AA paid basically an honorarium for the business. What they really did was agree to take on their liability (which they promptly dispensed much of it by putting TWA into bankruptcy status the next day.) AA had a considerably better credit rating (at the time), and re-signed the desirable leases at much more favorable rates. The lease holders were left with an option of "nothing" or "next-to-nothing." ... and it sounds likes AA did the same with TWA's employees. It's more like AA took out a lot of capacity from the US system, at a minimal cost. Though there might of been some good PR about STL as a mid-continent hub. Matthew On Sunday, October 5, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: > In a message dated 10/5/2003 6:31:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > BraniffIntl@xxxxxxx writes: > > << Not profitable enough. One of the major reasons for AMR's purchase > of TW > was > to have an alternate midwest hub to relieve congestion at ORD. > Thanks to > 9/11 and the success of non-hub carriers, that theory has the same > value as > the > money AMR spent to acquire TW. Ya know what's said about hindsight! > >> > > So basically, AA got a bunch of MD-80s and a few 757s in that deal? > How much > did they pay anyway?