US vs. American and US Airways

[John R. Levine]

The DOJ lobbed a large bomb into the middle of the AA/US merger. They
pointed out that US has a lot of lowball connecting fares that competitors
often match, and have lots of swell quotes from airline execs about how
wonderful mergers are because then they can raise prices.

The US lawyer said that they only compete on 12 (or some similar low
number) nonstop routes, which sounds to me like a weak attempt to change
the topic.

Will
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
mt...@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

On 13-08-15 20:17, John R. Levine wrote:
> The DOJ lobbed a large bomb into the middle of the AA/US merger.

A BBC article pointed instead of specific cases where the combined would
have too much control (DCA being the big one) and that the DOJ action
would just extract concessions for further slot reductions at those
airports.

Apparently, while the deal will not close before end of 2013, the 2
airlines expect the legal battles to be over before the end of the year.

It is interesting it would happen so late in the game after other bodies
approved the merger, including the EU after the 2 agreed to reduce slots
at Heathrow. You'd think such negotiations would have already occured in
the USA with the DOJ.

What is AA's current financial situation ? Have they already obtained
sufficient concessions from creditors to be cash flow positive and not
require additional DIP financing to extend its lifetime under chapter 11
? Or does delaying the actual US-AA transaction jeoperize AA's survival
under chapter 11 requiring further DIP financing (which would also
change the recapitalisation with more shares going to US Airways etc).

[John Levine]

>What is AA's current financial situation ?

Not sure, since they'll have to redo their plan if they're going to
stay standalone.

Here's a sceptical take on the merger:

http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/08/american-airlines-us-airways-merger-not-over-until-the-fat-lady-sings/2/

--
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

[JF Mezei]

On 13-08-16 20:36, John Levine wrote:

> Not sure, since they'll have to redo their plan if they're going to
> stay standalone.

> http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/08/american-airlines-us-airways-merger-not-over-until-the-fat-lady-sings/2/


Interesting article. Portrays what used to be the world's largest
airline as a small regional player that needs to merge with another to
stay relevant.

Had not realised that the DL-NW and UA-CO mergers had made American so
small. In hindsight, they should have gone chapter 11 earlier in what
is turning out to to be a game of musical chairs where the last merger
candidate gets denied.

As a cyclist who avoided flying US-Aorways this summer because of their
outrageous bicycle fee (USD $200), the concept of US applying its higher
baggage fees onto AA to increase revenues is basically proof of market
failure/lack of competition. In a competitive market, it would be the
opposite.

Looking at AT&T and T-Mobile, the later had basically thrown in the
towel and had bet the farm on AT&T buying its spectrum and customers and
not bothering with its network. But not long after DOJ blocked the
takeover, T-Mobile found itself having to fight for survival, and
started to deploy 3G onto the standard 1900 frequency, plans for LTE
onto 1700, got the iPhoen and restructired its price plans to be cheaper
and much more competitive. (and it has begun to grow its customer base
again)

Based on that experience, I could see the DOJ wanting the US-AA merger
to be rejected and force AA to rebuild itself by being competitive,
cheaper and better service to attract customers from the DL and UA
oligopolies.



So, assuming the merger is rejected, does AA have an alternative rich
uncle to recapitalise AA out of chapter 11 ? Or was this chapter 11
"mild" enough that AA can do this without total recapitalisation and
voiding previous shares ?