IflyMidwExprss From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 159 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1245 times:
I heard the Swissair/Sabena thing was going through, but I'm not sure. In America, not only will we have UA/US, AA/NW, and DL/CO, but I also think that TWA and America West will hook up, out of desperation to keep up if nothing else.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1230 times:
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but the gov't that has not allowed NW/CO will not allow any of the mergers that are currently on the table or rumored (US/UA, AA/NW, CO/DL) to occur. Too little competition, and too great an effect should a problem occur with one of the airlines. Before you respond, think about it. How would America cope should one of the three remaining airlines go on strike?
BTW, I also think that for these mergers to have a prayer, Bush has to win the presidency. No Democrat would allow the certain screwage to happen to the labor forces at the three remaining airlines should the mergers go through. Think about this: the government would not be able to allow any union to strike because of the great effect on the American economy. Management knowing this, now sticks it to the workers. It's a no-brainer why management wants to go through with these mergers (besides the fact that the executives that run the show would get their own personal windfalls in the deals) but labor could be held in check, or reduced, and competition would be drastically reduced in one fell swoop.
Neojets From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
Guys! Remember the early 80's when continental was big?? Lornezo guy?? He sucks up alot of airlines under reagan years. Look what happened to them and it hurts alot of people but, these new rumors (UAL/USAIR and etc...) better be careful about the future. Think of big strikes and huge labor costs. Start-up airlines help the competition but, the other hand those older airline started from scratch. The point I like to say, more airline choices to fly anywhere in the world the better. Do we all want "aeroflot"??? Like one airline with no choices??? Humbug!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
HARTSFIELD brings up a good issue, actually. But, I will say that banks and airlines are not the same. Nor are telecoms and airlines. The biggest issue is that tellers and phone lines don't go on strike. A merging spree that ends with 3 goliath airlines would be putting all our eggs in 3 baskets. That's a pretty bad thing when you realize that no two baskets could hold all the eggs! If one of three airlines goes on strike, the country's air system is severely crippled, and that would drastically effect the economy. The rest is explained in my previous post.
Also, right now, you have a choice of 7 (actually 9) airlines to get to most of the medium to large cities in the country. That's a lot of competition for your money. What do you think the chances are that you'll get good fares if the competition goes from 9 competitors to 4? (Assuming TWA and HP get absorbed or run out of business)
Texairport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1156 times:
I think consilidation of the industry will be inevitable, but there are smart ways to proceed, First of all, there will not be only three airlines, I think it is necessary for TWA/AWA to group, second, control the max market share allowed to each airline. Third, relax foreign investment in the airlines (It is not the Cold War anymore and I think National Security will be safe if Singapore Airlines owns a majority of TWA.) In reference to the last point, look at the auto industry. Three major US manufacturers consolidating around the world, however, foreign auto makers are allowed to invest in US companies and even build cars here (operate flights).
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1148 times:
There will NOT be consolidation if the DOJ (which we all know is on a [merger] killing spree right now) decides that they want more competition.
I can't see how assuming my previous comment doesn't pan out, TWA and HP, the two weakest semi-majors can get together and somehow be strong. If consolidation occurs, either they will be absorbed in 2003 or run out of business then cherry-picked.
The auto industry is another analogy that doesn't quite fit. Sure, auto workers are strike-capable, but when they go on strike, consumers are not hurt much at all, just the company. It isn't so big a deal that the consumer has to buy their car a little early or a little later, and even during strikes, it usually takes a long time for the car retailers to run out of stock. Also, the competitor companies usually run up production some and the consumers still have new cars available to purchase. This is a stark contrast to an airline strike. An airline strike affect you here and now. In many cases, you can't simply fly before the strike and return after it. Nor can the competitor airlines ramp up their service to offer more flights in a significant way. Airline strikes ARE very detrimental to the consumers. And the DOJ won't allow this situation to occur.
Another fact to add to the pie: Robert Johnson is on the AFL-CIO boycott list. If Clinton allows the merger to go through with Johnson at the helm, Gore is screwed.