And so it begins...

[marrymeflyfree]

Delta and Northwest are merging, finally. I don't think anyone has looked forward to this happening, but it's almost a relief after so many years of 'merger mania' speculation. It's like watching the first couple team up at a kid's dance after a lot of nervous anticipation. More will follow. Most folks seem to think a Continental/United pairing will be announced in short order, but some are hoping that more creative solutions will be found. One buddy of mine has this theory that CO and UA will divvy up pieces of American, but that seems a little outlandish to me. Whatever happens, things will probably get pretty ugly, especially with the unions. Selfishly, I just hope they work out the worst of it before I have to go back to work next year.

Northwest held a 'golden share' of Continental. With it, they had the power to block any Continental merger. But the deal was that this golden share would be forfeited, for $100, if Northwest struck any sort of deal to combine with another carrier. It would be interesting to know who flew to Minneapolis with the check after NW's deal was signed.

[peacock2121]

I am no where near educated enough to have a solid opinion about any of this.

My first reaction is : Oh no! Fewer choices will mean less competition will mean higher prices when I want to get somewhere via airplane.

[marrymeflyfree]

My first reaction is : Oh no! Fewer choices will mean less competition will mean higher prices when I want to get somewhere via airplane.

That's usually the first thing that everyone worries about with this stuff...but the climate is so different now. With oil prices being what they are, prices are going to go up no matter what. If airlines go out of business because of fuel, prices would probably go up more than if they merge in order to stay in business. The number of available seats in the air would be reduced more by grounding planes than merging....so all in all (in my non-expert assumptions, anyway), merging would probably stem the rising costs more than anything else.

Just a guess, though. All I know is my planes have been pretty farging full over the last couple of years - seems like any big reduction in capacity would be felt very quickly.

[tanstaafl2]

One reason for reduced capacity, with Delta at least, is that they have been pulling most high capacity aircraft out of the domestic market and moving them to international. While there may not be fewer flights there are definitely fewer seats. Delta has been trying to position itself as a stronger presence in the international side for awhile now. I suppose there is some business reason to do so. They had been more of a domestic carrier for many years. Acquisition of Northwest would seem to go well with this philosophy. Whether or not it is the right philosophy I can't say as I certainly don't know enough about the business. Although Northwest also has a large domestic operation it seems to be a reasonably good match with Delta's. But more importantly they have a relatively new fleet of long range aircraft serviceable for the international market. Only problem is that the two fleets have a fairly large number of different aircraft. That means more work in parts, maintenance and training of crews. All that is a lot simpler if you have many of the same models of aircraft. Just ask Southwest. A FLUF is FLUF so most any crew can fly any aircraft and the parts inventory has to be simpler.

But I don't see it being a big help to the domestic market which seems to still tends to run close to capacity, especially as other airlines fold. Good for the airlines perhaps but not so good for the consumer. Although as noted, if it helps keep both airlines healthy then in the short term it may help moderate ticket price increases.

[marrymeflyfree]

One reason for reduced capacity, with Delta at least, is that they have been pulling most high capacity aircraft out of the domestic market and moving them to international. While there may not be fewer flights there are definitely fewer seats. Delta has been trying to position itself as a stronger presence in the international side for awhile now. I suppose there is some business reason to do so.

Yes...DL has been following CO with this plan.

CO started a plan of flying smaller aircraft (757's) into 'secondary' markets in Europe a few years ago. The idea was rather than fly more of the biggest planes into the biggest markets (London, Amsterdam, Paris, etc), we would fly smaller planes non-stop into smaller markets (Edinburgh, Bristol, Belfast, Cologne, Scandinavia, etc). It was a great plan: people love fewer connections, and there is a ton more revenue in the int'l market. Most domestic markets barely break even these days, so our int'l plan was a big factor in helping us avoid bankruptcy and making profits after 9/11.

And then the guy who sort of masterminded that for CO left and went to work for Delta, and implemented the same model there. The differences were that Delta had more of those mid-range aircraft to spare for new int'l routes than we did - but many of them were slightly bigger planes, and they haven't been able to fill them in some of those markets. I think I just heard that they're pulling out of Edinbugh.

[marrymeflyfree]

American Airlines parent AMR posts 1Q loss on fuel costs
AP
Posted: 2008-04-16 11:49:06
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - American Airlines parent AMR Corp. says it swung to a hefty first-quarter loss largely because of higher fuel prices.

The Fort Worth, Texas-based carrier, the biggest U.S. airline, lost $328 million, or $1.32 per share, compared with a profit of $81 million, or 30 cents per share, a year earlier.

Revenue rose to $5.7 billion from $5.43 billion a year ago, but a 45 percent higher fuel bill - caused by higher oil prices - more than wiped out those gains.

Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected American to lose $1.34 per share on revenue of $5.73 billion.

American says it is also cutting additional capacity and speeding the replacement of its MD-80 fleet.


------------------------------------------------


United Airlines Raises Fuel Surcharge
By ADAM SCHRECK, AP
Posted: 2008-04-16 10:03:50
Filed Under: Crude Oil Prices
NEW YORK (April 16) - UAL Corp.'s United Airlines said Wednesday it raised its domestic fuel surcharge by $10 to $20 roundtrip, less than a week after the nation's second-largest carrier increased fares to offset rising fuel expenses.

