Is US Airways the 'ugly girl'?

flickr photo by Caleb's Photography

It's been posted elsewhere already, but in case you haven't heard, Continental CEO Jeff Smisek got in a little hot water after referring to US Airways, in decidedly un-diplomatic language, as an 'ugly girl.' “I recognized that United was the best partner for Continental, and I didn’t want to marry the ugly girl; I wanted to marry the pretty one,” he said.

A bad choice of words, no doubt. Smisek evidently apologized to US Airways CEO Doug Parker, who called the words "chauvinistic and offensive." "Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology, have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it," Parker wrote in a letter to US Airways employees (you can read the whole thing at the end of the post).

Parker also defends US Airways' performance in the letter, pointing out that his airline's profit margins, on-time performance, and stock performance were all better than Continental's recently. But why did United, which had recently considered a merger with US Airways, ultimately choose Continental instead? Why did US Airways get dumped? Two things to keep in mind, according to Parker:

1. United chose Continental because it has "dominant positions in major business markets like Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our network," which is presumably more leisure-based.
   
2. Even if US Airways did get dumped, it doesn't mean that it isn't a "valuable standalone company" with "strong" prospects.
   

In closing, Parker notes that he's "looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning." He has effectively shrugged off the 'ugly girl' remark, and done so in a professional and detailed manner. But could US Airways be considered the 'ugly girl'? Here's the text:

May 4, 2010

Fellow Employees:

A number of you have contacted me asking about Continental CEO Jeff Smisek’s “ugly girl” comment yesterday. In case you haven’t seen it, when announcing their plans to merge with United Airlines yesterday, Mr. Smisek said, “I didn’t want him (United CEO Glenn Tilton) to marry the ugly girl. I wanted him to marry the pretty one.” The ugly girl was a clear reference to US Airways. Like me, many of you found his comment both chauvinistic and offensive to the hard-working people of US Airways.

First, you should know that Jeff sent me an apology, stating that he “got carried away in the moment,” “really felt badly” and “had no good excuse.” I believe Jeff was sincere in his apology, have accepted it on behalf of all of us and am ready to move past it.

Having said that, the emails I’ve received from many of you suggest this comment hit a nerve so I wanted to give you my views. As one of you simply put it, “Why are we the ugly girl?” The answer, of course, is we are not and there’s no better evidence of that than our recent performance.

In fact, we are performing better than Continental on almost all of the important metrics of our business. Financially, we each reported first quarter financial results in the past two weeks, and while we both lost money, we both lost much less than last year. However, US Airways’ rate of improvement was much better than Continental’s driven by both higher revenue growth and better cost control. On an absolute basis, our profit margins are now higher than Continental’s.

Operationally, we’re performing much better than Continental in the primary customer service metric of on-time performance. US Airways jets arrived on-time more often than Continental’s during the first quarter 2010, and we also outperformed them in on-time during all of 2009 and 2008. We are also now neck and neck with Continental in areas like baggage and complaints.
This is all being noticed by the outside world, as US Airways stock price is up 42 percent so far this year, while Continental’s is up 15 percent, even after announcing their merger.

Bottom line, I think both of our airlines are doing a great job in a challenging business – but if I were them I wouldn’t be pointing fingers.

So why did United choose to merge with Continental rather than US if we’re performing better financially and operationally than they are today? I think the answer is straightforward and one we’ve discussed many times – while we have a strong route network centered around PHL, CLT, PHX, DCA and the Shuttle, Continental has dominant positions in major business markets like Newark and Houston that allow them to collect even higher revenues than we can with our network. United preferred that network to ours and while we may disagree with that decision, it was United’s to make and we need to respect it and move on.

None of this means we don’t have a valuable standalone company. To the contrary, we’re producing better standalone results than our peers like Continental. We announced last week that we expect to report a profit in the current quarter of this year, which is further evidence of our standalone value. As consolidation makes our industry less fragmented and more efficient, our standalone prospects will only become stronger.

