AA, approximately 60% of the existing AA/US reservations are already AA reservations, so regardless of the date of travel, those reservations do not have to be touched. The US side holds about 40% of the existing reservations. Of those, about 10% are for travel after October 16. So, of all the existing AA/US reservations on the books, 10% of 40% require migration - or 4%.


----------



## Ryan

Duh, I didn't think about the fact that existing AA reservations aren't affected. That number sounds more reasonable.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not surprise me too much, considering that the lowest fares are generally available about three months before departure!  why would people unnecessarily lock in higher fares in a non refundable booking?
> 
> 
> 
> Airline tickets can move hundreds of dollars in the span of a single day. Over the course of a few weeks or months they can potentially move thousands of dollars. When I make my decision to purchase a ticket it is based on a known and definable price rather than some vague assumption of cost. Maybe in other cultures it's not unusual for working age people to lock in their dates, times, and locations and then sit and wait for months before buying airline tickets, but nobody I know does that. When we're ready to plan we buy. If the cost is too high we choose another location. Most Americans don't have three or four weeks of annual vacation to play around with so they do what they can to make the most of the one or two weeks they do have. Maybe they'll end up leaving some money on the table as a result, but it's not like most folks can move their approved vacation dates around just because the airline prices changed.
Click to expand...

Good point....and it gets further complicated when you are shopping for a cruise vacation...and possibly other vacations, as there are many fluctuations in their pricing as well, and strategies for getting the best fares/prices.....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

xyzzy said:


> I'm in the air often on business, and three weeks is as far in advance as I can ever book. There is just too much likelihood that my schedule will have to change if I look farther out, and then I'm into the change fees.


I rarely travel for business but when I did the business travel contract terms were different than personal tickets, often able to sharply reduce or even waive change fees altogether. I would presume that's still the case today for medium and larger businesses.



railiner said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not surprise me too much, considering that the lowest fares are generally available about three months before departure!  why would people unnecessarily lock in higher fares in a non refundable booking?
> 
> 
> 
> Airline tickets can move hundreds of dollars in the span of a single day. Over the course of a few weeks or months they can potentially move thousands of dollars. When I make my decision to purchase a ticket it is based on a known and definable price rather than some vague assumption of cost. Maybe in other cultures it's not unusual for working age people to lock in their dates, times, and locations and then sit and wait for months before buying airline tickets, but nobody I know does that. When we're ready to plan we buy. If the cost is too high we choose another location. Most Americans don't have three or four weeks of annual vacation to play around with so they do what they can to make the most of the one or two weeks they do have. Maybe they'll end up leaving some money on the table as a result, but it's not like most folks can move their approved vacation dates around just because the airline prices changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point....and it gets further complicated when you are shopping for a cruise vacation...and possibly other vacations, as there are many fluctuations in their pricing as well, and strategies for getting the best fares/prices.....
Click to expand...

I do know that in some countries most flights are still sold by travel agents that sometimes cost more but also came with fewer restrictions and fees than we're used to, or at least that's how it worked the last time I looked into it, but even that process still favors buying earlier rather than later.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> xyzzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the air often on business, and three weeks is as far in advance as I can ever book. There is just too much likelihood that my schedule will have to change if I look farther out, and then I'm into the change fees.
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely travel for business but when I did the business travel contract terms were different than personal tickets, often able to sharply reduce or even waive change fees altogether. I would presume that's still the case today for medium and larger businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not surprise me too much, considering that the lowest fares are generally available about three months before departure!  why would people unnecessarily lock in higher fares in a non refundable booking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Airline tickets can move hundreds of dollars in the span of a single day. Over the course of a few weeks or months they can potentially move thousands of dollars. When I make my decision to purchase a ticket it is based on a known and definable price rather than some vague assumption of cost. Maybe in other cultures it's not unusual for working age people to lock in their dates, times, and locations and then sit and wait for months before buying airline tickets, but nobody I know does that. When we're ready to plan we buy. If the cost is too high we choose another location. Most Americans don't have three or four weeks of annual vacation to play around with so they do what they can to make the most of the one or two weeks they do have. Maybe they'll end up leaving some money on the table as a result, but it's not like most folks can move their approved vacation dates around just because the airline prices changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point....and it gets further complicated when you are shopping for a cruise vacation...and possibly other vacations, as there are many fluctuations in their pricing as well, and strategies for getting the best fares/prices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do know that in some countries most flights are still sold by travel agents that sometimes cost more but also came with fewer restrictions and fees than we're used to, or at least that's how it worked the last time I looked into it, but even that process still favors buying earlier rather than later.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of what I referred to as the StupidSeats promotion Amtrak was doing for a while (it's since been renamed) where you could get about as close to a non-flexible fare as Amtrak would offer (e.g. the "no upgrades, no changes to itinerary once travel has begun, etc." sort of fare) and the fare would be somewhat discounted...basically it was a rolling version of the NEC 25% off advance-booking fare. One of several reasons I got into the habit of booking fairly last-minute was that Amtrak.com was set up to automatically give you the cheapest fare, even if subject to those T&C, and...well, let's just say that I didn't like that.

