The airline industry in the United States has fundamentally changed in recent years, and that largely centers around the big airlines earning a significant percentage of their profits from their loyalty programs. Successful loyalty programs require scale, and it makes it harder for the little carriers to compete.
Along those lines, one of the airline industry’s most respected analysts has made an interesting argument that I think is worth covering (thanks to JonNYC for flagging this)…
In this post:
Jamie Baker sees potential M&A upside for JetBlue
JetBlue is a uniquely positioned airline in the US market. The carrier isn’t profitable, but it actually has super valuable assets (including its presence at JFK), and it’s also not an ultra low cost carrier. We’ve now seen JetBlue and United launch a partnership, and that’s ramping up slowly, with the goal being for United to get slots at JFK in 2027 at the earliest.
If regulatory hurdles weren’t an issue, I have to imagine that United would acquire JetBlue in a heartbeat (even if United CEO Scott Kirby often dismisses the prospect). That brings us to some commentary from JPMorgan analyst Jamie Baker.
He argues that there’s potential upside for JetBlue from M&A discussions, believing that the current partnership with United is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, of course, that’s something we sort of all knew. But here’s where it gets more interesting…
Baker argues that investors should keep an eye on the ongoing rail M&A developments, where two players with more than 20% market share (Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific), are looking to combine, and would control up to 45% of market share.
Baker and his team think that it’s much more likely that JetBlue will be acquired than file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He points out that JetBlue and United combined would only have as much domestic market share as American and Delta (around 16%). Meanwhile a JetBlue and Alaska tie-up would result in a mere 7% domestic market share, and a JetBlue and Southwest tie-up would lead to 22% market share.
So as Baker wrote, “to summarize, we think there could be another round of airline consolidation under the current administration (or the next one, perhaps) depending on the outcome in the rail space.”
It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out
I agree with Baker 100% here. I’ve written extensively about my thoughts on JetBlue’s prospects, and whether the airline can have an independent future, or if consolidation is the only option. In terms of domestic market share (which is what should matter most from a regulatory standpoint), it seems like consolidation with either Alaska or United should be acceptable, given that United is smaller than American and Delta domestically.
Another key question is overall presence in New York. United of course has a fortress hub at Newark, but has no presence at New York Kennedy, and a very small presence at New York LaGuardia. If you consider those all to be a single market, obviously United also having a significant presence at Kennedy and LaGuardia would be a major issue. But if you view them as independent markets, it would be a different story. Personally, I think having United at Kennedy and with a bigger presence at LaGuardia would only improve the competitive dynamics.
But what matters most is how the government views things. The Trump administration has been sort of tough on consolidation, in some ways, but mostly when it comes to consolidation with foreign firms.
I know everyone likes to say “consolidation is bad for consumers,” but the reality is that at the major airlines, the banks are subsidizing ticket costs, while at the smaller airlines, shareholders are subsidizing ticket costs. The former can continue (as long as there’s no major change to the banking environment), while the latter can’t continue forever. Just look at Spirit.
I know Alaska has its hands full with the Hawaiian merger, but it sure would be interesting to see the airline becoming more of a national player, given its success with loyalty. Alaska also has the advantage of being in the oneworld alliance, so you’d think there would be a lot of upside with the JetBlue hubs on the East Coast.
Bottom line
Earlier this year, there was a ton of talk of a possible acquisition of JetBlue. Then JetBlue and United announced a partnership, which will ramp up over time. While nothing has actually changed in recent months, a respected analyst makes the case that for JetBlue, consolidation is more likely than Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and he thinks we should watch consolidation in the rail industry.
The argument is that JetBlue and United combined would only have as much domestic market share as American or Delta. Meanwhile Alaska can’t be ruled out either…
What do you make of the prospects of more industry consolidation with JetBlue?
If the government didnt allow Jetblue to acquire Sprint, wouldnt it be impossible for United to acquire Jetblue?
I get Mr Baker's thoughts but I think it’s time for JetBlue to either acquire Sprit or Join Star Alliance with United but the only thing that prevents JetBlue from joining a alliance is they have partner airlines in all three alliances
This would be a great opportunity for AS to run it’s standard merger playbook: buy B6, and then progressively shut down all their routes and retreat to SEA.
