American Airlines / US Airways merger

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
SW is Air Namibia. Now do not ask me why Namibia got SW :huh:
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SW is Air Namibia. Namibia was once known as South West Africa, hence Air Namibia's prior name.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
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 said:
Oldsmoboi said:
Much better connections in Europe.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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).
 
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).
 
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I meant to say "not a major player"..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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"......
 
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.

1983AudiQuattro-grayAmericanAirlines-RealToy.jpg


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!"
 

Latest posts

Back
Top