US Airways and American Airlines merger

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Muscle Master, Sep 30, 2013.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #1
    I don't understand why the DOJ is trying to block our merger and preventing us from becoming the largest Airline in the world... It would better serve you guys (customers) as a employee.. We will get nice raises

    Washington should just stay out of this.. They let Delta and United merge with other companies and now it's hard to compete
     
  2. G51989, Sep 30, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2013

    macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #2
    Because if more major airlines merge, it typically leads to a monopoly or a doupolpy, which leads to more consumer cost and less consumer choice. And American Air? Junk, so is united. Crap dirty planes with idiot flight attendents. Ever Fly Air France? or Korean Air? Those are real airlines.

    Personally, I would put DC effort towards a high speed rail network rather than caring about airlines. All American airlines suck ass anyway.

    I can't even get wasted, at least on Air France they stuff me full of great food and vodka and wine. Never had that Happen on an AMerican owned airline
     
  3. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #3
    Hahaha, you actually believe that you, as an employee, will benefit from a merger? That's the lie the exec tells you. The reality is after a merger, there's two of everything. Two IT departments, two accounting departments, two customer service departments, two aircraft maintenance departments. If this merger goes through, I'd say you got a 50/50 shot of being laid off, not getting a nice raise. If you think I'm kidding, here's what happened after the Delta/Northwest and United/Continental mergers:

    600 Northwest employees laid off
    500 Continental employees laid off

    You should be hoping the DOJ shuts this merger down.

    Besides, US and AA have got to be the two worst airlines in the US, a merger of the two would create a giant black hole of suck that would swallow the planet and destroy life as we know it.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #4
    Unfortunately that's business but I have job security givin my position and I work at a HUB and PHL is a international gateway.. Me and my other co-workers aren't going anyway.. And American has it's issue but way way less than US airways, unless you flown on either airline don't say anything that isn't relevant
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #5
    I have flown on both, my work takes me all over the world. They both suck, so a merger would just make them suck more, and give the consumer even less choice.

    Even business class is just plain awful. Take a cue from Air France, or Korean Air and make an airline that is actually worth the money.
     
  6. macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #6

    The Northwest and Continental employees who lost their jobs worked at their respective major international hubs. No one is safe in a merger except the top executives who will get a nice payday if they stay with the company or not.

    And yeah, I've flown all of the major airlines in the US. AA and US have got to be the worst.
     
  7. Huntn, Oct 1, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2013

    macrumors G3

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    There is no black or white answer regarding mergers and their benefits to employees. I speak from a background of being Northwest/Delta, now retired. If the merger works properly, it does help the employees in a trickle down way, you keep your job, and benefits and pay may eventually go up due to the companies success, if it is successful. Delta has been successful and salaries and benefits have gone up as compared to pre-merger NWA. Now regarding the 600 NW jobs lost, you are referring more to a specific job location being lost, not elimination of the job itself. There is always going to be adjustments. Certain employees will be hurt, but it does not take a merger for jobs in specific locations to be eliminated. With the NW/Delta merger, dispatchers based in Minnesota were offered jobs as Delta dispatchers, with the caveat they had to move to Atlanta. Some went, and some jumped ship. If you are one of the 600, it is a catastrophe, but in the big picture, it's less than .01% of the Delta payroll. NWA management would nix 600 jobs without a second thought to save two cents.

    I don't know what to think about USAir and American. No offense to the OP, but the USAir/Air West merger was a disaster from the pilot standpoint. There are groups of pilots who will never be allowed to fly with each other because they'd probably end up in fist fights. This situation was a result of how the company and the union handled it. Now you've got a bunch of angry American employees that are going to be brought into the mix, employees who took huge pay cuts during the recession to avoid bankruptcy and then the company went bankrupt any way and hosed them. The sad fact is that companies no longer view bankruptcy as a badge of shame, but of a savvy employee hammer tool and strategy.

