Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Merger Mania Good Or Bad?  
User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

With all the talk of mergers between the U.S. carriers to form super carriers, i thought it would be interesting to start a post discussing the potential benefits, and the potential negatives from such mergers. Do you believe consolidation is necessary? Good for the airline? Good for the passenger? Do you think the DOT will even consider allowing such mergers in an industry that is already Oligopolistic and leans toward monopoly? Issues like this i think are very interesting, and though i have my own point of view that im not going to change, i would like to here what every one else thinks.  Smile

P.S. Just for reference, my opinion is that consolidation can only hurt the employees, the consumer and the industry, via the strangulation of competition, price gouging and the high cost of entry for any new airline. I personally hope the DOT blocks any and all merger attempts between two large "major" carriers. that my Point of view, now what does every one else think about this issue?

64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

I think that merger mania is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Idea....Its give passengers less of a choice......It alsoi gives us Travel Agents less of a choice to offer to our clients, especially when an airline merges with another carrier and then they start tearing apart or downsizing important hubs.......the Best example is AA with TWA......So you see sometimes mergers arent always the best thing...in that case anyway...

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4369 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3991 times:

Consolidation through mergers will not fix any of the industry's current problems. Furthermore, no one but the bankers and management will receive any tangible benefit -- employees and passengers will be left holding the bag (actually, pax will end up without their bags...).


Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineJetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2788 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3990 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 1):
I think that merger mania is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Idea....Its give passengers less of a choice......It alsoi gives us Travel Agents less of a choice to offer to our clients, especially when an airline merges with another carrier and then they start tearing apart or downsizing important hubs.......the Best example is AA with TWA......So you see sometimes mergers arent always the best thing...in that case anyway...

Access-Air

Pax less of a choice=good for airlines because then they could jack up rates. I don't like mergers much either. Especially with the B6 I don't want a merger!
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3813 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Well, it's entertaining to speculate on potential mergers and discuss which hubs would close, how the two carriers would combine and what their system post-merger would like, but truth be told, I'd rather not see any mergers happen.

My fondest memories of flying were pre-1981 before the airlines began offering frequent flier programs. Back then, you really didn't have an incentive to stick with one or two carriers. You just flew with whoever had the best price or schedule. And pre-deregulation, price wasn't even an issue because all the airlines charged the same fares.

I didn't really fly all that much - maybe 3 or 4 times a year, but even then, I was able to fly on a wide variety of airlines.

I remember two trips in particular - both from DFW to ORF. I changed in ATL both times. The first trip, it was Eastern from DFW to ATL and Piedmont from ATL to ORF. The other time it was Delta to ATL, then United to ORF.

Another time, I flew from DFW to DEN on the original Frontier to visit relatives, then Continental from DEN to ELP to visit friends, then Southwest (with the friends from ELP) back to DAL to return to school.

Texas International, Braniff, American, and Ozark were some other airlines I got to fly on once or twice, and looking back, I'm glad to have those experiences.

Even though I mainly stick with one carrier now, I still believe in choices. More choice is better, IMO.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3957 times:



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 1):
I think that merger mania is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Idea....Its give passengers less of a choice......

That's what I have been screaming to the top of my lungs about. In the end, I see fares going back up, capacity being further reduced, thus increasing their load factors and we end up  crowded  .



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3917 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 5):
That's what I have been screaming to the top of my lungs about. In the end, I see fares going back up, capacity being further reduced, thus increasing their load factors and we end up

Agreed. It benefits no one but management. I am surprised that we have not seen the arm chair CEO's and the " its good for big business so it must be a good idea" chants.


User currently offlineOzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5076 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3854 times:

Good for Wall Street, bad for everyone else.

The 6 legacies we have in the US now are really just 3 airlines now thanks to alliances. I wouldn't be opposed if some of the smaller players merged, and we ended up with 3 LCC's and 6 legacies in 3 alliances. AS, HA, and AQ are wild cards...if any of those were purchased I don't think the balance of power would shift too much. But if UA/DL got together for example, it would almost force the other legacies to the altar. If DL bought AS for instance, there wouldn't be a mad scramble to hook up.



