We know that if regulatory approval weren’t an issue, United would’ve already bought JetBlue, given the Chicago-based carrier’s desperation to get onto Delta’s level financially, and to return to New York Kennedy (JFK).
Continue reading: United CFO Airline Merger Comments: He Must Be Referencing JetBlue, Right?
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
United wants to increase their already enormous control over the NYC market and JetBlue is the way to go. Unfortunately they need a corrupt government administration to allow such a blatantly customer-unfriendly merger. Fortunately (for them) there's one around now so the clock is ticking...
The new mayor of NYC will make sure that something happens with JetBlue.
He's pushing to raise the corporate tax rate and that is definitely not in JetBlue's best interest.
Either they merge with United or they officially move their headquarters to Florida (which they should have done years ago).
First things first—a company has to turn a profit before they start paying corporate taxes. At B6's rate, Mamdani will have taken Schumer's seat long before that's a risk to their bottom line.
Not to mention that moving would be a considerable invest of cash they don't have, and we don't know the details of the tax breaks Bloomberg gave them to stay in Queens. I'm sure there was a lock-in period of some length.
I like United but an Alaska and JetBlue merger would be in the best interest of flyers.
Generally, mergers are bad for workers and consumers, great for investors and lawyers, and sometimes good for executives. That said, if this means jetBlue gets United Club access, me like-y a little. Much prefer Mint over UAL service. So long as they bend the knee, pay the bribe, visit Mar-a-Lago, no anti-trust worries. (Which is kinda sad/pathetic.)
Huge fan of Mayor Mamdani (and jetBlue), but he does not have control over airlines and mergers like this; if jetBlue wants to abandon NYC, that’d be lame of them. If as part of a merger they simply become United (HQ in Chicago… yeah, blue city/state already, too), also lame, but we plebs ain’t gonna stop it… progressive tax structure is a start to healing this country, so time for paying fair-share.
Ben's merger assessment is most accurate. I do think that AS will be forced to make a play for B6 before UA ends up back at JFK.
Iit is ironic that AA and B6 are both significantly underperforming at JFK; UA might succeed in being able to convince the DOJ which is a whole lot less political than alot of people think - but AA and B6 are both unlikely to suddenly become profitable at JFK. There are alot of slots at JFK that have to be used profitably.
and if UA really does get back into JFK, DL is absolutely certain to add transcon flights from EWR.
and there is a high likelihood that WN will sell out to DL if the whole idea that "any merger can go through" actually is presented. DL might even try just to force a discussion about how much more consolidation should be allowed in the US airline industry.
DL has always proved that it can think longer term and more strategically than UA and that will be proven all the more true over the next couple years as UA's strategic plans are pressure tested in the real world.
In no way should United be allowed to acquire Jet blue. Certainly if JB was split and auctioned they must not be allowed to get JFK. And probably not even JB’s DC gates.
Ideally Alaska, or SW, or maybe even frontier acquiring JetBlue would be best for customers. I
If this pisses off Tim Dumb, it would be awesome!
I lol when he said Delta would fly from EWR.
Well said, Christian. You understand completely. No sane an authority would allow United to acquire JB. Luckily for United and JB shareholders/execs they have an insane and corrupt administration in office.
Presumably JetBlue would argue the airline can't make it as a standalone and based upon it's financial outcomes over the past five years (at least) that's a pretty good argument. But it might not be the argument the government is looking for.
DL already flies from EWR and, unlike UA's strategic failure in leaving JFK, DL has never left EWR.
Unlike UA at EWR, DL has used its slots at JFK and has used other airlines' slots that are not used. JFK is slot controlled while, because of UA's strategies to underutilize its slots, EWR is no longer slot controlled but rather simply schedule coordinated.
DL and any other airline can add flights to EWR as long as they work w/ the FAA to minimize delays.
just as with UA execs, you prove that cannot rationally think about or address the real issues.
The High Class AmericanBot is no more …. welcome back 1990Bot, all is forgiven …. really?