@BayAreaTravlr--It is OK to be upset that AS bought out Virgin America and then folded it into AS. However, you should be asking yourself what would have happened to Virgin if they hadn't? Virgin wasn't sold because it was doing well. It was sold because it wasn't. A major reason it wasn't doing well at that time still exists today: UA is pretty dominant at SFO, probably even more so today than it was then....
@BayAreaTravlr--It is OK to be upset that AS bought out Virgin America and then folded it into AS. However, you should be asking yourself what would have happened to Virgin if they hadn't? Virgin wasn't sold because it was doing well. It was sold because it wasn't. A major reason it wasn't doing well at that time still exists today: UA is pretty dominant at SFO, probably even more so today than it was then. It wouldn't make business sense for AS to continue operating in the exact same way Virgin had. Instead, they allocated assets to places where they would produce greater returns on investment. I realize that wasn't fun for the Bay Area but it's very rational in a business sense.
none of which changes that AS has pulled down most of what it acquired from Virgin America.
Bay Area is right. and AS' margins fell from what it was pre-Virgin merger.
The financial outlook so far is less than certain financially for AS. They had just become to climb back into the DL and UA levels of margins and seem certain to face several years of lower margins.
and AS' combined network is...
none of which changes that AS has pulled down most of what it acquired from Virgin America.
Bay Area is right. and AS' margins fell from what it was pre-Virgin merger.
The financial outlook so far is less than certain financially for AS. They had just become to climb back into the DL and UA levels of margins and seem certain to face several years of lower margins.
and AS' combined network is not that much larger than the combined AS/HA was; AS is just funding its growth by cutting HA's routes with the hope that the crowded int'l market at SEA will suddenly be hospitable for AS - which is a very big bet
@Tim Dunn--and your point is what? Airlines that buy out other airlines always have lower margins in the immediate aftermath (talking HA here). There are a lot of one-time charges from a buyout. You also fail to understand that AS's business model is different from DL, UA, and AA. Larger size has the ability to generate larger profits (and larger losses) but it isn't the only way to make money. Yes, it's true that AS...
@Tim Dunn--and your point is what? Airlines that buy out other airlines always have lower margins in the immediate aftermath (talking HA here). There are a lot of one-time charges from a buyout. You also fail to understand that AS's business model is different from DL, UA, and AA. Larger size has the ability to generate larger profits (and larger losses) but it isn't the only way to make money. Yes, it's true that AS has done away with some Virgin routes from SFO and LAX and reduced some frequencies but the goal for the buyout wasn't just to run Virgin as it had been run. Virgin wasn't sold because it was making lots of money. And it wasn't purchased just to take over its routes. It was largely a poison pill to prevent a hostile takeover by DL (or anyone else) by making regulatory approval for such a buyout nearly impossible. It also increased AS's overall presence in California, thereby enhancing its loyalty and credit card profitability. And it paved the way for a number of very successful intra-California routes, including many that don't touch SFO or LAX. AS flies to many more airports in California than DL does. From a profitability standpoint, the quickest way to lose money is to fight battles you can avoid, particularly when the carrier you bought out was losing those battles.
As for competition at SEA, we agree that it is a very competitive airport. That said, it is AS's home turf and AS is the dominant carrier at the airport. After 10+ years of "hubbing" SEA, DL still only has less than half of AS's market share. The best differentiator for DL has been its long-haul international operations out of SEA. The HA buyout by AS had a different strategy from the Virgin buyout--it gives AS widebody aircraft for the first time, enabling it to fly international long-hauls on its own metal. In the "Battle for Seattle," that puts DL on the defensive. It remains to be seen how successful that expansion will be, but it has a much greater chance of success than expanding out of SFO or LAX, where AS would be at a disadvantage.
Virgin was making a profit for the prior 2 years (3 if you include 2016, the year it was acquired by Alaska). In fact Virgin America was doing so well that JetBlue and Delta were interested—and also pursuing them—in order to capitalize on the market share they had developed as well as their forward earnings. I get sick of hearing this revised history of Virgin “BeiNg in TroUbLe” when clearly Virgin was doing many things...