Next Up: STL-LGA-RIC-ATL-STL
User currently onlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4553 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3836 times:



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 1):
I think that merger mania is a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD Idea

Agreed. These mergers are a horrible idea for many reasons. First off if you take two bad plans and put them together you at best have a bad plan. Garbage in... Garbage out. The other thing is that it will create room for growth for the LCCs which will further weaken the legacy product.

The legacy carriers should focus on proper pricing and improving the in flight experience and quit trying to play the victim.



Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2084 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3835 times:

In theory, it's good. You would have three or four major airlines and they would generally compete on an equal footing with each other. It would also prevent any short term crisis from putting them out of business.

In reality, it's pointless. Labor groups will make the transition as painful as possible in most cases and drag their feet in completing the merger. The US east pilot group is a great example of that. Then once any reductions in flights are made, you will have startups and other existing airlines rushing in to fill in any gaps created by the merger reductions. As long as WN, B6 and others are able to continue adding flights into congested markets, any reductions due to legacy mergers will just end up being filled by someone else.


User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3105 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3835 times:



Quoting JRDC930 (Thread starter):
Do you believe consolidation is necessary? Good for the airline? Good for the passenger?

Funny you should ask. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar is asking the same questions:

Courtesy: Minneapolis Star-Tribune
Klobuchar Seeks Answers On NWA Merger

"I have concerns that a Delta-Northwest merger -- while perhaps beneficial to the airlines' shareholders -- would lead to a loss of jobs and diminished commercial air service in Minnesota," Klobuchar wrote in a letter to Northwest CEO Doug Steenland and Delta CEO Richard Anderson."

http://www.startribune.com/business/14444471.html


User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3814 times:



Quoting Indy (Reply 8):
The legacy carriers should focus on proper pricing and improving the in flight experience and quit trying to play the victim.

DING! Nicely put.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 10):
"I have concerns that a Delta-Northwest merger -- while perhaps beneficial to the airlines' shareholders -- would lead to a loss of jobs and diminished commercial air service in Minnesota,"

Dear Senator Klobuchar,
Delta and Northwest are not in business to support the interest of the State of Minnesota, or even Georgia. Per federal law they operate in the interest of their stockholders..........

I can't help it. I just love it when a politician starts sounding interested and concerned.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineAccess-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1939 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3790 times:



Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 6):
I am surprised that we have not seen the arm chair CEO's and the " its good for big business so it must be a good idea" chants.

NO, thats what all the armchairs like to chant in defense of Airline code shares....Which to this day I still think is blatant fraud against the travelling public...No mater how many little placards you post by the door of aircraft..its bait and switch, deceptive practice and it does nothing but to confuse the traveller....and its just plain lying and misrepresentation!!!!!!!

But yes, these mega mergers are nothing but an attempt at trying to take away traveller's choices so just few companies cane control all the pricing....and control EVERYTHING....I think that in every mega hub there should be at least TWO airlines not one like in CVG DTW MSP or DFW.....to name a few....Pasenegers in those cities are held hostage to whatever the dominant carriers wants to charge...

In the long run, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 has turned out to be nothing but a big mess....Phasing out the CAB (Civil Aeronaitcs Board) was the second Governmental blunder in this chain of events....In its place we have the DOT (Department of Transprtation) which not only serves to govern airlines but also highways, ships and rail....
I say bring back the CAB and a degree of Regulation. Let the DOT handle the other aspects of transpotation and put the CAB back in control of the airlines.....Things are just out of control vis a vis airlines and this idea of Free Enterprise and Winner takes all and Survival of the Fittest....Its all just wrong....

Okay thats all I want to say....

