https://finance.yahoo.com/m/37247f8e-5d ... merge.html

Don't think it too far fetched of an idea. Lots of strengths on the highly populated/wealthy coasts. The mid-continent hub is interesting.

AS is well positioned now to grow more organically and I don't think needs a merge with B6. They will have their hands full in boosting capacity in California and taking on WN. B6 needs to decide if it wants to stay as an LCC or offer trans-atlantic service using its mint product to capture a new market at the risk of its costs skyrocketing.

Im not usually one to say this, but if I had a nickle for everytime a B6+AS merger came up I'd be a billionaire....

Oh god, this again?

I really can’t see the rationale. Most of the supposed synergies are really just cosmetic at best. AS and B6 are frankly two very different airlines with two different niches that they excel in. Merging would end up creating many more headaches than they would solve.

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

I really can’t see the rationale. Most of the supposed synergies are really just cosmetic at best. AS and B6 are frankly two very different airlines with two different niches that they excel in. Merging would end up creating many more headaches than they would solve.

The synergies are that AS are strong out west but weak in the east, while B6 is strong out east but weak in the West. Both are fairly weak in the middle of the country, but the two airlines combined would still have a very attractive network to compete against the US3+WN.

There is already significant overlap between B6 and AS on JFK-West Coast and BOS-West Coast nonstop service. In addition, B6 operates seasonal nonstop service to ANC from SEA and PDX, and B6's SEA-ANC and PDX-ANC nonstop service are in competition with AS SEA-ANC and PDX-ANC nonstop service.

B6 also has a focus city at LGB with nonstop service to AUS, BOS, FLL, LAS, JFK, PDX, RNO, SMF, SLC, SFO, SJC, and SEA. Many of B6's nonstop routes out of LGB are also already in competition with AS or VX nonstop routes out of LAX as AS/VX already serves BOS, FLL, LAS, JFK, PDX, SLC, SFO, SJC, and SEA nonstop from LAX.

A merger between AS and B6 is not viable with significant overlap between B6 and AS on NYC-West Coast nonstop service and BOS-West Coast nonstop service and with significant overlap between B6 nonstop routes out of LGB and AS/VX nonstop routes out of LAX. On the other hand, the possibility of an codeshare agreement between AS and B6 might be there since B6 has nonstop service from JFK to smaller markets in the Northeast that AS does not serve and since AS has nonstop service from SEA and PDX to destinations in Alaska, Hawaii, Western Canada, and the Pacific Northwest that are not served by B6.

bigtidi wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/37247f8e-5df1-3d9f-8882-7f453e6bb316/ss_will-alaska-and-jetblue-merge.html

Don't think it too far fetched of an idea. Lots of strengths on the highly populated/wealthy coasts. The mid-continent hub is interesting.

I don't want this to happen, but logically it is one of the few remaining mergers that are even possible, so that creates the conversation. It will reduce competition if they merge and I'm not sure that the combined company will be that strong as basically a route network doughnut.

If they merged they would desperately need a middle America hub. Hard to see where that would be? DAL/DFW has 2 hubs. DEN has 2-3 hubs. ORD/MDW has 3 hubs. HOU/IAH has 2 hubs. The only good options are STL/MCI, maybe BNA. But all are not really big enough cities to be workable, and all are de facto WN hubs already. I think structurally STL is the best choice, but I don't think the economy there is strong enough to support it.

I can imagine the glorious irony if B6/AS attempted to push into DTW/MSP like DL did in SEA and now BOS. Perhaps if they built-up AUS on the Southern end and one of those DL hubs would work geographically to cover the whole country.

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

I really can’t see the rationale. Most of the supposed synergies are really just cosmetic at best. AS and B6 are frankly two very different airlines with two different niches that they excel in. Merging would end up creating many more headaches than they would solve.

The same could be said of pretty much every merger out there that actually happened. UA + CO and we were talking about Dulles and Newark as redundant hubs, and how the fleets were disparate. AA + US merged two very different airlines.

JetBlue is only viable paying its employees less than the market average. If that advantage disappears, it will lose its long-term viability.

AS+B6 does create a very interesting network with unique potential. They could eventually turn SEA into a Pacific gateway, BOS into an Atlantic gateway, and FLL into a Latin gateway.

Midwestindy wrote:

Im not usually one to say this, but if I had a nickle for everytime a B6+AS merger came up I'd be a billionaire....