Virgin was making a profit for the prior 2 years (3 if you include 2016, the year it was acquired by Alaska). In fact Virgin America was doing so well that JetBlue and Delta were interested—and also pursuing them—in order to capitalize on the market share they had developed as well as their forward earnings. I get sick of hearing this revised history of Virgin “BeiNg in TroUbLe” when clearly Virgin was doing many things well in order to gain the market share that they had while turning profitable after reaching an economy of scale.
It hardly matters. No one is going to buy them with $8 billion in debt and no meaningful hopes of a turnaround, even if their stock price is so low they could be had for the loose change in the couch cushions at the Newark United pilot's crew lounge.
thank you.
And B6 is a low cost carrier that the feds say provides pricing pressure on the big 3.
To somehow think that they no longer do that because UA suddenly needs to fix its strategic failure of leaving JFK and turned EWR into an operational disaster is the height of double standards.
and, no donations to 47 won't change anything.
The best option would be a merger with Alaska. Im B6 Mosiac and the combination of Alaska’s East West and Pacific routes, along with Jet Blues Atlantic and European routes make the most sense.
I don't think anyone outside the PNW truly understands Alaska Airlines. @Lucky, since you used to live in Seattle, I expected more from you. I just don't see AS buying Jet Blue. AS has become a national carrier in the sense that it flies to/from a lot of airports all over the country. However, unlike UA, DL, and AA, it doesn't fly intra-regionally outside of the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawai'i. Its core strength (in...
I don't think anyone outside the PNW truly understands Alaska Airlines. @Lucky, since you used to live in Seattle, I expected more from you. I just don't see AS buying Jet Blue. AS has become a national carrier in the sense that it flies to/from a lot of airports all over the country. However, unlike UA, DL, and AA, it doesn't fly intra-regionally outside of the West Coast, Alaska, and Hawai'i. Its core strength (in addition to its loyalty program) has been that it is the national carrier of the Pacific Northwest. If you want to fly nonstop from SEA or PDX (and, increasingly SAN--yeah, I know, not PNW) to any region of the country, the odds are good that AS has you covered. The idea of trying to be a true national carrier and going head to head with the Big 3 from multiple airports in the East doesn't seem like a great business idea. AS's international expansion from SEA is risky but doable, but it will require their full attention for a while. Does anyone think it would be a good idea for AS to start flying international long haul from JFK or FLL? If Jet Blue is struggling in the domestic market on the East Coast, why would AS do better? It seems like AS's best growth and profit opportunities are still based on the West Coast and not by buying out a struggling East Coast carrier.
The writer is really looking out for United and Jet Blue stockholders.
Such a merger would be terrible for the consumer and the airline industry. An Alaska and JetBlue merger would be cool (I don’t they have the appetite tho). But a JB and Southwest, or even JB and frontier, would be fine.
I have firmly believed since they announced the attempt with Spirit that the only partner that truly makes sense for JetBlue is Southwest. The route maps just beg to be put together and open up plenty more NS flights for both. Creates a great deal of coverage and LGA/JFK and I can't see how the government wouldn't go for this.
Let's get real: We are in a 'golden age' for mergers, acquisitions, and the wealthiest and corporations doing whatever they want with impunity. Some call it legalized corruption; others consider it the second Gilded Age. (Folks, he's literally building a 'golden' ballroom... our own Versailles...) So, just say nice things about our 'Dear Leader,' and pay your 'gratuities' (Snyder v. United States).
Pardon me. (Literally.) I meant 'his' Versailles. It surely ain't ours.
The massive airline consolidation occurred in the early 2000s, not now. If you read the WSJ, CA allowed Open AI to become a fully for profit company if is stayed in CA and absorb its not for profit division. There are plenty of elected officals on the left making money on wall street trading or business activities.
The so-called "golden" ballroom replaces event space that was mostly being held in tents. Not very presidential or becoming of a large nation. Millions wasted per year on erecting tents and maintenance of them. So given it's all private funded, nothing really to complain about here.
And your parallels to the "peoples" space is laughable. I know I've never been to such an event there in tents, and I won't be to one in the...
The so-called "golden" ballroom replaces event space that was mostly being held in tents. Not very presidential or becoming of a large nation. Millions wasted per year on erecting tents and maintenance of them. So given it's all private funded, nothing really to complain about here.