Access-Air



Remember, Wherever you go, there you are!!!!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3790 times:



Quoting Avek00 (Reply 2):
Consolidation through mergers will not fix any of the industry's current problems. Furthermore, no one but the bankers and management will receive any tangible benefit -- employees and passengers will be left holding the bag (actually, pax will end up without their bags...).

Exactly. I've yet to read a single argument (that makes sense, anyway) that makes a cogent case for how we will be better off with three gargantuan airline companies than the current 6 large legacies.

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 4):
Well, it's entertaining to speculate on potential mergers and discuss which hubs would close, how the two carriers would combine and what their system post-merger would like, but truth be told, I'd rather not see any mergers happen.

Here is my prediction should merger mania actually occur. Instead of all the near-orgasmic threads on how my favorite airline will keep this hub and shed that model of aircraft, we will see an explosion of anti-merger threads on Anet, with titles like:

Merged Supercarriers are Gouging the Public!

I Liked It Better When There Were More Liveries

When Did ___ fly its Last Flight?

What Livery Did ___'s last Flight Use?

___ Made A Mistake When They Got Rid of Their ___'s

When will ___ Split Up Into Different Carriers?

and of course

When will ___ finally retire the DC-9s?

....and so on.  stirthepot 


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6465 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3783 times:



Quoting Access-Air (Reply 12):
....I think that in every mega hub there should be at least TWO airlines not one like in CVG DTW MSP or DFW.....to name a few.

I hope you aren't saying there is only one carrier in CVG,MSP,DTW, or DFW. Without even thinking about it, I could come with at least 10 at each of those airports.


User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3814 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3764 times:



Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 14):
Quoting Access-Air (Reply 12):
....I think that in every mega hub there should be at least TWO airlines not one like in CVG DTW MSP or DFW.....to name a few.

I hope you aren't saying there is only one carrier in CVG,MSP,DTW, or DFW. Without even thinking about it, I could come with at least 10 at each of those airports.

He's talking about having two airlines hubs at one airport. Like AA and UA at ORD, or maybe even FL and DL in ATL.


User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

I am not in favor of the current merger mania. Airlines need to "right size" their operations and not try to be all places to all people. It seems to me that the purpose of alliances is to fill in the dots. For example, the Alliance that made sense to me was the original NW/KLM alliance. Alliances between carriers serving the same destinations, for example UA/US make little sense.

User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3735 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):
In reality, it's pointless. Labor groups will make the transition as painful as possible in most cases and drag their feet in completing the merger.

And right fully so, those employees worked and sacrificed a lot, just to have it thrown away because management wants a stock bonus, or is to incompetent to find any solution to their problems, or flat out just wants to exploit them. 3 or 4 carriers from what i studied in my management courses, just dont create sufficient market strength to overcome the many monopolistic problems that would occur.

Quoting Access-Air (Reply 12):
Things are just out of control vis a vis airlines and this idea of Free Enterprise and Winner takes all and Survival of the Fittest....Its all just wrong....

Agreed. regulation did have alot of side effects though, such as ridiculously low load factors, however at least under the CAB it was the government ensuring the consumer did not get screwed, and the government ensuring what airlines did what, not some fat cat corporate cheats trying to play Monopoly with real lives. in the end if Merger mania goes through, IMHO, it would be alot like re-regulation, except under the auspices of unscrupulous selfe-serving CEO's rather than a government agency that is indirectly answerable to the PEOPLE. But i rant...  Silly , nice to see every ones opinion though...


User currently offlineWNCrew From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 1458 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3698 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 9):
In theory, it's good. You would have three or four major airlines and they would generally compete on an equal footing with each other. It would also prevent any short term crisis from putting them out of business.

What would stop new airlines from starting up to compete...thus creating MORE carriers just like we have now?



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3694 times:



Quoting WNCrew (Reply 18):
What would stop new airlines from starting up to compete...thus creating MORE carriers just like we have now?