    I can't say they should not deserve to merge, but I do know there will be a cutoff point where the government no longer views consolidation of the industry as a good thing.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    #8
    The merger will not benefit customers. Both airlines are a mess and awful to fly. Putting them together won't fix the terrible experiences.
     
  9. quagmire, Oct 1, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2013

    macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #9
    What was the whole freaking point of deregulation back in 1978? To increase competition and lower fares. While it did lower airfares, competition has been decreasing. Airline employees have been getting screwed( especially pilots).

    The number of major players have been decreasing. If US/AA merge we will only have 5 major players left( AA, Delta, United, Southwest, and JetBlue). That number has been going down steadily. Only Southwest and JetBlue are the shining stars of deregulation. The other carriers are the POS regional airlines that have hurt the industry( the FO who you are trusting your life with and hoping they are fully trained and rested is only making $20-25,000 a year, working 14 hours a day, but is only paid for 8 hours of it....) or operate in a limited market.

    BTW, US Airways does suck. Two weeks ago I went to my brothers wedding. Despite my aunt having booked the flight with a confirmed seat MONTHS ago, got bumped off the flight back home( I flew on Southwest). The legroom in coach sucks in their A320's and I have to pay extra just to sit in an aisle or window seat close to the doors. That's BS.

    Not only that, but their "first class" section only have the standard snacks for flights less than 3.5 hours long. So I'm paying first class costs for just the added legroom? Screw that. I love flying on JetBlue. Their standard coach seats have plenty of legroom and for only $35 more, get first class level of legroom, priority security, and board first( even before the pre-boarders). Their drinks and snacks are free and I actually get the whole freaking can...... If I am hungry and want more than chips? $6 gets you a snack box. And free DirectTV.

    I fly JetBlue whenever I can.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #10
    Well.. The judge said no to delaying the case and because of the shutdown.. DOJ have no resources.. Case might get thrown out
     
  11. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    So now we know why the GOP fought so hard to cause a shutdown..... Their AA/US Airways buddies wanted some help stop the DOJ's case.....

    ;)
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #12
    I swear the whole thing is about AA/US having 69% of the DCA slots lol
     
  13. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    For me it's not that.

    The issue is deregulation has, IMHO failed. It has shown it is hard to pull a profit in the industry and why it was regulated before 1978. Eastern, Pan Am, TWA, Northwest, Continental, US Airways, etc gone or merged due to it. Airlines started to use baggage fees just to help pay for the fuel. Some( US Airways cough) is charging just to sit in a window or aisle seat. Pilots pay is down a lot( again FO's at the regionals only making $20,000 a year for awhile) and hours up( working 14 hours, but being paid only 8 hours).

    We need to find a way to reregulate the industry, but keep the fares down and improve competition. Before 1978, airlines sold their service as a way to get customers. Now it's the cheapest, service be damned.....

    Like I said, Southwest and JetBlue are the only successes of deregulation. In relative to the loss of competition, losing 5 airlines to gain 2 is hardly worth it.
     
  14. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #14
    Indeed, the indsutry is not nearly regulated enough, and typically holds almost no profit.

    I would support building high speed rail between major cities, to put most small airlines out of business, and save the consumer money as high speed rail would.

    Airlines are scared to death of highspeed rail, it would put most of their service out of business, which is good.

    I say high speed rail between major cities, and a public Airline ( Like Amtrack for planes ), to handle everything else, the consumer will save money,
     
  15. macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #15
    Who will pay for those things? Do I really want an airline run by the government? After all the Post Office and Amtrak don't constantly waste or anything.
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Muscle Master

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #16
    High speed rail won't ever jump off

    How would you feel if you had a 200 mph bullet train running through your backyard all times throughout the night


    How would a rich snob feel after he just spent 20 mill on a house... Get what I'm saying
     
  17. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    And yet it's pretty successful in the NE corridor.