And your parallels to the "peoples" space is laughable. I know I've never been to such an event there in tents, and I won't be to one in the new space either. I'm sure you haven't. And neither have I played basketball on the courts that BHO constructed, or the pool the Ford built. It's such tiring pearl clutching.
Actually the so-called "golden" ballroom is replacing the entire east wing. I'm sorry about the trauma that those tent parties that you weren't invited to seems to have caused you hopefully this new ballroom that we're absolutely paying for makes up for tariffs.
I think it’s worth noting that a fair amount of the discussion in this space among investors is the idea that the airline is more likely to be acquired than going chapter 11. It’s important to keep in mind that this is in relative terms, and based on the way that their financials are right now It’s unlikely that they’ll go chapter 11 in the near future. So just because an acquisition is more likely...
I think it’s worth noting that a fair amount of the discussion in this space among investors is the idea that the airline is more likely to be acquired than going chapter 11. It’s important to keep in mind that this is in relative terms, and based on the way that their financials are right now It’s unlikely that they’ll go chapter 11 in the near future. So just because an acquisition is more likely than a chapter 11 filing, it does not necessarily cleanly equate to it being likely overall. What I’m essentially trying to say here is that I still think there ispossibility and hope for an independent JetBlue. Possibility and hope for a independent JetBlue.
JetBlue has Been Independent for the last 25 years
AS and B6 might make sense from an antitrust perspective, but it does not fit Alaska's current strategy at all. With VX, Alaska got much larger at highly competitive airports (SFO, LAX), but not big enough to be #1. In this industry, you need to be #1 at an airport in order to build loyalty and be successful. Acquiring Hawaiian fits with this strategy because they can be #1 at HNL (and the other islands...
AS and B6 might make sense from an antitrust perspective, but it does not fit Alaska's current strategy at all. With VX, Alaska got much larger at highly competitive airports (SFO, LAX), but not big enough to be #1. In this industry, you need to be #1 at an airport in order to build loyalty and be successful. Acquiring Hawaiian fits with this strategy because they can be #1 at HNL (and the other islands if you count them). We've seen it with their recent network changes too, prioritizing PDX and SAN (where they have a fighting chance of dethroning WN), while cutting back in SFO and LAX.
Acquiring Jetblue would get them #3 position in NYC, a highly contested #1 position in BOS but adding yet another massive fight with Delta there, and then a strong position in FLL overshadowed by AA's MIA hub. None of those are places where Alaska, a brand with minimal brand recognition on the east coast, would be likely to succeed.
One of the reasons why AS has fared well against DL in Seattle is that all the locals know and love the Alaska brand. In Boston, nobody knows who Alaska Airlines is. Just because AS can "win" vs Delta in Seattle doesn't mean they can replicate that result elsewhere.
Others in the industry might want to see it, but AS leadership should stay away
There is not just the EWR/JFK overlap issue do not forget BOS which JetBlue flies international there and of course has a Florida presence creating an unfair advantage. Alaska should be allowed
I'm surprised that there is no mention of an AA/JetBlue tie up. That seems to make the most sense. AA is losing in NYC (and everywhere else it seems) . Seem like merging with JetBlue would make AA a contender again in NYC.
A good way to ruin JetBlue would be with AA, the worst US airline by far... horrible
No mention probably because AA has no money and has such a relatively high debt load that getting financing for the deal would be a problem.
The best thing AA can do right now is focus on righting their ship. Not acquiring their way out.
AA will continue to wither and die a slow death on the vine unless and until their entire leadership exits.
First, everyone here needs to understand that investment analysts love to see mergers and acquisitions because they invariably force up the stock price. JBLU stock is lower than it was when it was first issued and continues to decline.
Second, the proposed railroad merger in the US is an end on end merger – combining two airlines from different regions of the country to create a nationwide system. The closest end on end airline merger...
First, everyone here needs to understand that investment analysts love to see mergers and acquisitions because they invariably force up the stock price. JBLU stock is lower than it was when it was first issued and continues to decline.