As we move forward, let’s not worry about the words of our competitors – no matter how inappropriate they may be – but rather let’s continue to show the world what we can accomplish by working together and performing our jobs in a professional and focused manner.

Thanks so much for your commitment to US Airways. I’m proud to be a part of your team and am looking forward to aggressively competing against the new United Airlines – and winning — for many years to come.


Doug

Read More

A few thoughts on the United-Continental merger

I thought I'd share a few thoughts on the just-announced United-Continental merger. There's a lot out there about the terms of the deal and other specifics, but just to recap, the $3 billion merger (which has yet to be officially approved) would create the world's largest airline. The airline would be based in Chicago and keep the United name (but the Continental logo) and would be led by Jeff Smisek, the current Continental CEO.

(Yes, that is a 787.)

Here we see the consummation of Glenn Tilton's dream - for several years now, nearly every other word out of his mouth has been either "merger" or "consolidation." And it's a great fit, network-wise: there's little route overlap, which should help the deal get anti-trust approval pretty easily. (For another perspective, check out Dan Webb's post at Things in the Sky.)

But I'm going to focus on one aspect of the merger here: branding. There's a picture of Jeff Smisek and Glenn Tilton shaking hands in front of the new United logo, which is nothing more than the Continental logo with "United" in there instead. And the paint job would be exactly the same as Continental's - again, with the name "United."

Maybe it's just me, but it looks pretty bad. I've come to associate the United name with that familiar block typeface and the "tulip" logo, which has been around for almost 35 years now. I can see that perhaps management wants to appease Continental employees concerned with the disappearance of their name. And this would certainly be a relatively low-maintenance rebranding, too; just replace the word "Continental" with "United" everywhere and you're done. Apart from the fact that United's the one that's technically doing the buying here (despite the 'merger of equals' talk), one of the reasons that the United name is the one that's staying is because it has a stronger global reputation.

I'm hoping that once the merger gets final approval, some more time and effort goes into designing a better brand - if they're going to keep the United name, they should also keep the logo.

Read More

Continental allowed to join Star Alliance immunity pact

The Department of Transportation ignored a recommendation from the Department of Justice that Continental Airlines not be allowed to join nine other Star Alliance carriers in recieving antitrust immunity on international routes, and instead granted it permission earlier today. (Thanks for the heads up from Airline Route.)

The airlines (Air Canada, Austrian, bmi, LOT, Lufthansa, Scandinavian, Swiss, TAP, United and now Continental) can benefit from "limited and carefully considered" antitrust immunity on international routes, saying that "the transaction will not substantially reduce or eliminate competition."

In its ruling, the DOT also stated that the Continental's joining "does not materially alter the competitive landscape or increase overall market share to any significant degree," noting that Continental's move to Star allows for "a more competitive alliance in markets where oneworld or SkyTeam have a strong presence."

The DOT also noted that Continental currently overlaps with other Star carriers in fourteen city-pair markets, but stated that creating "carve outs" (routes that are not covered by the antitrust immunity) would "detract from the efficiencies that the alliance would otherwise create." Existing "carve outs," such as Chicago-Frankfurt, Washington-Frankfurt, San Francisco-Toronto and Chicago-Toronto, are still in effect. As for domestic competition (especially with United), the DOT concluded that "the benefits of the alliance outweigh the comparatively small risk of harm that could occur in domestic markets."

Of course, the whole argument of alliances being good for the consumer only stands if "metal neutrality" is practiced. "Metal neutrality" is when airlines that jointly market services aren't picky about who actually operates the flight (and thus keep more of the revenue). For example, if I wanted to fly from Boston to Frankfurt as seamlessly as possible, I could take a direct Lufthansa flight, or instead fly United through Washington Dulles. If I book my ticket with United Airlines, under "metal neutrality" they'd put me on the Lufthansa flight, even though they'd make much less money than if they put me on their flight through Washington. If things are kept metal-neutral, the DOT argues, then carriers won't spend time worrying about making sure that a passenger flies on their airline; instead, they can work on syncing their flight schedules and sharing financial benefits and losses, which give them incentive to make things as convenient as possible to the passenger.