Yep. It replaced the "When will BNA get TATL service?" theme when BNA got TATL service. Fun to think about, but I'm not sure we need a weekly thread about it.

enilria wrote:

bigtidi wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/37247f8e-5df1-3d9f-8882-7f453e6bb316/ss_will-alaska-and-jetblue-merge.html

Don't think it too far fetched of an idea. Lots of strengths on the highly populated/wealthy coasts. The mid-continent hub is interesting.

I don't want this to happen, but logically it is one of the few remaining mergers that are even possible, so that creates the conversation. It will reduce competition if they merge and I'm not sure that the combined company will be that strong as basically a route network doughnut.

If they merged they would desperately need a middle America hub. Hard to see where that would be? DAL/DFW has 2 hubs. DEN has 2-3 hubs. ORD/MDW has 3 hubs. HOU/IAH has 2 hubs. The only good options are STL/MCI, maybe BNA. But all are not really big enough cities to be workable, and all are de facto WN hubs already. I think structurally STL is the best choice, but I don't think the economy there is strong enough to support it.

I can imagine the glorious irony if B6/AS attempted to push into DTW/MSP like DL did in SEA and now BOS. Perhaps if they built-up AUS on the Southern end and one of those DL hubs would work geographically to cover the whole country.

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not. AUS and BNA, at least according to a.net, are bursting at the seams with potential for expansion, and neither have a hub presence.

A potential drawback would be that the emerging company would be operating three aircraft families from three manufacturers in the mainline fleet that have close to the same capacity (737, A320, E190). Maintenance could become a nightmare. I could see them trying to acquire some secondhand 73Gs to replace the E190s for B6's east coast missions.

Merger? No. Partners or code share more likely.

TUSDawg23 wrote:

AS is well positioned now to grow more organically...

HAHAHAHA, good one. Thanks for the laugh!

Polot wrote:

The synergies are that AS are strong out west but weak in the east, while B6 is strong out east but weak in the West. Both are fairly weak in the middle of the country, but the two airlines combined would still have a very attractive network to compete against the US3+WN.

incitatus wrote:

The same could be said of pretty much every merger out there that actually happened. UA + CO and we were talking about Dulles and Newark as redundant hubs, and how the fleets were disparate. AA + US merged two very different airlines.

JetBlue is only viable paying its employees less than the market average. If that advantage disappears, it will lose its long-term viability.

AS+B6 does create a very interesting network with unique potential. They could eventually turn SEA into a Pacific gateway, BOS into an Atlantic gateway, and FLL into a Latin gateway.

And I would argue that these potential synergies are a lot more cosmetic than than the examples from the legacy mergers. As different as the various pre-merger legacies were, they were all hub and spoke carriers with varying domestic and international networks, regional operations, etc. and this created some fairly immediate upside once they happened. Now, UA loyalists can leverage CO’s strength in Latin America and a bulked up Transatlantic hub in EWR. DL loyalists can enjoy legacy NW’s TPAC reach in DTW and the JV hub in AMS. That’s not even mentioning the fact that now all of the US3 have domestic hubs covering most regions of the country. In the case of AS/B6, I guess I really don’t see that kind of immediate benefit because both carriers focus more on point-to-point, though B6 probably moreso.

For a hypothetical AS passenger, what exactly does B6’s network provide me in terms of connectivity? AS already flies to a lot of places out east on their own metal, so the only destinations a merger would open up in the CONUS would be small markets like PWM (which they still have a codeshare with AA for). The Caribbean would be the most obvious opportunity given B6’s strength there, but is West Coast-Caribbean a big and lucrative enough market to justify merging two very different fleets, cultures, etc.? And for a B6 passenger, what new markets would an AS tie-up bring when B6 already has a strong trans on franchise? MFR and GEG? Alaska itself is the Caribbean analog in this case, but again, is it worth a merger? And before anyone mentions feeding international codeshare partners, both AS and B6 do a good enough job of that on their own out of their own coasts and many of those same partners serve both out of their coasts.

Tl;dr, a codeshare makes sense for niches that either carrier excels at (though it would undoubtedly spell the end of the AA/AS codeshare). But those niches aren’t worth a merger.

evank516 wrote:

Oh god, this again?

IKR? Why is everyone so concerned about merges...? Baffles me.

enilria wrote:

The only good options are STL/MCI, maybe BNA. But all are not really big enough cities to be workable, and all are de facto WN hubs already. I think structurally STL is the best choice, but I don't think the economy there is strong enough to support it.

Omaha is waving their hand like crazy. How about Tulsa?

I think Alaska is gonna want to take a break for a year or two after they complete the assimilation of VX. That alone is causing plenty of headaches and new opportunities for Alaska to focus (and hopefully capitalize on).

