TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3249 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
TAP and Varig won't be a merger without help from the Brazilian gov't. Brazilian law will restict TAP to owning no more than 20%.
I'm not convinced US/HP is a good thing, I think it would've been better to let US die. I don't see where any mergers in the states really will solve any of the problems. I'm afraid Parker wanted the merger badly enough that he isn't seeing the true costs.
Why? Most US LCCs (except TZ and DH) are either making a profit or experiencing less losses than their legacy rivals.
While a legacy carrier would love to buy a LCC just for the sake of eliminating competition; HP/US merger notwithstanding, any other LCC CEO that has half a brain isn't going to touch a legacy carrier with a 10-foot pole. Joe Leonard would have to be on drugs to allow NW (or worse, DL) to buy FL.
US is weak enough for HP to successfully pull it off. That can not be said about the other legacy carriers (UA though weakened and still in Chapter 11 is still a much larger carrier than US).
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
ExFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4994 times:
Alaska and someone - probably either CO or AA. There's fleet compatability issues with NW, otherwise I'd put them in the race too. I'd guess CO might want it more, as insurance on the West Coast against a DL failure.
Almost any other US combination among the "legacies" runs into severe anti-trust issues, except NW/CO, and they have incompatable fleets. And no one is going to touch DL in its current financial condition. If DL wasn't such a balance sheet basket-case, I'd say DL/AA would be a possibility (with some anti-trust driven divestures required.)
Frontier/Spirit would be a very interesting combination.
Airtran/Midwest is a possibility, but I still think FL will wait for Midwest to fold and snap up the 717s in the bankruptcy sale. I just don't think FL is that interested in MKE.
No possible dance partners for WN - the only major US LCC that runs 737s is AirTran, and WN wouldn't want their 717s or their hub operations.
JetBlue and Frontier is an outside possibility - I'd love to see it, except I think Neeleman already has his long-term battle plan in mind and a merger just isn't in there. (Also, we'd lose the animal tails. Look, penguins! )
The MadDogs make Allegiant a no-go right now.
If we ever get loosening of the foreign ownership rules, I'd look for a US LCC to make a play for WestJet, either WN or FL. B6 or F9 would be a better cultural fit than WN, but fleet compatability rears its ugly head here. And if we did get such a rules change, then I'd look for Air Canada to merge with "New US."
Outside North America? BMI and Virgin Atlantic's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
PHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4858 times:
I really don't understand, why anybody would think that Delta and Continental make a good match. Both have a hub in New York, one each in the South, and one each in Ohio. There is absolutely no point to this combination.
Here in the US, United will probably be the next one to make a move. In order to bring their operating cost on par with American, they will need a similar fleet size. They have currently around 450 active (of which they may lose up to 100 due to looming repossessions), American has 700+. So United would have a need for 300+ aircraft.
I think that either UAL and Continental or UAL and Delta would make a good match. In either case UAL would get two things they are lacking right now: a hub in the South and one in New York.
I don't know if you're very farmiliar with the Spanish people, but if you were, you would know that not in a million years would they give up their national airline. The government already fights like hell on behalf of Iberia, and there is nothing in the world that would make the Spanish budge from their solid backing of their national airline (I say this after spending considerable time there and observing the extremely strong national sentiment there). I don't think the Spanish government would even be up to giving BA majority ownership in IB, even if it stayed Iberia. I also don't know if the British would really like running a hub out of Madrid, and would it make that much sense for them to fly long hauls as 'British Airways' our of Spain?
I think something like Northwest and Alaska is much more feasible. Besides the fleet commonality issues, the AS route structure would be very beneficial to NW, as they are "Northwest" after all, and they have somewhat of an international presence at Sea-Tac, some Intra-Alaska routes and West Coast/Transcons from Seattle couldn't hurt I'm sure.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 23968 posts, RR: 86 Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4758 times:
Quoting Expressjetphx (Reply 20): I don't think the Spanish government would even be up to giving BA majority ownership in IB, even if it stayed Iberia. I also don't know if the British would really like running a hub out of Madrid, and would it make that much sense for them to fly long hauls as 'British Airways' our of Spain?
That kills the dream of a united Europe right there, doesn't it?
PlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 739 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4733 times:
Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 15): Almost any other US combination among the "legacies" runs into severe anti-trust issues, except NW/CO, and they have incompatable fleets. And no one is going to touch DL in its current financial condition. If DL wasn't such a balance sheet basket-case, I'd say DL/AA would be a possibility (with some anti-trust driven divestures required.)
Which is precisely why the major airlines & financiers are lobbying for specific marriages and outcomes to be permitted, either thru one-off exemptions to anti-trust (& foreign ownership) laws or changes to the laws.