photo by James Willamor on Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons

Read More

jetBlue smokes competition in J.D. Power survey

The 2009 J.D. Power and Associates 2009 North American Airline Satisfaction Study was released earlier today, and jetBlue came out top, not just in the low-cost carrier group but overall, as well - for the fourth year in a row. For the 'traditional network carrier' category, Alaska topped the list for the second consecutive year. (Just to be clear, JD Power defines low-cost carriers as airlines that "operate single-cabin aircraft with typically lower fares," while 'traditional network carriers' "operate multicabin aircraft and use multiple airport hubs." It also considers AirTran to be an LCC, although it does operate multicabin aircraft.)

I spoke with Paula Sonkin, VP Travel and Real Estate at J.D. Power, who said that cost was the biggest influence for most passengers, and they've not been favorably impressed by the various sources of ancillary revenue (read: fees and charges) that the airlines have added recently. This, along with with declines in in-flight service, has led to overall customer satisfaction with airlines this year on the decline for the third straight year, reaching a four-year low (ouch). The only airline that improved its position versus last year was Southwest.

That's not to say that everything is gloom and doom, however. Sonkin pointed out that the airlines that did well - for example, Alaska, which was 4th place in 2007 and rose to 1st last year - did so because they focused on improving the things that were in their control. Fuel prices, a weak economy - those things can't be changed, and the things that occur as a result (such as increased fees and lowered employee morale, which can lead to poorer service) can be expected, if not necessarily liked. But Alaska really made strides because it improved its pre-flight process - that is, its website, the ticket booking process, and especially the check-in process, which the airline made faster and friendlier. Also on the plus side, passenger-reported flight delays and check-in times were reduced, and the general on-time arrival rate went up by more than 5% versus last year. “Despite the economic stresses that airlines are under, they are recognizing the value of passengers’ time and trying to make air travel more expedient and efficient,” said Dale Haines, senior director of the travel practice at J.D. Power. “Unfortunately, any improvements in customer satisfaction are being offset by passenger displeasure with cutbacks on in-flight services, increases in fees and issues with the helpfulness and courtesy of flight crews.”

jetBlue did very well, especially in the aircraft category (of course, flying a bunch of relatively new planes with in-flight TV might help), although Southwest really managed to place a strong second place (tied with WestJet), and the trend is that the airline is closing the gap with jetBlue. All of the airlines were scored on a 1000 point scale, and interestingly, even the lowest-ranked low-cost carrier (AirTran) still managed to beat the top-ranked traditional network carrier (see charts below). Delta and Continental performed adequately for the network carriers, with US Airways (haven't they branded themselves an LCC?) coming in dead last - maybe it was that whole experiment with charging $2 for drinks that really did them in. For the full results, head over to J.D. Power.

photo by MHJohnston from Flickr, licensed under the Creative Commons

Read More

Problems ahead for global airline alliance immunity

The Department of Justice recently expressed objections to the antitrust immunity agreement that nine Star Alliance carriers (plus Continental, which will be a Star member later this year) are seeking. The airlines, which include United, Lufthansa, Air Canada, SAS and Swiss (but notably, not US Airways), have been looking to obtain global immunity from antitrust laws for some time now. In April, the Department of Transportation gave the carriers a tentative green light, but last Friday, the DOJ instead called on the DOT to "deny the broad requested immunity and instead grant a more limited immunity" - probably just a more limited transatlantic cooperation.

Right now, Continental technically competes with Star Alliance members on its routes, but under the proposed immunity agreement, that competition would be eliminated. The DOJ went further in its explanation, saying that Asian and Latin American routes flown by United and Continental would probably see price increases, as the airlines would no longer be competing. And the DOJ also took fault at some transatlantic routes; Continental has a pretty extensive list of European destinations, and the DOJ said that competition on some routes between the US and some of those cities would decrease substantially.