This being Amtrak there were no change fees and you could still get a good voucher, but both offers struck me as a rather head-scratching deal. Of course, the airline industry has generally gone to putting two fares on the table in most cases: Fully refundable (almost always insanely expensive) and not-flexible (may or may not be substantially cheaper), with generally nothing in the middle (e.g. non-refundable but changeable with no fee). Of course, this probably covers 95% of likely sales (most folks want "whatever is cheapest" and various waiver paths exist) but the trend does seem to be towards putting only those two sorts of products on the market.


----------



## jis

Nothing in the middle? Not in my experience. Actually airlines offer mindnumbingly complex fare rules on various fares between non-refundable non-changeable to fully refundable fully changeable. Amtrak's IT system is simply incapable of supporting such, which is probably not a bad thing.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Nothing in the middle? Not in my experience. Actually airlines offer mindnumbingly complex fare rules on various fares between non-refundable non-changeable to fully refundable fully changeable. Amtrak's IT system is simply incapable of supporting such, which is probably not a bad thing.


...actually, let me rephrase. Scads of complicated rules are available, but there's no way to actually search out which one(s) you want to look at prices for. Put another way, on certain airlines you get extra mileage for one bucket over another. Let's say that for First you have the following buckets:

A, B, C: Discounted First

D, E, F: "Full" First (F being fully refundable/changeable)

A is the cheapest, F most expensive. It is very rare that I'll come across an engine that actually lets me compare either all six buckets or all three of the "full" buckets. I might get shown A or B and F and I can't go in and say "is D available, what does it cost, and what are the T&C"? At least, this is my experience with Delta.

Edit: Another good example is on Virgin America. I've got few complaints there, but one thing that can get under my skin a bit on some level is that you basically get two choices. One is the cheapest available fare (whether part of a sale/special with restrictions, boilerplate cheapest with nothing special, or something else) and the other is "refundable". Again, no ability to say "I want the cheapest non-sale/not-specially-restricted fare available".


----------



## jis

There is a way to look it up. There is no easy ready to hand way of doing so. There have been cases where I have actually made choices based on a deeper dive analysis specially where multiple thousand dollars are at stake on ULH flights for example.


----------



## PRR 60

From a public perspective, today (October 16) is the last day for US Airways. Tonight the US Airways name will be retired, and all future flights will be under the American Airlines brand. The US website will redirect to AA, and the US mobile app will be disabled.

AA/US began a 90-day "drain-down" of reservations in the US Airways reservation system back in July. Now, the only reservations left on the US Shares system are those for today's flights. Overnight the US kiosks and agent terminals will go over to the AA Sabre reservation system, and US branding will disappear from airports. The ceremonial last flight is in the air - US 1939 from Philadelphia to Charlotte, then on to Phoenix and San Francisco, and finally operating as the redeye tonight from San Francisco back to Philadelphia. 1939 was the start of operation of All American Aviation, predecessor of Allegheny Airlines, later called US Air and finally US Airways.

US Airways certainly has a mixed reputation with travelers. From my perspective, I've enjoyed my rides them. My first Allegheny trip was on March 7, 1970 when my girlfriend and I flew down to Norfolk VA on a day trip to experience a total solar eclipse from the airport observation deck. I think the fare was something like $20 each. That girlfriend stuck around and was at my side on my last US Airways flight on September 21 from Chicago back Philadelphia coming home from a trip to visit our daughter, son-in-law and (then) five-month-old grandson in Montana. In between were 244 other flights covering just under 293,000 miles and countless travel memories. We'll toast US Airways at dinner tonight. It's been a great ride, and I hope to see those folks flying the AA colors in the future.