The move, which went into effect late Tuesday night, comes after oil prices topped $114 a barrel for the first time, and will likely put pressure on other airlines to follow suit.

Travelers in some markets who were paying a surcharge of $25 one-way will now see that charge increase to $35, spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said. Fliers in markets where Chicago-based United previously did not apply a surcharge - mostly where the carrier competes head-to-head with low-cost carriers - will now be charged an additional $5 one-way.

United last week raised fares by $4 to $30 round-trip, citing "record-breaking fuel costs." That prompted other major carriers to increase their own ticket prices.

The added surcharge, which amounts to a fare increase, marks the 12th time this year airlines have tried to raise ticket prices across much of their route networks, according to airfare research Web site FareCompare.com.

Four of the past increases were rolled back, however, after competitors failed to follow with increases of their own.

"My gut tells me that this attempt may not make it ... but I cannot rule out the possibility of major matching in the next 5 days," FareCompare.com Chief Executive Rick Seaney said in an e-mail about United's latest move.

In early electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, light, sweet crude for May delivery rose as high as $114.53 a barrel before retreating to $113.74 by the afternoon in Europe, down 5 cents from Monday's close.

Urbanski said United expects to spend an additional $2 billion on its fuel bill this year.

United shares fell 14 cents to $22.18 in early trading.

[Bob78164]

When I saw the title of this thread, I kind of expected to be preparing a "Welcome to the world" post. I guess I'll have to keep it on ice. --Bob

[marrymeflyfree]

When I saw the title of this thread, I kind of expected to be preparing a "Welcome to the world" post. I guess I'll have to keep it on ice. --Bob

Ha...I wish! We had our last childbirth class last night, and one of the couples was missing. They'd had their "welcome to the world" party the day before. The rest of us were green with envy. Or maybe that was just nausea and indigestion.

[Appa23]

When I saw the title of this thread, I kind of expected to be preparing a "Welcome to the world" post. I guess I'll have to keep it on ice. --Bob

Ha...I wish! We had our last childbirth class last night, and one of the couples was missing. They'd had their "welcome to the world" party the day before. The rest of us were green with envy. Or maybe that was just nausea and indigestion.

Look at your calendar and/or long-term weather forecast. When would be the least convenient, most troublesome date to deliver?

That is your baby's birthdate.

(Did you ever look and see the sex? Decided on a name?)

[Bob78164]

When I saw the title of this thread, I kind of expected to be preparing a "Welcome to the world" post. I guess I'll have to keep it on ice. --Bob

Ha...I wish! We had our last childbirth class last night, and one of the couples was missing. They'd had their "welcome to the world" party the day before. The rest of us were green with envy. Or maybe that was just nausea and indigestion.

We were that couple when The Little Guy was born. --Bob

[marrymeflyfree]

Look at your calendar and/or long-term weather forecast. When would be the least convenient, most troublesome date to deliver? That is your baby's birthdate.

hehe...well then that date will be as late as possible. NN's vacation bid had to be in before we got the 'adjusted' due date. The first one was May 1st, so he bid to have the last 3 weeks of April off in anticipation of that. Then they pushed the EDD back to the 11th. Ugh. His vacation has now started, and he won't be flying again until about 2 weeks after the birth - so if it's late, then he'll be out of work for a looooong time!

(Did you ever look and see the sex? Decided on a name?)

Nope, no one knows what it is yet. It will be a Nina or a Kai, no middle.

[Appa23]

Nina Naughty Norwegian. Sounds good!

However, no middle name?

How will this child know when she/she is in trouble?

[marrymeflyfree]

Nina Naughty Norwegian. Sounds good!

However, no middle name?

How will this child know when she/she is in trouble?

Nina...she/she....trying to tell me something, HD??

She/she will know she is in trouble by the look on mom's face. I give good scowl.

[Rexer25]

Nina Naughty Norwegian. Sounds good!

However, no middle name?

How will this child know when she/she is in trouble?

HD made me laugh twice in one day.

That's one for the notebook, lb.

[Rexer25]

Look at your calendar and/or long-term weather forecast. When would be the least convenient, most troublesome date to deliver? That is your baby's birthdate.

hehe...well then that date will be as late as possible. NN's vacation bid had to be in before we got the 'adjusted' due date. The first one was May 1st, so he bid to have the last 3 weeks of April off in anticipation of that. Then they pushed the EDD back to the 11th. Ugh. His vacation has now started, and he won't be flying again until about 2 weeks after the birth - so if it's late, then he'll be out of work for a looooong time!

(Did you ever look and see the sex? Decided on a name?)

Nope, no one knows what it is yet. It will be a Nina or a Kai, no middle.

Is the NMI a Norwegian custom?

[marrymeflyfree]

Is the NMI a Norwegian custom?

No, but I think it may be more common to forgo a middle name there than here. But not by much.

We just liked the idea of keeping our simple names simple. And besides, coming up with two names we liked was hard enough!