So, what implications does this have? First, it shows that the federal government is getting more serious about enforcing anti-trust policies, especially under the new presidential administration (as had been expected). Secondly, it could have serious effects for a similar agreement that rival alliance oneworld is trying to put together, and could be in the shape of things to come for such global agreements. And the DOJ statement also goes after cooperation between United and Continental on domestic US routes; "a sweeping grant of immunity raises significant concerns about harm to domestic competition," it said - something that might indicate obstacles to a potential United-Continental merger.

photo by caribb

Read More

"The Blue Skyway" flies again on Continental

One more airline adds a 'retrojet' to its fleet. Continental has recently taken delivery of a brand-new Boeing 737-900ER that's painted in 'The Blue Skyway' livery, in preparation for the airline's 75th anniversary on July 15. The paintjob was first used on Continental planes back in 1947. Here you can see it on a DC-7 back in the day, and much more recently on a shiny 737 (photo by Drewski2112).

Read More

Continental gets approval to join Star Alliance

photo by bribriTO

Continental Airlines yesterday received a tentative OK to join Star Alliance, although the US Department of Transportation will require Continental, United, Air Canada and Lufthansa to release an 'annual report' on the alliance. Star Alliance is already by far the largest airline alliance, and the addition of Continental just makes it even bigger. As such, the US government has expressed concern about the impact on competition - and so has Delta, Continental's current partner in the SkyTeam alliance, which has complained that the impact on US domestic routes would be too large, given that United and US Airways are already members.

Read More

American's new deal with BA, Iberia

American Airlines, Iberia, and British Airways announced earlier today that they were forming a three-way alliance that would allow them to cooperate on flights between Europe and North America. Although the three airlines are already part of the oneworld alliance, the deal allows them to work more closely together and to cut costs. Not surprising, Virgin Atlantic's Richard Branson took a dim view of the deal, which he said would create a "monster monopoly".

The announcement comes at a time when other airlines are also seeking to link up: United, Continental, Air Canada and Lufthansa are working on a transatlantic alliance, similar to the AA/Iberia/BA one announced today.

Read More

Continental to join Star, link with United

photo by sea turtle

Even after merger talks between United and Continental fell through a few months ago, the two airlines are still interested in cooperating - yesterday, they announced plans to start codesharing and for Continental to join Star Alliance, of which United is a member. According to an email sent out to Mileage Plus members, United expects the deal to start sometime in 2009.

It remains to be seen what this means for US Airways, which has been a Star member for a few years now. It's possible that it could remain in Star, but having three US airlines in the same alliance could lead to some overlap.

Read More

Continental rejects United as merger partner

photo by Drewski2112

Well, it was a bit of a surprise. After the linkup between Delta and Northwest a few weeks ago, many (myself included) expected to see continued industry consolidation. And a merger between United and Continental was seen as a likely one; rumors floating around pointed to an announcement as soon as this week. The merger would have created an airline that might rival Delta/Northwest in size, as well as international coverage (United's strong Asia presence would fit nicely with Continental's extensive European route network).

But last week, a little something occurred that made Continental think twice: United posted a $542 million loss for the first quarter of 2008. Even in the airline industry, a half billion dollar loss is pretty big, and it's a sign of an ailing airline. United's huge loss scared away Continental, which announced on Sunday night that it was abandoning merger talks with United.

The airline made the announcement in a letter to employees from CEO Larry Kellner and President Jeff Smisek. "We want you to know that our Board of Directors met today and has unanimously supported management’s recommendation that, in the current industry environment, the best course for Continental is to not merge with another airline at this time," it read... The Board very carefully considered all the risks and benefits of a merger with another airline, and determined that the risks of a merger at this time outweigh the potential rewards, as compared to Continental’s prospects on a standalone basis." The letter - which never identified United Airlines by name - went on to say that the airline will "continue to review potential alliances and our membership in SkyTeam. We are considering alternatives to SkyTeam as we carefully evaluate which major global alliance will be best for Continental over the long term."