Its ridiculously expensive to start a new airline. This high cost of entry combined with the power monopolies have would make it nearly impossible for a new airline to start up AND survive. In the long run the consumer and the employee looses.

Quoting DesertAir (Reply 16):
Airlines need to "right size" their operations and not try to be all places to all people.

I think that exactly what airlines should do, focus on something and do it well.


User currently offlineLike2flyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

I'm 50/50. I see both good and bad. From the business side, I believe capacity has to be reduced and prices increased for most of the legacy carriers to be able to survive. It is my belief that whether mergers happen or airlines go bankrupt again because mergers "don't" happen, we will be shedding a few well-known airlines either way.

The end result? Consumers are going to be paying more for their tickets whether the legacy carriers remain or not. Ever notice that Southwest is not as cheap as they used to be? It's all about competition (and the price of fuel). With no legacy carriers in the way to "undercut" them, the LCC's could possibly be just as expensive if not more expensive than they are today. That's what a LCC is. They are the Wal Marts of the sky: If there were no legacy carriers offering more expensive products, then there couldn't be a such thing as a LCC, right? (Something can't be "cheaper" than something that does not exist.) "Bye-bye low cost!"


User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2084 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3657 times:



Quoting WNCrew (Reply 18):
What would stop new airlines from starting up to compete...thus creating MORE carriers just like we have now?

You missed the second half of my post didn't you? In addition to carriers like your namesake that I mentioned, startups will contribute to the problems.


Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 19):
Its ridiculously expensive to start a new airline. This high cost of entry combined with the power monopolies have would make it nearly impossible for a new airline to start up AND survive. In the long run the consumer and the employee looses.

It's expensive, but not prohibitively so. Anyone who can weather the first 12-18 months will have a huge advantage in terms of costs over any legacy carrier in their targeted markets.


User currently offlineJRDC930 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3646 times:



Quoting Silentbob (Reply 21):
It's expensive, but not prohibitively so. Anyone who can weather the first 12-18 months will have a huge advantage in terms of costs over any legacy carrier in their targeted markets.

Presently yes, but with three or two legacies, all they have to do is shift a few planes, drop a few prices... and boom that new airline is dead.

Quoting Like2flyguy (Reply 20):
It is my belief that whether mergers happen or airlines go bankrupt again because mergers "don't" happen, we will be shedding a few well-known airlines either way.

I'd agree, though i also believe its in the national interest of the economy and nation, for the government to prevent such things from happening. Mergers, or bankruptcies mean unemployment, unemployment is bad any way you put it.


User currently offlineLike2flyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3609 times:



Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 22):
I'd agree, though i also believe its in the national interest of the economy and nation, for the government to prevent such things from happening. Mergers, or bankruptcies mean unemployment, unemployment is bad any way you put it.

I see your point. However, look at our economy and nation today. Sadly, I don't believe I rely on our government as much as I used to. Even if intervening, unless the government purchases a bankrupt company and runs it as a governmental agency, it is still somewhat limited in what it can do. It's not going to keep shelling out money to save a company forever. Bailout after bailout, taxpayer money after taxpayer money, the "new" TWA's of the world will fizzle out or be bought up by the rest. Again, the choices are: the bankrupt and vanish act (where most everyone loses) *** OR *** the sell/liquidate act (where maybe a few jobs could be saved).

Just like a sports game, the fittest entity wins. In the coming ages, we will be forced to even moreso evaluate our relationships in GLOBAL economies rather than only pay attention to what is happening in the States locally. The way things are progressing, especially with our guiltiness in outsourcing a vast majority of work to other nations and importing more than we export, no wonder our economy is a mess. We're "supporting" the whole world, but we are neglecting ourselves. Because of this, we will be forced to creat new alliances in our trades, much like the cross-ocean treaties formed by Star Alliance, Sky Team, and One World in the airline industry. I can at some point forsee business leaders having to worry about what airlines are consolidating globally than merely only on the national level. This, too, is certainly going to happen closer to now than we think.