----------



## Ryan

How long is the USAirways paint going to live on? Need to get out and get some shots before it disappears.


----------



## PRR 60

Ryan said:


> How long is the USAirways paint going to live on? Need to get out and get some shots before it disappears.


I'm guessing a year or more. There are still a bunch of them out there. If I get a more precise timeline, I'll let you know,

I liked the US livery. I'm "adjusting" to the new AA scheme. It is growing on me, but it has a ways to go.


----------



## PRR 60

According to Flightglobal, the US livery will be gone by the end of 2016. The old AA livery will last until the end of 2017.


----------



## Ryan

Thanks! So little free time and so many interesting things to go shoot. My goal of capturing all of the AEM-7s before they were retired was a dismal failure, time flys by so fast. Need to spend some quality time both trackside and at the airport.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thanks for sharing the memories Bill! We used to call them "Agony Airlines" when I lived in the NE, but actually they were a better airline than Eastern!!

I personally like the old Silver Bird with the Red Trim scheme! Over half of my Million plus Flight miles were spent on American planes with that livery!


----------



## Montreal Ltd

I remember "Agony Airlines" and "Alligator Airlines", and for its successor, "US Awful" and "Useless Air".


----------



## Eric S

I'll be curious to see if any of the current AA/US hubs lose out in the next few years. I've read some speculation that Phoenix may face cutbacks, but it's a much larger city/metro area than Cincinnati, Cleveland, Memphis, and others that have been (or are being) de-hubbed.


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Thanks for sharing the memories Bill! We used to call them "Agony Airlines" when I lived in the NE, but actually they were a better airline


Didn't "Agony" come from "Alleghany? Or am I remembering wrong?


----------



## Bob Dylan

jis said:


> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing the memories Bill! We used to call them "Agony Airlines" when I lived in the NE, but actually they were a better airline
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't "Agony" come from "Alleghany? Or am I remembering wrong?
Click to expand...

You are correct Sir!


----------



## trainman74

Eric S said:


> I'll be curious to see if any of the current AA/US hubs lose out in the next few years. I've read some speculation that Phoenix may face cutbacks, but it's a much larger city/metro area than Cincinnati, Cleveland, Memphis, and others that have been (or are being) de-hubbed.


I'll bet on Charlotte being the one to lose out (in favor of Miami and Philadelphia).


----------



## PRR 60

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Dylan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing the memories Bill! We used to call them "Agony Airlines" when I lived in the NE, but actually they were a better airline
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't "Agony" come from "Alleghany? Or am I remembering wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct Sir!
Click to expand...

When Allegheny became US Air, it did not take long for the nickname "Useless Air" to be coined.


----------



## edjbox

us airways was they first airline I flew (when it was still usair) back in the 90s a few years before becoming us airways


----------



## Ryan

Same here - a friend of mine's dad was a pilot, and the 3 of us flew from DCA to Maine for the day to visit the L.L. Bean store. Good times.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

American Airlines was my first ever airline and they treated me amazingly well back then. My how things have changed over time. I've flown something like thirty different liveries but there is not a single US based airline that makes me feel good about choosing them today. Instead it's all about picking the lesser evil. Which is a pretty lousy decision to be perfectly honest.


----------



## The Journalist

This may be dead horse by now, but I really wish they were using this livery




instead of the new American one. Ah well.


----------



## edjbox

Anyone know the plane tail number of the last flight?


----------



## PRR 60

edjbox said:


> Anyone know the plane tail number of the last flight?


N152UW


----------



## BCL

I do appreciate that after the PSA purchase, US Airways did put a few of the famous "smile" paint jobs at the front of the plane. They even did one almost completely in PSA livery


----------



## railiner

I believe AA will have a 'heritage' paint job to represent most of their predecessor companies on various types of aircraft....


----------



## saxman

I've always been partial to AA as my "hometown" airline. I think they have a decent product, and I still try to revel the flights I take on the old Mad Dogs. I've come to love those things. Sometimes, I have to ride on the E-175's operated by Republic, and that's just not the same to me anymore. I don't feel like I'm flying AA. Now if only they would give me a job...