A B6/AS link up could very well happen - but it would have to roll out, again, a whole new fleetwide product. Both airlines would have to adapt to the new product on all their routes, be it the quasi mixed B6 configuration (some mint, some not) vs Alaska's full service on every route but Q400s. Cultures at both companies are quite well. So who knows. I'm also not sold on the fact that AS/B6 *has* to have a midcontinent hub.

"Will Alaska and JetBlue merge?" is to 2018 what "When will NW retire their DC-9s?" was to ten years ago.

JBo wrote:

"Will Alaska and JetBlue merge?" is to 2018 what "When will NW retire their DC-9s?" was to ten years ago.

Or "Delta taking up 787s" ever since the merger.

I've got one even better...let's merge every single US carrier into one massive carrier, call it Ameroflot or something. Sure, prices will go sky high and service will suck, but on the bright side...no more speculative merger threads on a.net! And since every large airport will be a "hub" so to speak we can get rid of the "Should XX make BNA a hub?" ones too!

Of course then I'm not sure what we would talk about...A vs B? Nah, they'll probably merge too.

The writer associated with the Forbes article (blog?) actually has pretty good journalism credentials, and routinely writes about the industry.

It is the job of investment bankers to imagine, float, and drive home deals in pursuit of huge fees. And if deals completed don't work out, they are happy to make fees from spin-offs/unwinds - 'exploring strategic alternatives.' It's all part of the process.

incitatus wrote:

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

I really can’t see the rationale. Most of the supposed synergies are really just cosmetic at best. AS and B6 are frankly two very different airlines with two different niches that they excel in. Merging would end up creating many more headaches than they would solve.

The same could be said of pretty much every merger out there that actually happened. UA + CO and we were talking about Dulles and Newark as redundant hubs, and how the fleets were disparate. AA + US merged two very different airlines.

JetBlue is only viable paying its employees less than the market average. If that advantage disappears, it will lose its long-term viability.

AS+B6 does create a very interesting network with unique potential. They could eventually turn SEA into a Pacific gateway, BOS into an Atlantic gateway, and FLL into a Latin gateway.

No JetBlue can be viable paying market rate.
You guys kill me. The airline has some of the highest margins out there a great balance sheet and is throwing millions at tech ventures and paying cash for airplanes. And this is after two major storms took out a major focus area for them. They will be just fine even if they paid market rate.
This is not the JetBlue of 2006 I wish people would understand that.

How about all U.S. airlines merge together and call it Ameriflot? No more mergers!!!

AAvgeek744 wrote:

How about all U.S. airlines merge together and call it Ameriflot? No more mergers!!!

Interestingly I heard some pilots talking about that in 2015, I'm not sure of there seriousness, and thankfully it hasn't come true, but there was supposedly a government plan to merge DL and UA in 2016 as the next step in an eventual plan to make a nationalized Amair
Supposedly the DL/NW merger was arranged after a government meeting with airline executives in 2008.
I don't believe it, but if such a merger took place to a single carrier, it would be the end of any interesting market dynamics. Sure there would be a few large superhubs and some routes could see 30+ daily frequencies, but an "Amair" would economically be a disaster, service standards would lower, and prices would either rise or ithe carrier would lose money. Some mergers are good, and the past mergers have created a stable domestic market in the US, but anythng beyond F9/G4, F9/NK or B6/AS would be a disaster for air service options and competition. Imagine, for example that DL/UA merged. SLC would instantly lose its hub. MSP and DTW would be dropped in favor of ORD for the midwest, either LGA/JFK, or EWR, not both, could be kept. SEA would see reductions in favor of SFO. At the present size of most US carriers, such a merger, would thus have large redundancy and overlap, and would really hurt service on the midsize hubs while small markets would be squezzed slowly out of service into ever more crowded super-hubs.

I pray that Amair never happens, but its fun to speculate about potenital/alternative mergers. I think DL/US UA/AA, NW/CO/AS "could" have worked in the last decade if DL/US sold CLT operations to UA, but the present airline system (except for impacts CLE, CVG, PIT, MEM, STL, etc.) seems to be the best arrangement that could have ever happened.

BWIAirport wrote:

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not.

PHX an AS hub? Do you mean PDX?

cledaybuck wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not.

PHX an AS hub? Do you mean PDX?

Isn't PDX already an AS hub? I can see AS using Phoenix to help grow into the central US.

BWIAirport wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not.

PHX an AS hub? Do you mean PDX?

Isn't PDX already an AS hub? I can see AS using Phoenix to help grow into the central US.