Second, the proposed railroad merger in the US is an end on end merger – combining two airlines from different regions of the country to create a nationwide system. The closest end on end airline merger was Delta-Northwest which resulted in no divestiture requirements because Delta and Northwest had no overlap other than on their hub to hub routes.
JBLU – UAL, as some have noted, have significant overlap in NYC; UA and CO before have spent decades telling us that EWR is NYC; they can’t pretend it isn’t now because everyone knows it is one of the 3 NYC airport – the fact that it serves a different part of NYC doesn’t make it any less of a NYC airport.
Even though UA has pulled back to about parity with DL in NYC post EWR 2025 meltdown disaster, there is no planet on which DL or UA would be allowed to acquire any airline that significantly increases their NYC size.
And third, JBLU has 40% of the net debt that much larger UAL has. All of those slots are not very economical when they come with that much debt.
And, finally, people fixate with higher cost carriers taking over lower cost carriers but the DOJ has repeatedly said that is the worst thing for competition and has repeatedly blocked it – via the NEA w/ AA/B6 and B6/NK.
There is a higher likelihood that DL will be able to acquire WN – with which it has very little overlap – than UA will be allowed to acquire B6.
I think those in MEM and CVG would disagree about there being no overlap for the DL-NW merger as both these premerger hubs are no more.
I do agree that it is unlikely UA, AA or DL would be allowed to acquire B6.
AS could be a good option as that would provide a east coast hub, however, it could also end up much like VX with the Airbus fleet slowly being removed and the hub service dwindling. Plus, AS has its hands full for awhile yet with the HA merger.
DL and NW did not compete together in CVG and MEM but had separate hubs that were both heavily dependent on 50 seat RJs
Yes AS has its hands full. A failing carrier does not mean a merger with someone else makes sense. More airline mergers fail to achieve their objectives than do
Lord, you really grip at straws to make your precious delta look good. Your saying JetBlue debt is 40% of united? JetBlue has 8.6 billion debt while united is 33 billion. Your math is as erroneous as the rest of your points. You also know that they can leverage JetBlue high equity value to offset consolidated debt. DL dominance of the NY market east of the Hudson are numbered, Kirby is a cunning and ambitious...
Lord, you really grip at straws to make your precious delta look good. Your saying JetBlue debt is 40% of united? JetBlue has 8.6 billion debt while united is 33 billion. Your math is as erroneous as the rest of your points. You also know that they can leverage JetBlue high equity value to offset consolidated debt. DL dominance of the NY market east of the Hudson are numbered, Kirby is a cunning and ambitious and will not delta just sit on its own with that level of market share in the northeast.
too bad you don't understand the concept of NET DEBT.
Given that size at LGA and JFK is determined by the amount of slots that are controlled, feel free lay out how UA, B6 or any other airline is going to displace DL's position.
UA was dumb enough to not use its slots at EWR which is why EWR lots slot controls; DL not only has used every slot it has at LGA and...
too bad you don't understand the concept of NET DEBT.
Given that size at LGA and JFK is determined by the amount of slots that are controlled, feel free lay out how UA, B6 or any other airline is going to displace DL's position.
UA was dumb enough to not use its slots at EWR which is why EWR lots slot controls; DL not only has used every slot it has at LGA and JFK but uses a bunch of other airline's slots - mostly AA's.
And the point above is what matters. All the slots in the world don't make much sense if they are weighed down by enormous amounts of debt.
UA plus B6 debt levels is in the camp of AA's finances and we all know how well AA is doing financially.
as for Kirby's "cunning", EWR has melted down multiple times under his watch, he argued for slot controls, and now celebrates EWR being schedule coordinated rather than gaining slot controls.
DL continues to grow at a faster rate at EWR than UA and nothing stops DL from adding EWR-LAX or SEA or any number of other important routes if DL chooses to do so.
It is DL that outsmarted UA which USED TO BE the largest airline in NYC by multiple metrics - but not so now. DL has more flights and a larger share of the domestic market - while UA uses its precious EWR flights to fly to Portuguese islands and Nuuk.
There's no question B6 will be acquired, eventually. The airline is unprofitable. Its operations are a mess. One of the worst performing carriers when it comes to on time performance. It is principally a leisure airline skewed heavily on the Northeast to Florida market and beach markets. It sits on valuable assets that would easily solve American's New York challenges (and give it a leg up in Boston). A merger of AS and B6 would...
