Analysis-United’s chief takes fight with American to White House with merger pitch

By Rajesh Kumar Singh

CHICAGO, April 14 (Reuters) – For more than a decade, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has argued that the U.S. airline industry can support only two true global premium carriers. Now, he has taken that view to the White House — floating the idea of a merger with his fiercest rival, American Airlines.

Kirby’s plan can be traced back to December 9, 2013 — the day the American-US Airways merger closed. At the time, Kirby was a senior executive at American. In March 2025, Kirby recounted at a New York conference his long-ago conversation with his then-team at American about how the airline industry would evolve. 

“There’s only room in the country for two successful premium airlines,” Kirby recalled saying. “We’re going to push United … out of Chicago.”

Three years after that 2013 merger, he was gone, after being passed over for the CEO job at American. He landed at United, and has spent much of the past decade executing that playbook in reverse, battling against American to dominate at Chicago’s  O’Hare airport.

The latest move takes that rivalry beyond the industry playing field.

The idea of a United‑American merger emerged publicly late on Monday, when sources revealed that Kirby had met with President Donald Trump on February 25 and that he pitched the American Airlines merger idea to the president, appealing to his broad ambition to create U.S. corporate champions.

It was not immediately clear whether United has approached American about a potential deal, or whether the idea remained preliminary.

United and American both declined to comment for this story.

Kirby has also spent months engaging with the administration, people familiar with the matter said, including an appearance on the Katie Miller Podcast, a show hosted by the wife of Trump adviser Stephen Miller. Kirby’s appearance on the show drew a rebuke from far-right activist Laura Loomer.

“Scott Kirby is the same guy who fired people for refusing to take the COVID jab and spent years acting like a Biden climate cultist,” Loomer wrote on X. “Scott Kirby is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

BATTLE OF THE AIRLINE CHIEFS

The rivalry has also spilled into public view.

Last month, the CEOs of American Airlines and United appeared at the same J.P. Morgan conference — American’s Robert Isom in the morning and Kirby in the afternoon. When Isom described United’s Chicago expansion as “reckless,” Kirby was asked about the comment when he was onstage. “Took that as a compliment,” he said.   

Robert Mann, a former airline executive turned consultant, said the rivalry had moved beyond ordinary competition.

“It’s a grudge match to some degree,” he said. “Robert Isom versus Scott Kirby in the schoolyard after school — brass knuckles.”

Kirby has argued that shocks like the current fuel spike would “accelerate the gap between brand-loyal airlines and everyone else,” creating openings for consolidation.

FUEL PRICE SPIKE AN OPPORTUNITY AND RISK

American fits parts of that profile: its shares and earnings have lagged competitors, and unions have been sharply critical of management.

Its own numbers, however, complicate that picture. CFO Devon May said last month that the airline ended the first quarter with more than $10 billion in liquidity and debt at a 10-year low — even as it remains one of the most leveraged among major U.S. carriers.

“No matter how long this takes, American is built for times like this,” Isom said last month.

That leaves American in between: not strong enough to attract a high valuation on its own, but not weak enough to be an easy acquisition target.

Kirby’s case for a merger rests on international scale. A combined airline would have greater reach in markets where foreign carriers dominate long-haul flying — a pitch calibrated for a White House focused on trade deficits.

But the domestic reality undermines the case.

A merger would combine two of the largest U.S. airlines with significant overlap, including Chicago O’Hare and major hubs in Texas.

Those are exactly the markets regulators will likely scrutinize first and demand asset sales.

WINNERS AND LOSERS IN MERGER PLAN

For American shareholders, a sale offers a clearer outcome than waiting for a turnaround.

The stock was up more than 8% on Tuesday afternoon, reflecting expectations of a takeover premium for a company valued at about $7 billion, less than a third of United’s roughly $31 billion market capitalization.

For United shareholders, the arithmetic runs the other way, particularly as fuel costs rise due to the Iran war.

United carries about $20 billion in long-term debt and is working toward an investment-grade rating — a milestone its finance chief last month said the airline expects to reach by the end of this year or next.

Adding American’s roughly $25 billion in debt would leave the combined company with about $45 billion in liabilities. That would test United’s balance-sheet push, even as it pitches investors on financial discipline and an investment-grade rating.

The deal would also bring American’s more than 139,000 employees and a fleet of over 1,000 aircraft.

The surge in fuel costs sharpens that risk considerably. J.P. Morgan analyst Jamie Baker last week cut his United earnings per share estimate to roughly a $1 loss for the full year if fuel stays elevated.

While prolonged high fuel prices are expected to shift structural advantages toward high-margin carriers like Delta Air Lines and United, industry officials privately say a United–American merger would be challenging in the current environment.

“It would be like digesting a whale,” one industry official said of a possible acquisition of American by United.

(Reporting by Rajesh Kumar Singh in Chicago; Editing by Joe Brock and Matthew Lewis)