Before you know it, we at Airliners.net will not be complaining about Delta and Northwest merging. We will be saying, "Hey! Did you hear that Air France-KLM/Delta-Northwest might be merging with Space Jupiter-ADS 9371/Alpha-Proxima?"


User currently offlineCIDflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2286 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

With the consesus going with a DL/NW combo, and CO/UA set to link if DL/NW does go through, what does anyone think US and AA will do? Do you think they would go it alone to battle the new 2 super carriers, or would they try to link up? On the outset, their route maps have very little overlap and would fit nicely, AA is strong in the middle of the US with ORD, STL and DFW, and has a strong Latin American hub at MIA. Combined with US they would gain a powerful southeast hub at CLT and a good western presence via PHX, not to mention strength in the Northeast via PHL and also NYC BOS and DCA. Perhaps if CO/UA link up they would have to give up the CO Micronesia operation, which AA could integrate as well for Asian ops. Thoughts on this?

25 NwAflyer07 : AA, in one way or another, can be considered a super carrier in itself. It is incredibly large with a route system that works well and serves most mar
26 CIDflyer : One more thought on this, if the legacies all partner up, how long will it be before we start to see some mergers in the LCC's? I have always thought
27 Glideslope : Could work, if the mergers go through. If AA or US do anything it would HAVE to be with a a US carrier. AA would benefit the most IMO with the gains
28 Post contains images JRDC930 : Define "the industry", because its only going to help rich corporate fat cats, so im guessing the industry stands for greedy stock holders, and upper
29 Post contains images JRDC930 : Weather your for or against merger mania, i think we can all hope that there comes an end to the DL/? CO/? AA/a pigs nose/jahkdbsagftrb air, UA/???, e
30 Lono : right on the money Halls... Good for upper mamagement and stockholders initially Bad for employees and customers immediatly Eventually bad for stockh
31 EvilForce : Here's something you and I can agree on. I liken it to the banking industry. Are we really any better off today with what? 12 mega-huge-goliath-natio
32 Post contains images ER757 : If mergers happen and the above is NOT done, then you have a very large airline go out of business instead of two large ones. Simple economics - airl
33 JRDC930 : No, its a great point, though i'd hate to admit it. However, raise prices too much and people will find other ways to travel, at least in the U.S., s
34 Halls120 : Didn't all major carriers turn a profit in 2007?
35 Bobnwa : Yes, they did. The sky is not falling.
36 Like2flyguy : Select Airline Carriers Profit Margin as reported by Yahoo Finance: Year End 2007 (highest to lowest): Delta Airlines: 8.42% Southwest: 6.54% Northwes
37 Post contains images Tango-Bravo : Excellent point that could not be more spot-on. "Alliances" is nothing more than a term invented by the airline spin doctors to cover up what the ter
38 ChicagoFlyer : I am sorry but this discussion is just too funny/sad whatever way you look at it. Let me make a most basic summary of 90% of comments: Mergers will su
39 JRDC930 : Restructuring will be better than having several thousand employees fired in the interest of pure greed and monopolistic gain. It is true that the in
40 Planemaker : Do you not realize that airlines exist (but have utterly failed for the most part) to generate competitve shareholder returns vis-a-vis other compani
41 LAXdude1023 : Well first off thats not feasible. The only mega hubs that have more than one carrier having large hubs there are ATL and ORD (not counting LAX and J
42 Tango-Bravo : Not sure who here actually thinks that the U.S. airlines are a government service... one thing of which I am far more certain is that, based on actio
43 NwAflyer07 : Everything you said is pretty much right, except for how i could say two competitors is more than enough. lol That's not true. I'm all for competitio
44 Post contains images Planemaker : The people on here that think that they are entitled to keep their airline job, or to pax that think that they are entitled to low airfares, or peopl