    I'm for setting up HSR in areas that make sense and the NE corridor makes sense. 50% of Amtrak's riders are in the NE corridor. The Acela/NE Regional is the best way to get between DC and NYC. It's too short to fly( and deal with the TSA), but a 5 hour drive isn't great either( plus having to deal with Philly, NYC, etc traffic). Hop on the Acela at Union Station and arrive in the middle of Manhattan. A bullet train going 200+ MPH would make DC to Boston also feasible. Currently it is a 6 hour train ride. But, a bullet train would reduce it to 3 hours.

    A widespread HSR network across the country doesn't make sense. Flying will always be the better option on long haul trips. But for trips like DC to NYC, etc Amtrak makes the most sense to take.
     
  18. macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #18
    I'm not sure that should be a huge concern, but expense certainly is. The public Amtrak model "works", but Amtrak is a charity at this point. If I knew high speed rail could pay for itself (Amtrak certainly doesn't), then I would say go for it. It can't pay for itself. Neither can a government airline. Neither option is viable.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    Amtrak would pay for itself if it could only operate on the East Coast. The NE Corridor and Autotrain are very profitable routes for Amtrak. The rest are a drain.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    Happybunny

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Location:
    's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
    #20
    I have personally travelled on the TGV, and I must say that it does hark back to the glory days of air travel. There is just a special feeling of traveling at 370kph across the country side, eating a properly cooked meal, while drinking a decent bottle of wine. :D
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #21
    And being able to walk around, and surf the net, and get work done etc. Trains are just better for traveling.
     
  22. macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #22
    High speed rail has already taken off in lots of countries, and it works VERY well.

    And as pointed out above, rail travel works very well on the east coast.

    And have you ever been to a place where high speed rail is used? They typically do not put high speed rail tracks through residential areas. And they are till much quieter than planes

    ----------

    Oh I love the TGV, tons of leg room, personal tables, good food, cheap wine, the cafes on the trains have like actual kitchens in them to, and just being able to get up and walk around is great. Much cheaper than a short flight to

    ----------

    I've taken some of the high end Amtrak trains cross country before, sure it takes way longer than a plane during that distance, but you have a viewing car, just a big old mostly glass sitting area thats awesome, full dining car with wait staff, internet, big bed to sleep in.

    Can't beat it.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    MyMac1976

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    #23
    I haven't ridden AMTRAK in years I mainly ride Deutsche Bahn, I love it because it's so very German clean, efficient, and effective.
     
  24. G51989, Oct 3, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013

    macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #24
    Of course, I've been living up here for just over a year now and have all the ins and outs of Amtrak figured out. Sometimes on long vacations or even a visit to chicago, I'll just relax and take the train. I love Acela.

    Indeed, and once the system is built, it will be cheaper than flying or driving as well, as the TGV in France is cheaper than driving or flying most of the time, and it turns a good profit.

    Indeed, there is no need for it accross the mid west for example, however it would be very popular and useful up and down the east coast, and probably the west coast as well.

    ----------

    I have as well in my travels.

    My only complaint about the Deutsche Bahn is that its in germany, so the food is awful. :cool:

    ----------

    Indeed, the rest of their mostly to maintain rail service to lots of areas that wouldn't have it otherwise, I could see Amtrak doing very well on the west coast as well, and a couple of Areas in the south, HSP wise anyway.

    Also, compared to airliners. Trains are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, use less fuel per passenger, and last longer. And they have a better record of being reliable, and a very good safety record.


    ALSO: With a little bit of research, it seems like the Acela Express services are getting so popular, they can't buy new trains fast enough to keep up demand.

    And unlike Airliners, which can be delayed by snow or rain, or ice or high winds, none of those things can stop a train.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #25
    Agreed about flying -- for long haul, modern jets do surprisingly well measured by passenger-miles-per-gallon. Short-to-medium haul, high speed rail is the way to go. By HSR, I mean TGV-class 270+ km/hr. But, even the normal (in
    Europe) 160-200 km/hour trains, which are still basically standard technology done carefully, are faster door-to-door for a lot of trips that are considered airplane routes in the U.S.
     

Share This Page