Phoenix is not geographically well situated to “grow into the central US,” and would be a bloodbath with both AA and WN hubbing there.

BWIAirport wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not.

PHX an AS hub? Do you mean PDX?

Isn't PDX already an AS hub? I can see AS using Phoenix to help grow into the central US.

I am not sure PHX accomplishes growing into the central US very much. It is out of the way for most of it (and too close to the west coast IMO), plus already has AA/WN hubs there.

Perhaps, it is a bit early. However, the signs of AS becoming a cash generating machine are evident.

Jet Blue somehow seem to be having a little issue on that front; if they try and improve their finances, how do they differentiate in the crowded transcontinental market? Seems like Wall St might push them to discuss a merger with AS.

vadodara wrote:

Perhaps, it is a bit early. However, the signs of AS becoming a cash generating machine are evident.

Jet Blue somehow seem to be having a little issue on that front; if they try and improve their finances, how do they differentiate in the crowded transcontinental market? Seems like Wall St might push them to discuss a merger with AS.

How is jetblue having an issue making money?
Also thanks to MINT they pretty much changed the transcon market. What is ALK going to do is the better question.

vadodara wrote:

Perhaps, it is a bit early. However, the signs of AS becoming a cash generating machine are evident.

Jet Blue somehow seem to be having a little issue on that front; if they try and improve their finances, how do they differentiate in the crowded transcontinental market? Seems like Wall St might push them to discuss a merger with AS.

Have you looked up the recent quarterly earning reports? B6 is printing money. AS is seeing serious RASM declines + rising CASM. Why would they need to merge when they are killing other airlines in transcon market? Just looking at some of the recent new mint routes, the before and after fare numbers of other carriers vs B6 is quite stunning. Ironically, most of these routes have AS/VX competition.

If I recall, Jet Blue is reducing its pitch size. In addition, it is signing contracts with its crew where it's salaries will now be comparable to the industry. Something will have to give.

If Mint is doing well, then jolly good. You are correct in saying that it was eating Virgin's lunch. AS may be correct in seeing that either it had to upgrade the product or revert to some internal AS standard. Time will tell.

vadodara wrote:

If I recall, Jet Blue is reducing its pitch size. In addition, it is signing contracts with its crew where it's salaries will now be comparable to the industry. Something will have to give.

If Mint is doing well, then jolly good. You are correct in saying that it was eating Virgin's lunch. AS may be correct in seeing that either it had to upgrade the product or revert to some internal AS standard. Time will tell.

Nothing has to give

RamblinMan wrote:

I've got one even better...let's merge every single US carrier into one massive carrier, call it Ameroflot or something. Sure, prices will go sky high and service will suck, but on the bright side...no more speculative merger threads on a.net! And since every large airport will be a "hub" so to speak we can get rid of the "Should XX make BNA a hub?" ones too!

Of course then I'm not sure what we would talk about...A vs B? Nah, they'll probably merge too.

Why are you reading this thread? Why did you bother posting? Perhaps if you don't like a thread ... don't read it?

Mocking is rarely the right move. Please don't.

vadodara wrote:

If I recall, Jet Blue is reducing its pitch size. In addition, it is signing contracts with its crew where it's salaries will now be comparable to the industry. Something will have to give.

If Mint is doing well, then jolly good. You are correct in saying that it was eating Virgin's lunch. AS may be correct in seeing that either it had to upgrade the product or revert to some internal AS standard. Time will tell.

If it signs a more comparable salary, then it's cost will gone up a couple of percent. I don't see why the cost increase would more than AS recent contract considering AS integrated VX employees, who were making industry low salaries. They'd still have really great margins. Especially once they add those seats on A320 and more HD A321 to get cost under control.

There is no reason for B6 to keep 34 inch seats when every competitor is at 31 inch or below. Those 162 seat config will still be really comfortable and actually finally have unified interior like A321 seats.

Mint is eating more than just VX lunch. You should've seen UA's fare numbers on BOS/FLL-SFO once mint entered. Now they are some of the least profitable UA transcon routes out of SFO.

kitplane01 wrote:

Why are you reading this thread? Why did you bother posting? Perhaps if you don't like a thread ... don't read it?

Mocking is rarely the right move. Please don't.

I'm hardly the only one with the same reaction...

AAvgeek744 wrote:

How about all U.S. airlines merge together and call it Ameriflot? No more mergers!!!