----------



## railiner

According to this article, the PSS Cutover was a success....

http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2015/10/19/aa-us-cutover-shows-promising-early-results/


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> I've always been partial to AA as my "hometown" airline. I think they have a decent product, and I still try to revel the flights I take on the old Mad Dogs. I've come to love those things. Sometimes, I have to ride on the E-175's operated by Republic, and that's just not the same to me anymore. I don't feel like I'm flying AA. Now if only they would give me a job...


I believe AA is hiring....I know their regional's are, and Envoy almost guarantee's all its pilots with a 'pipeline' directly to AA....

But, I thought you already were an airline pilot?


----------



## saxman

railiner said:


> saxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always been partial to AA as my "hometown" airline. I think they have a decent product, and I still try to revel the flights I take on the old Mad Dogs. I've come to love those things. Sometimes, I have to ride on the E-175's operated by Republic, and that's just not the same to me anymore. I don't feel like I'm flying AA. Now if only they would give me a job...
> 
> 
> 
> I believe AA is hiring....I know their regional's are, and Envoy almost guarantee's all its pilots with a 'pipeline' directly to AA....
> 
> But, I thought you already were an airline pilot?
Click to expand...

AA is indeed hiring. Have had my application on file for 2 years now. I've been at a regional for eight years now.


----------



## Rob Creighton

Flew AA and one of their regionals between Lubbock and Chicago recently and was unimpressed with the experience. All the planes seemed extremely worn,and not really clean considering the dedicated cleaners they brought on before flights to clean. Also, having my flight cancelled out of ORD while in security and having to call the 800 number to get a flight out that evening vs. the automated rebook for a 5am flight the next day...was frustrating. Almost as frustrating as the gate agents inability to do what the 800 number did. I did enjoy getting an entire can of soda, that was an unexpected touch from a company that seems to fee you for everything. And oh yeah, they lost my luggage. I kind of wonder though, unless you're flying for business, on points, or first class: why would you choose AA over Southwest? SWA in my experience, is no worse an experience than my AA one, and usually a little better.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Rob Creighton said:


> I did enjoy getting an entire can of soda, that was an unexpected touch from a company that seems to fee you for everything. And oh yeah, they lost my luggage. I kind of wonder though, unless you're flying for business, on points, or first class: why would you choose AA over Southwest? SWA in my experience, is no worse an experience than my AA one, and usually a little better.


According to recent reports AA is apparently planning on doing away with complimentary drinks and seat selections in an effort to adopt a surcharge focused revenue stream like Spirit Airlines. They're also looking at further reducing legroom in order to pack in even more seats. I wonder if economy class will eventually become so tightly packed that only children can fit in the seats.


----------



## Rob Creighton

Devil's Advocate said:


> Rob Creighton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did enjoy getting an entire can of soda, that was an unexpected touch from a company that seems to fee you for everything. And oh yeah, they lost my luggage. I kind of wonder though, unless you're flying for business, on points, or first class: why would you choose AA over Southwest? SWA in my experience, is no worse an experience than my AA one, and usually a little better.
> 
> 
> 
> According to recent reports AA is apparently planning on doing away with complimentary drinks and seat selections in an effort to adopt a surcharge focused revenue stream like Spirit Airlines. They're also looking at further reducing legroom in order to pack in even more seats. I wonder if economy class will eventually become so tightly packed that only children can fit in the seats.
Click to expand...

Pay more for less. They already have tiers in economy with extra charges. And honestly, I was surprised the soda was complimentary. Why not take another inch from those travels who won't pay for the extra inch or two of legroom? Just will get more people to pay for the "upgrade." The whole pay a fee and get better seats, better seat choices, board earlier racket seems to work with the traveling public. Even for Southwest. I've even been a sucker for that from time to time. And the last couple of times on SWA, even paying for the privilege of a higher boarding position, wasn't that spectacular at doing anything other than making sure you boarded before it was impossible to get an aisle or a window towards the back of the plane.

I can't complain too much about my recent and future AA experiences, I'm flying on a family member's points, so even with baggage fees and this and that for me it's still fairly a cheap way to get from here to there. Luckily, my family member earned all those points back when flying was truly fun! That said, I'll skip the food on the plane and save my money in case I have a long layover or a delay. While outrageously priced, I did enjoy some good beers and meals at DFW and O'Hare while killing time. I'd certainly rather just "be on my way", but the bartender and waiter I had were great and it made the travel fun!


----------



## trainman74

Rob Creighton said:


> And honestly, I was surprised the soda was complimentary.