Acquiring jetBlue + divesting most of JFK to AA seems fine. United gets to run JFK-LAX/SFO/ORD/DEN/IAH/IAD/FLL/MCO/BOS but doesn't try and build a hub, and AA gets to DL's size at JFK which would increase competition. Then United gets more planes + Boston + a hub in South Florida (probably concentrating resources for ~65% market share in FLL at the expense of MCO).
Let come back from delusion land.
AS will not be able to do anything with B6. There is no economic interest from Wall St for that merger, and the costs will likely bankrupt AS. Secondarily, no airline merger between two coastal airlines without an interior hub(s) has ever worked. Never. Non starter.
Secondly, DL @ JFK only works because of LGA. That's why AA and B6 can't make JFK work. LGA helps DL balance out the challenges of markets within the perimeter rules at LGA with the outside perimeter and long haul ops at JFK. DL built this, and they made it work when every other airline failed at JFK. Good for them.
United will in no way try to compete with that. It's impossible. If UA acquires B6, they will create a UA operation at JFK for transcons and core markets, and sell off the rest. Maybe to Spirit, maybe to WN, maybe to Frontier, maybe to Allegiant/Sun Country. Maybe to all of them. That might hurt DL in leisure markets, which might be UA's point.
Thirdly, DL has tried and failed to run transcons from EWR. Plus where are they going to get the gate space, flight times, and flat bed aircraft, without sacrificing other operations? Not happening. And even if they try, UA will flood the market with capacity and frequency and drive DL out.
Also are you implying that WN will 'sell out' to Delta? What? DL can't afford WN, nor would a highly unionized work force with a very unique operating model ever integrate into a legacy like DL? Puff puff give!
Finally, DL has not 'always proved' anything. You have a very short memory. Except UA seems to be making many more strategic moves than DL right now. I think DL is very flat footed at the moment.
Tim, while we're on the subject of where airlines are underperforming, care to opine on markets where Delta might be underperforming? Or are they just executing on all cylinders and overperforming absolutely everywhere?
Let’s just hope that this stalls enough that it gets rejected at the door by a government that actually cares about us consumers
the same argument could have been said about B6 and NK but B6 has said just the opposite of late.
Everytime someone talks about either AA or UA acquiring B6, they grow silent when it is accurately pointed out that most of B6' flights don't work at AA or UA's costs - they don't even work at B6' costs.
UA is not going to suddenly steal a bunch of business demand that AA or B6 is not carrying.
and the notion that UA can make a niche operation work at JFK in the midst of someone else's much larger hub but AA can't make the same thing work at ORD is what is most hypocritical.
DL already has the size advantage locked up at LGA and JFK and AA and B6 trail financially as a result.
UA is simply not going to walk in and take even a little piece of the JFK market w/o provoking a far larger DL action at EWR and elsewhere on UA's network including across the Pacific
I am sure there are markets where DL underperforms; every airline doesn't do the same on every market.
The difference is that DL doesn't pick fights with everyone - it just moves decisively and strategically for the long haul when opportunities arise as it has in BOS and JFK w/ B6 and AA at LAX - as well as stealing Latam.
And DL keeps details about its own finances close to the chest instead of touting its success or struggles in any market.
The bottom line speaks for itself. If only UA could truly catch up to DL's advantage.
UA shouldn't make a niche operation work at JFK. What they can do is fly the exact same routes/frequencies they do to e.g. BOS, PHL, etc. to all of their hubs. The balance can go to AA, which then gets the slots needed to basically copy Delta's JFK network, flight by flight.
Ugh - I really hope this doesn't come to fruition as a United flyer. It wouldn't have much impact for me in ORD and generally mergers like this lead to a disruption in all of the operational areas where a company has made progress (e.g., IT improvements, service improvements, other key investments). United has plenty they need to fix in the core business in terms of food and lounges without being distracted by a shiny acquisition.
Trust me...every greedy Communist...er..."Democratic Socialist" always finds a way to make "rich corporations" pay their "fair share."
Per the Economist...