45 Post contains images JRDC930 : Actually people can make fun of me as much as they'd like, but this is exactly what i believe. Why? In the interest of the greater good for the emplo
46 Tango-Bravo : I would be the last to make fun of you for what you believe. My emphasis (in reply 42) is entirely on government double-standards toward the U.S. air
47 JRDC930 : Im sorry if i misunderstood. I certainly do agree with this though. it is very frustrating to see the government playing both sides and getting nothi
48 Pa747sp : When I worked for CO in the late 80s, it was widely held in the industry that eventually there would only be 3 US mega carriers. Since the 80s, PA, TW
49 Planemaker : I never said nor implied that and your statement has absolutely no relevance to what I discussed. No, in addition to what you said, employees are "en
50 EvilForce : Employees are not "entitled" to anything. The consumer is not "entitled" to a "fair price". Airlines are not "entitled" to a profit or "fair" return.
51 Post contains images JRDC930 : Yeah, having a job must be a very big detriment, as opposed to being fired by a greed driven MONOPOLISTIC AND NOT FREE COMPETITION merger. I feel so
52 Post contains images Planemaker : There is no monopoly!! There is no "triopoly"!! You are the only one ranting!! Look, this whole time you have totally ignored a very basic economic r
53 Geekydude : All industries can claim to be VITAL to the nation, not just the airlines. But where do you draw the line? The government should run them all? It's n
54 Post contains images JRDC930 : Same can be said about the endless chants about how any form of regulation is bad, even those preserving competition in an industry that already lean
55 Tango-Bravo : What with privatization or at least quasi-privatization having caught up with most (if not all) of the world's major airlines, can you cite any prese
56 Post contains images Planemaker : You are not making any sense and are going off on factless tangents. Yes, money losers that have lousy schedules, poor, surly service and high fares
57 Indy : In a true capitalist system a poorly performing airline would be allowed to fail. There would be no bankruptcy protection. There would be no post 9/1
58 JRDC930 : If you want more obvious facts about corporations and their psychopathic nature just watch the documentary "The Corporation" and see if you still fee
59 Post contains images Planemaker : You haven't provided ANY facts regarding airlines mergers... let alone any "obvious" ones!! That you continue to refuse to deal with facts... such as
60 R2rho : Wow! After so many enthusiastic threads about airline mergers on a.net, it's nice to find out that some people actually DO oppose them! Let's see... 6
61 Post contains images EvilForce : Why would you think you were a Republican? The last party in the world you should be voting for right now is the Republipukes. You're a college stude
62 Post contains images Tango-Bravo : Which is explains precisely why the U.S. legacy airlines are neither operating within a true capitalist market environment nor are they truly deregul
63 LH423 : Yes, but as a senator she IS in the business of making sure that the second largest employer in her state doesn't pack up taking lots of a high-payin
64 Planemaker : Shows how little you understand the domestic market. The market share of the legacies has shrunk from over 90% to less than 65%... and it continues t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hawaiian-Aloha MERGER. Good Or Bad? posted Thu Jan 3 2002 01:28:42 by Saab340
787 Dec 11th Update: Good Or Bad? posted Mon Dec 3 2007 16:08:31 by A380900
Pickering Airport... Good Or Bad? posted Fri Nov 2 2007 18:54:08 by AF340
Oberstar: Good Or Bad For Aviation? posted Fri Dec 15 2006 09:19:11 by Scotron11
Booking Alitalia For Fall - Good Or Bad Idea? posted Tue Mar 14 2006 19:11:34 by Crazyro
Planes With Good Or Bad Residual Values posted Fri Jan 27 2006 20:06:14 by JAM747
Jet Blue, Good Or Bad For The Larger Carriers? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 19:21:11 by Worldliner
Good Or Bad Time For Airplane Manufacturers? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 01:38:44 by TheSonntag
Is This A Good Or Bad Idea? posted Fri Nov 11 2005 20:56:22 by SQNo1
Celebs Manners (Good Or Bad) While Travelling! posted Tue Oct 11 2005 03:34:28 by F27XXX