I guess I can't separate academic speculation from advocating for the idea, but I don't think I'm alone there, either. Mergers by nature make things less interesting for industry enthusiasts. They are not something to be desired. I will grant that the round of consolidation we have seen up to this point was likely necessary, and that the industry is in better shape because of it. But we now see carriers making solid profits year after year, and who among us (at least those old enough) doesn't miss TWA, or Northwest, or Continental? Hell I even miss US Airways, if only because I could swear off one carrier but still have lots of other options.

I get that the top execs at these companies don't come up with their business strategies based on a.net threads but still...No more mergers!!!

BWIAirport wrote:

enilria wrote:

bigtidi wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/37247f8e-5df1-3d9f-8882-7f453e6bb316/ss_will-alaska-and-jetblue-merge.html

Don't think it too far fetched of an idea. Lots of strengths on the highly populated/wealthy coasts. The mid-continent hub is interesting.

I don't want this to happen, but logically it is one of the few remaining mergers that are even possible, so that creates the conversation. It will reduce competition if they merge and I'm not sure that the combined company will be that strong as basically a route network doughnut.

If they merged they would desperately need a middle America hub. Hard to see where that would be? DAL/DFW has 2 hubs. DEN has 2-3 hubs. ORD/MDW has 3 hubs. HOU/IAH has 2 hubs. The only good options are STL/MCI, maybe BNA. But all are not really big enough cities to be workable, and all are de facto WN hubs already. I think structurally STL is the best choice, but I don't think the economy there is strong enough to support it.

I can imagine the glorious irony if B6/AS attempted to push into DTW/MSP like DL did in SEA and now BOS. Perhaps if they built-up AUS on the Southern end and one of those DL hubs would work geographically to cover the whole country.

I still see PHX as a viable AS hub, merger or not. AUS and BNA, at least according to a.net, are bursting at the seams with potential for expansion, and neither have a hub presence.

A potential drawback would be that the emerging company would be operating three aircraft families from three manufacturers in the mainline fleet that have close to the same capacity (737, A320, E190). Maintenance could become a nightmare. I could see them trying to acquire some secondhand 73Gs to replace the E190s for B6's east coast missions.

While anything is possible, AS putting a hub in PHX would do nothing to expand their product breadth East which would be the purpose of the merger which the thread is about.

Boy, 737s flying around with 'jetBlue' on the sides sure would be weird.

Unless I missed something this is a pointless article based only on circumstantial speculation. Both fly A320s. Both have a few similarities. Therefore they are going to merge.

We don’t need any more mergers. All this has done is reduce competition, raise fares, add fees, shrink seats galleys and lavs, and see who can race to the bottom first.

Makes me really miss the good ol’ pre 9/11 days when you had a multitude of airline choices to look up when searching for a fare. Ther prices were better, the planes more comfortable, the air rage rare, and the nostalgia still lived.

There was a thread about this exact subject yesterday, mods?

Midwestindy wrote:

There was a thread about this exact subject yesterday, mods?

Yesterday’s thread was a posters hypothetical what if.

This is an article.

Super80Fan wrote:

TUSDawg23 wrote:

AS is well positioned now to grow more organically...

HAHAHAHA, good one. Thanks for the laugh!

What is your rationale for thinking that is funny?

You constantly bash AS with some kind of chip on your shoulder about them, but rarely if ever say anything of substance. Let's hear your intelligent rationale why that is a good one.

nine4nine wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There was a thread about this exact subject yesterday, mods?

Yesterday’s thread was a posters hypothetical what if.

This is an article.

Maybe yesterday's thread caused Trusty Teddy to write the article.

nine4nine wrote:

Yesterday’s thread was a posters hypothetical what if.

This is an article.

With zero substance

Midwestindy wrote:

There was a thread about this exact subject yesterday, mods?

I was thinking the same thing. haha.

jetero wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There was a thread about this exact subject yesterday, mods?

Yesterday’s thread was a posters hypothetical what if.

This is an article.

Maybe yesterday's thread caused Trusty Teddy to write the article.

Maybe, maybe not.
Well at least it’s an official article worth a read from a journalist perspective.

Not the same old monthly a-netter hypothetical speculative merger post of AS-B6 or AS-HA that has been going on here on this site for years.

nine4nine wrote:

jetero wrote:

nine4nine wrote:

Yesterday’s thread was a posters hypothetical what if.

This is an article.

Maybe yesterday's thread caused Trusty Teddy to write the article.

Maybe, maybe not.
Well at least it’s an official article worth a read from a journalist perspective.

Not the same old monthly a-netter hypothetical speculative merger post of AS-B6 or AS-HA that has been going on here on this site for years.

Hello Ted!!!!!

I think there's a merger in B6's future, but I'd don't think it's AS.