"New York City's financial services sector experienced a notable contraction, losing 8,400 jobs between January and August 2025, driven by firms relocating to lower-cost regions like Texas and Florida. This downturn reflects a long-term decline in the city’s share of finance jobs, which fell from 11.5% in 1990 to 7.7% in August 2025."
The high paying finance jobs are leaving which means that someone has to pick up the slack.
This $120+ BILLION dollar budget ain't gonna pay for itself.
Agree with Andrew H. It costs a lot to move, but it costs even more to stay. I think the only reason that they even have stayed in NYC is that it gives them kind of a ceremonial flag in the sand in Rockaway Beach so to speak, to keep the slots at JFK. The Port Authority has A LOT of power in NY/NJ, and they can be swayed. Now, at least they know they will get a lot of flack not supporting a local interest.
Unfortunately, there is really only three scenarios. 1) B6 declares Chapter 7, assets go to whomever will take them (United), 2) be bought by United (the only suitor interested, AA won't, DL doesn't need them), 3) B6 refocuses, moves to Florida, and concentrates on SE traffic and ends the expensive venture of competing in the NE.
And if they try well, we’ll see them in court. The Department of justice may not be protect us, but many state Attorney Generals will.
Recent history of bicoastal without interior US hub(s):
B6: drew down LGB and LAX
VX: Acquired by AS and JFK dehubbed
NK: drew down LAS
US: acquired by AA
There are too many people in the middle of the US looking to move around the middle of the US. This is especially the case in an era of credit card deals driving airline profitability.
As for UA, seems like NK is about one turbulence away from flatlining. UA could pick them up, giving them the FL hub they want. IF UA and B6 were to remain friendly, they could slot swap LGA-JFK. B6 increases competition at LGA. UA increases competition at JFK. This friendly relations would increase the hub factor in FLL through codeshares. Everyone wins.
My utopia, anyway.
"You two make a perfect, economically illiterate, couple."
Says someone who doesn't understand the definition of the word communism.
Well I’m glad to see Tim that you now agree with me, that if a merger cycle starts, Delta would end up with Southwest. United might be looking at JFK, but Delta is looking down the road, and down the road is Texas. Corporations are constantly relocating to Houston, Austin and the DFW Metroplex. Population growth and corporate money are moving to Texas, not New York. Southwest would give Delta unique access to all three locations. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but looking 10-20 years down the road it would make a lot of sense for Delta to do it. Worth noting too is that SWA’s employees, its stockholders and even its passengers are becoming disillusioned with the company. SWA is not the same airline it was 20 years ago. Most of their employees would jump at the chance to join Delta, especially their pilots.
yeah, i think this analysis is basically correct; this thing could go any number of ways, but a merger is very likely happening and no matter who wins, DL loses
AA and B6 both cannot make JFK work profitably; DL can and does it by using slots that AA and B6 are not using.
There is no planet under which UA can buy B6 in whole and succeed; B6 has fewer slots than DL at JFK (let alone LGA).
If UA can make it at JFK in the midst of a much stronger and larger DL hub, then AA can make ORD work as a second player.
The reality is that UA knows it cannot compete with DL on a whole hub basis so they want just a handful of slots. DL can still crush UA esp. in LAX but UA thinks it needs to be at JFK.
The same is true at BOS where DL is larger than B6, a feat established in a pretty short period of time.
and nothing stops DL from adding transcons from EWR - which is almost certain to happen if UA adds any transcons from JFK.
no other airline has a better track record of defending its hubs and growing into other airline hubs than DL.
As much as you might want to dream about what will happen with B6/UA or JFK, you might hold off and see what actually happens.
AS and B6 would be a problem for Seattle's "Proudly All Boeing" airline. I would like very much to see United gain a sizable fleet of Airbus aircraft, plus gates at JFK again and maybe more than a token schedule at SEA.
I thought it was US acquired AA but kept the AA name, in the same way that NationsBank acquired Bank of America but kept the latter's name (and moved the headquarters from San Francisco to Charlotte).
You cant argue against B6/UA gaining NYC share considering how large DL
has been allowed to become.
If B6 can’t merge with UA, then the DL NYC monopoly must be broken up.