There's no question B6 will be acquired, eventually. The airline is unprofitable. Its operations are a mess. One of the worst performing carriers when it comes to on time performance. It is principally a leisure airline skewed heavily on the Northeast to Florida market and beach markets. It sits on valuable assets that would easily solve American's New York challenges (and give it a leg up in Boston). A merger of AS and B6 would stitch together a true transcontinental airline in AS, but for what? To compete in the Northeast and with a fleet mismatch? United can't and should not be allowed to buy B6. It overlaps way too much in the NY market. A Spirit merger feels more likely with Frontier than B6 but either way, B6 as an independent carrier is not likely to remain so.
It has been rejected before and I don’t think the JetBlue Unions membership would not like I think there partnership with United is a good for JetBlue
If Alaska wants a national footprint, buying JetBlue would make strategic sense. Also, JFK would give Alaska a third international gateway (after Seattle and Honolulu) . . . and they have the long-haul ships on order. Low regulatory challenge. But, the timing is not optimal.
AS already has a national footprint--they serve a lot of airports--but their core business is connecting those airports to the PNW. JFK is an important market but highly competitive. I don't think AS wants/needs to enter the fray there, particularly internstionally.
AS has a playbook for this. They need to acquire JetBlue and then slowly pull out of JFK and BOS moving those aircraft to SEA, PDX and SAN.
,@Ramone--Some people will never forgive AS for buying and then closing down Virgin America. I get it. The same kind of comments are being made about the HA buyout. So, aside from having been bought out by AS, what do those 2 airlines have in common? They were both failing and AS saw an advantage to buying them. In the case of Virgin, the advantage was a "poison pill" to make regulatory approval of a...
,@Ramone--Some people will never forgive AS for buying and then closing down Virgin America. I get it. The same kind of comments are being made about the HA buyout. So, aside from having been bought out by AS, what do those 2 airlines have in common? They were both failing and AS saw an advantage to buying them. In the case of Virgin, the advantage was a "poison pill" to make regulatory approval of a hostile takeover by Delta impossible. HA's acquisition provided AS with widebody aircraft and the ability to start flying long haul international routes on its own metal.
I know you were being sarcastic but you actually made my point. I don't see anything about Jet Blue that would make them an attractive acquisition target for AS, which you stated quite well.
Alaska acquiring jetBlue seems like the best outcome from a competitiveness standpoint. The US would then have the Big 3, Southwest with a sizeable portion, and Alaska big enough to compete on the coasts. oneworld improving in the Northeast would be excellent, too.
The faster United buys JetBlow and makes the name and livery disappear forever, the better.
That is so rude if it wasn’t for JetBlue there wouldn’t be tv or WiFi on board that almost every Airline has now
Alaska and JetBlue merger would be sick. Strong on both coasts, able to compete with big 3. I'm in
I don't see a future for JetBlue as a standalone with the current set up of the industry. UA would make the most sense assuming the EWR/JFK situation can be worked out. There is some market overlap, for example Manhattan residents.
I would be more comfortable with them joining Star Alliance than one world because AA and AS are already in it
Agreed - it would be an insane issue to allow the largest city in the country to have one airline with two huge operations. Insane from a monopoly standpoint.
The only real option is to join Oneworld, either AS or AA. The former might be well suited. The latter might be unwilling to let AS grab that prize. But, from a competitive standpoint, AA/AS/B6 would, as the Northeastern Alliance foresaw, be the best competitive...
Agreed - it would be an insane issue to allow the largest city in the country to have one airline with two huge operations. Insane from a monopoly standpoint.
The only real option is to join Oneworld, either AS or AA. The former might be well suited. The latter might be unwilling to let AS grab that prize. But, from a competitive standpoint, AA/AS/B6 would, as the Northeastern Alliance foresaw, be the best competitive option.
That said, 3 major international carrier alliances is not competition. It's a government managed oligopoly.
The real question is how much of EWR UA will have to give up to get this done.