US Airways did charge for non-alcoholic beverages for a time, a few years ago, but I guess they ended up feeling that revenues didn't outweigh the liabilities.

Although as I understand it, there are a lot of former US Airways people at the post-merger American, so they could certainly decide to give it another try (but I haven't heard anything specific).


----------



## PRR 60

Devil's Advocate said:


> Rob Creighton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did enjoy getting an entire can of soda, that was an unexpected touch from a company that seems to fee you for everything. And oh yeah, they lost my luggage. I kind of wonder though, unless you're flying for business, on points, or first class: why would you choose AA over Southwest? SWA in my experience, is no worse an experience than my AA one, and usually a little better.
> 
> 
> 
> According to recent reports AA is apparently planning on doing away with complimentary drinks and seat selections in an effort to adopt a surcharge focused revenue stream like Spirit Airlines. They're also looking at further reducing legroom in order to pack in even more seats. I wonder if economy class will eventually become so tightly packed that only children can fit in the seats.
Click to expand...

Curious where you saw that. I'm not being snarky, but I have not heard that and I try to keep a close tab on AA since, for better or worse, it's my go-to carrier.

EDIT: Never mind. Found it. Sounds like a monkey see, monkey do with Delta.


----------



## railiner

Like it or not, this 'nickle-and-diming' is the result of the fierce competition that deregulation has brought. The 'all-inclusive' days of the past are gone forever. Now everything that can be, is priced 'ala carte'.......

I've said it before.....the pioneers who built these legacy airlines are probably turning over in their graves over what has come of their once proud airlines. when they all vied to give their passenger's "the best of everything"......

Then again, maybe not....when they see how large the survivor's have grown, and how profitable they sometimes are.....


----------



## Devil's Advocate

PRR 60 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob Creighton said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did enjoy getting an entire can of soda, that was an unexpected touch from a company that seems to fee you for everything. And oh yeah, they lost my luggage. I kind of wonder though, unless you're flying for business, on points, or first class: why would you choose AA over Southwest? SWA in my experience, is no worse an experience than my AA one, and usually a little better.
> 
> 
> 
> According to recent reports AA is apparently planning on doing away with complimentary drinks and seat selections in an effort to adopt a surcharge focused revenue stream like Spirit Airlines. They're also looking at further reducing legroom in order to pack in even more seats. I wonder if economy class will eventually become so tightly packed that only children can fit in the seats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Curious where you saw that. I'm not being snarky, but I have not heard that and I try to keep a close tab on AA since, for better or worse, it's my go-to carrier.
> 
> EDIT: Never mind. Found it. Sounds like a monkey see, monkey do with Delta.
Click to expand...

The problem with dividing the economy cabin into multiple sub-cabins is that conventional booking systems don't fully support this concept. People who use points for travel or who buy long haul economy tickets across multiple airlines generally end up getting stuck with the worst possible seats. Under the current booking process the only way to avoid ending up in the worst possible economy seats is to purchase international business or international first class at anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 per trip.

So far as I can tell extra legroom economy and premium economy seats simply aren't bookable when traveling across multiple airlines with their own unique perspective on how economy cabins will be divided. Taller folks like me who don't need a fancier seat or extra service but who _do_ need decent legroom are quickly running out of reasonably priced options as the entire airline market focuses exclusively on the spendiest customers at the front and thriftiest customers in the back while ignoring anyone caught in the middle.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Sounds like Amtrak is on the same track Chris! ( nickel and dime cuts, extra charges and fees for many things previously included, devaluation of the loyalty program, Fare increases, cuts in food and drink service and amenities etc.)


----------



## railiner

It's no surprise to me that Amtrak adapts many airline practices.....IMHO, in its history, it seems to me like they are a 'wanna be' airline...

Some of its first executives were recruited from the air transport industry....people like Arthur D Lewis, Roger Lewis, etc..

And one of their first moves was to adapt the airline style 'quick-reference' timetable's, and three letter station codes.

They had an epic battle to be included in the ARC (Airlines Reporting Corporation) ticketing clearinghouse, in order to make it easier for travel agencies to sell Amtrak tickets, as well as open the possibility for 'interline' airline-railroad thru ticketing.

And they hired American Airlines former Sabre subsidiary to design the Arrow reservations system.

And they learned to adapt a form of Yield Management to dynamically price fares....

And probably a lot more practices in many area's.....


----------