Continental's decision is certainly a setback for United, which has been looking to merger for some time now. I don't think that the decision to not merge was arrived at easily, since there could have been some benefits from linking with United. But the folks over at Continental are betting that a merger with United, which is racking up heavy losses, could also drag them down as well. Even though Continental definitely wants a better Asian route network - and they could have obtained it through a merger with United - it might be able to get it another way. If United files for bankruptcy again, Continental might be able to grab the Asian routes by themselves, without having to deal with United's poor financial shape.

Continental has also reportedly been in talks about forming a three-way alliance with American Airlines and British Airways, although, from an anti-trust standpoint, this might be a bit difficult.

And as for United - well, this is certainly bad news. CEO Glenn Tilton tried to remain upbeat in a statement released Sunday night: "Our strategy is consistent. Consolidation is underway - ensuring you have the right partner is everything. We will pursue all options to ensure a strong, sustainable future for our airline and will not shy away from the tough choices necessary to create value for our shareholders and benefit our employees and customers." A United-US Airways merger might happen, but I don't know if it will do much good. Both airlines are still dealing with their respective trips to bankruptcy court, and I don't think that a merger between them will solve anything.

Read More

Delta-Northwest, United-Continental mergers soon?

photo by Cubbie_n_Vegas

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that a merger deal between Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines could happen as soon as next week. Talks between the two were previously strained as the senior management of both carriers disagreed over whom would keep high-ranking management positions, but they have since come to an agreement.

As a result of Delta and Northwest's merger potential, merger discussions between United Airlines and Continental Airlines have also reportedly "grown more serious," said the article. United has proposed a merger with Continental before and has been turned down, but if Delta and Northwest announce a deal, Continental could change its mind very quickly and agree to merge with United, which has been actively looking for a merger partner for some time now.

An interesting point in all of these merger talks is Northwest's so-called "golden share" in Continental. This is basically some preferred stock that allows Northwest to abort a merger between Continental and another carrier. If Northwest and Delta do merger, however, Continental has the option to acquire the "golden share" for $100. Continental would be able to get the stock even if the Northwest-Delta deal later falls through.

The mergers raise a lot of inevitable questions - what types of aircraft will the combined operations operate (what will happen to Northwest's A330s)? Which hubs will stay open and which will close or be downscaled (Memphis, Cincinnati, etc.)? What international routes will be dropped or added? It's most likely that the answers to these questions will be worked out before the merger is announced (after all, it would be pretty stupid to merge first and then tackle those problems). As always, lots of things could happen. American Airlines, which is being left out of all of the "merger madness" at present, could intervene somehow. Labor unions or antitrust regulators could always prevent these mergers from going through (and with the size of these airlines, any mergers would get a high amount of scrutiny from the antitrust folks).

Read More

United's "urge to merge"

The world of airline mergers has been buzzing since last week's report that United Airlines and Delta Airlines were being pushed by Pardus Capital Management (which owns a sizable stake in both airlines) to merge. Delta CEO Richard Anderson stated that "there have been no talks with United regarding any type of consolidation transaction and there are no such ongoing discussions." In a press release, Delta said that it "will not speculate on possible airline consolidation".

It's no secret that United has been shopping around for a merger partner for some time. They haven't bought any new planes in quite some time, and United has relatively thin profit margins and high debt.

That said, rumors have been flying for the last few years that United would find a merger partner. These partners have included Continental (which already said no) and Northwest (which wouldn't work out because the two airlines both have strong Midwest hubs) - almost everyone except American (a United-American merger couldn't happen because the combined airline would be too big). The latest to crop up on the aviation forums involves jetBlue, since the two airlines have complementary fleets/networks. United would use jetBlue as an opportunity to become a player again at JFK, which would tie in nicely with international feed from Star Alliance carriers and make it more competitive on the East Coast. And a United-jetBlue merger would also put an end to the fight at Washington-Dulles between the two airlines.

But a United-jetBlue merger isn't too likely, and any merger wouldn't be a cure-all fix for United. Even though United may be holding out on buying new planes to attract merger partners, they're going to need to upgrade eventually to keep up with competitors. And employee-management relations aren't very good, either. Merger or no merger, United really needs to address these issues (and others) if it wants to remain a viable competitor in the industry.

