Scott Kirby acknowledges that his audacious American-United tie-up proposal is defunct ‘for the foreseeable future’ but outlines why he believes the idea still has merits.
United Airlines chief executive Scott Kirby asserts that his pitch to combine with American Airlines and create the largest global carrier by far was rejected by American’s leadership team.
“They declined to engage and instead responded by publicly closing the door,” Kirby said on 27 April. “And without a willing partner, something this big simply can’t get done.”
Kirby now acknowledges that “a merger like this is off the table for the foreseeable future” but outlines why he believes the idea still has merits. He insists, for example, that the deal would have created more economy-class seats in the US market.
News initially broke that Kirby had approached senior members of US President Donald Trump’s administration about a tie-up. The concept drew fierce pushback from some corners of the airline sector and Trump himself, who said he did not “like” the idea of an American-United combination in a 21 April CNBC interview.
American CEO Robert Isom poured cold water on the idea last week, insisting during the Fort Worth-based carrier’s 23 April earnings call that “we’re not getting married”.
“I want to stress that the idea of the two largest airlines in the world getting together, that was something that we viewed as anti-competitive,” he said. “Obviously, everybody who has weighed in on this suggest the same thing – bad for customers, bad for the industry. Ultimately, that’d be bad for American Airlines.”
Kirby clarifies that he approached American directly about a combination, rather than government officials, “because I thought we could do something incredible for customers together”.
“I always knew that the only way any merger could be successful (and approved) is if it was great for customers and with a willing partner that shared my big, bold vision,” he says. “I was confident that this combination, which would have been about adding and not subtracting, creating a truly great airline that customers love, could get regulatory approval.”
Clearing antitrust approval, even given Trump’s welcoming stance toward industrial consolidation, was never a given considering the dominant market share and massive price-setting power the post-combination carrier would wield. Kirby admits that “divestitures in certain domestic markets obviously would have been required”, with airport slots likely being awarded to competitors to at least partially offset the mega-carrier’s competitive edge.
“I believe regulators would have approved such a deal because they would have recognised the benefits to customers, our shared employees and communities from coast-to-coast and around the world,” he says.
KIRBY DEFENDS ‘BOLD’ COMBINATION
In Kirby’s view, United’s business model “is winning” in the competition for greater market share – and, critically, earning “brand-loyal customers” – over American. Joining the companies would “scale and grow that winning, customer-focused approach”.
“The combined airline would have been about growth – especially internationally and with expanded service to smaller communities – both of which are mathematically enabled by having a larger network,” he says.
Critics of the concept slammed the implications for budget-sensitive air travellers, who have fewer options with the discount carrier sector amid a sharp contraction. Kirby maintains that the combination of American and United “and the growth that could have come with it” would have “dramatically increased the total number of economy seats in the marketplace, offering cost-conscious customers more affordable ways to fly to more places and greater choices across all price points”.
“We wouldn’t propose a combination that would cause prices to rise for customers,” he adds.
Whereas most combination scenarios involve at least one struggling carrier, Kirby draws a distinction with his “different kind of merger proposal” focused on growth and global scale. He also reiterates his oft-repeated argument that the USA suffers from a “trade deficit” in which the country’s carriers lose market share to international carriers operating long-haul flights to major US cities.
“The combined scale of United and American would be a better way to compete with foreign carriers,” he says.
With the deal apparently dead in the water, American and United will continue competing fiercely – particularly in Chicago, where the carriers have been locked in an escalating battle over airport take-off and landing slots and gate allocations.
Since the Covid-19 pandemic, United has consistently outperformed American financially and has positioned itself as one of the most-dominant carriers in the USA alongside Delta Air Lines.
Despite the price of jet fuel more than doubling since early February, United reported strong first-quarter financial results, with revenue surging year-on-year by 11%, to $14.6 billion.
The Chicago-headquartered carrier made a $699 million first-quarter profit, compared with a $387 million profit during the same three months of 2025.
American said on 23 April that it missed profitability in the first quarter due to higher fuel prices and severe winter weather that caused a cascade of flight cancellations in early January. It reports a $382 million loss during the first year’s first three months, with revenue surging 11% to $13.9 billion.
The post Controversial combination ‘off table’ after American’s rejection: United CEO first appeared on FlightGlobal.