Rail consolidation has resulted in huge increases in prices paid by shippers, poor service, no growth, huge increases in stock price, more spent on share buybacks and 40% margins. Obviously Wall Street vultures love it.
Unless there is STRICT regulation, less competition is NEVER good for consumers.
It’s ridiculous for an approval of a United and JetBlue merger. How can it be argued that EWR and JFK are different airport? They are nearly equal distance from much of New York City?
United doesn’t even serve JFK. How could they argue it’s a different market, but oh we don’t want to serve JFK (one of the largest markets in the US)
Southwest will not acquire JetBlue. They are focused on organic...
It’s ridiculous for an approval of a United and JetBlue merger. How can it be argued that EWR and JFK are different airport? They are nearly equal distance from much of New York City?
United doesn’t even serve JFK. How could they argue it’s a different market, but oh we don’t want to serve JFK (one of the largest markets in the US)
Southwest will not acquire JetBlue. They are focused on organic growth and a return to shareholders.
Alaska would be the most promising though we would need to wait at least 2-3 years. They are still working on Hawaii integration. They have also had tech issues lately. Honestly, of any option, Alaska acquisition is the best option!
With the new Barclays deal, let’s hope JetBlue regains its footing so it can stay independent
Do you live in NYC or one of the surrounding areas?
If not, then you probably aren't aware that there are roughly six million people who live in Nassau County, Brooklyn, and Queens.
Those six million people tend not to cross two bridges to go to an airport.
So yes, EWR may be closer to Manhattan but JFK is much closer for the residents of Brooklyn, Queens and Nassau County.
I think both things are true here. I do live in NYC and generally there is minimal overlap between JFK and EWR in the metropolitan area as it is not generally practical/realistic to go to the other "airport" either by train or car/bus. It is also the case that the government and the industry generally view the NYC-area airports as a "single market" even if it isn't exactly one in reality. As such, it may...
I think both things are true here. I do live in NYC and generally there is minimal overlap between JFK and EWR in the metropolitan area as it is not generally practical/realistic to go to the other "airport" either by train or car/bus. It is also the case that the government and the industry generally view the NYC-area airports as a "single market" even if it isn't exactly one in reality. As such, it may not be possible to have a big operation at both EWR and JFK in the long-term.
Come 2027/2028 the economic landscape of NYC and the surrounding areas may be very different if the mayoral election continues as forecasted.
Jersey stands to gain population as do the suburbs of NYC.
Those population gains and buying habits may result in EWR and JFK/LGA becoming two very distinct markets with little overlap.
Either way...the population numbers I referenced above should be enough to get any combination/permutation of consolidation that is requested.
"Jersey stands to gain population as do the suburbs of NYC."
LOL, you're dumb enough to believe a damn person is going to uproot and move (as if they weren't considering/planning it already) just because of who's mayor for a few years?
That's right up there with all the bullsh!tters claiming they'll leave the country if XYZ becomes President--- something that about 0.0000000001% actually follow through on, and is of no consequence to anyone nor anything.
Obviously you have no idea what the real estate markets look like in the NYC suburbs right now.
It's been this way since Covid and will get another bump after the after the election.
Echoing what Andrew H has said, they might as well be two different markets. They are in two different states, and there is not too much overlap, particularly from the NY side. The logistics and costs of traveling from NJ to JFK or NY to EWR are a huge impediment, and can mean hours of time. No one from "The Island" probably even has a MileagePlus account, let alone would even consider going to EWR, or to LGA for the limited destinations served by UA.
"They are in two different states, and there is not too much overlap, particularly from the NY side"
Based on WHAT? There was a time when Continental was actually the busiest airline for FFP by address in 2 of the 5 boroughs. You think United just gave that up?
Serious question...do you live here?
Do you know the geographic differences between Manhattan and Queens?
And yes, United gave most of that up and they openly admit that it was a mistake.
I live and grew up in queens and now live in Nassau County. I never knew anyone traveling to ewr to fly, it was only Lga or Newark. So UA is cut out of the main market of nyc
If it’s Alaska wouldn’t they need a hub or three in the middle of the country? MCI? HOU? Maybe attack a non-AA hub like DEN?
Once the code-share restrictions with AA go away next year, AS will have partner hubs at AA hubs. No need to build their own.