Read More

US carriers look for more US-China routes

Several US airlines are pushing for more nonstop routes between the US and China, beginning in March 2009. And they're also going straight to the customer for help - most of them have designed separate websites highlighting their bids and are asking fliers to help out by signing petitions that will be presented to the Department of Transportation. Here are the airlines:

• American Airlines filed an application on Monday to start nonstop Chicago O'Hare - Beijing service, to start on March 25, 2009. (This isn't the first time American has tried to do this - a few months ago it filed a similar petition but failed because it couldn't agree with its pilots on work rules for the rather long flights.)
• Continental Airlines wants to fly between Newark and Shanghai starting on March 25, 2009.
• Delta Air Lines applied for Atlanta-Beijing and Atlanta-Shanghai service.
• MAXjet quietly filed for Seattle-Shanghai service, with a continuing flight from Seattle to Los Angeles.
  
• Northwest Airlines wants to fly Detroit-Beijing and Detroit-Shanghai.
  
• United Airlines is seeking San Francisco-Guangzhou service in 2008 and Los Angeles-Shanghai service in 2009.
• US Airways has proposed flying between Philadelphia and Beijing.

The Department of Transportation can only allow one new airline to enter the US-China nonstop market each year. Currently, all of the above airlines except Delta, MAXjet and US Airways serve China nonstop - a fact that might give them a bit of a competitive edge. My prediction: the Continental and Delta proposals will pass, mostly because there isn't any New York area-Shanghai service and Atlanta/the southeastern US are also underserved when it comes to nonstop US-China flights. United Airlines will also probably get at least one of their routes, too.

Read More

United: still looking to merge

United Airlines CFO Jake Brace recently said that his airline is still looking for a merger partner. He recently said that there are still airlines that United could merge with, but that it isn't looking to do a hostile take-over. He said that "consolidation is not something that one company can do in isolation. We don't believe that ... hostiles in the airline industry are very successful. Our belief is that you have to do something on a consensual basis." Evidently he was referring to the failed US Airways hostile takeover attempt of Delta.

Brace also said what United was looking for in a merger partner:

• an airline with a strong Atlantic network (like Continental or Delta). This is one of United's weaker areas.
• an airline with a southern hub (like Delta) so that it can increase its presence in the Caribbean and Latin America, which is its other main 'weaker area'.
• an airline with a strong northeast presence (like Continental, US Airways, and to a lesser extent, Delta)

United has long called for increased consolidation within the industry, but hasn't really been specific in saying which airline would be a best fit. Both Continental and Delta have been rumored to be serious possibilities, and United actually contacted Delta back in 2005 about a merger. (Delta declined.) Delta seems, at this point, the most likely candidate - it has one of the strongest Atlantic networks, it has a southern hub (at Atlanta), and it has a pretty good northeast presence. Of course, other airlines are fair game, too - and until United management announces which airline it's interested in, we probably won't know for sure.

Read More

Flights between US and China could double

A recent agreement between the US and Chinese governments lets the amount of flights flown by US carriers between the two countries to more than double. Right now, US carriers fly 10 daily flights to China, and the agreement allows for 13 more flights, with 1 new flight this year, another next year, four more in 2009, and seven more between 2010 and 2012.

This deal is significant because it will probably result in a tough race between US carriers like United, Northwest, American, Delta, and Continental. United and Northwest already have a pretty big presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and United was recently awarded the latest China route (Washington-Beijing). This provides other airlines like Delta and Continental, which want to enter the Chinese market, an opportunity to do so. 'Established' airlines, like United and Northwest, also have an opportunity to expand in the Asia-Pacific region, which is very profitable for both airlines. In a statement today, Northwest said it "applauds the U.S. Government’s success in achieving a major liberalization of the U.S.-China market. The new agreement opens the door for important new routes including Detroit-Shanghai, Detroit-Beijing and Minneapolis/St. Paul-Shanghai which Northwest urgently wants to offer its customers." The government will decide which airlines will get the routes.

Read More