Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did CO Made The Right Choice And DL/NW Didn't?  
User currently offlineAircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9814 times:

Hello all

I was just wondering after thinking about CO backed out the merger proposal from UA because of the financial and struggling from UA , do you think DL/NW made the right choice or wrong choice? We all know both DL and NW are struggling, their financial is somewhat and they are taking risks however its not official approval of both merging. They did made some profits in the past. DL is taking a risk merging with NW. What are your thoughts? CO definately want to form an alliance than merging cause they don't want to take the whole load of debt and other issues like AC and CP did.
It would be nice to see CO with Star Alliance.

75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9724 times:

If there is a major merger to work, it would be DL/NW. CO/NW would have been another one. Highly complimentary route structures. CO is well structured now and DL and NW did very well getting their house in order post BK. DL and NW now have amazing global coverage.

CO and UA would have had more coverage possibly, but UA didn't fix itself in BK as much as DL and NW. So I think CO made the right decision not to merge their very refined op with a bigger entity that still apparently is unstable in a major way. I think it is too early to call DL and NW, but all signs look to me like it was the right thing to do. I don't believe the risk together is really any greater to what they are facing alone. They don't have to rush rebranding or merging maintenance or restructuring or other items that require sunk capital and they can start to benefit immediately from global route synergy to get more international revenue.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7575 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9649 times:

Mergers work by either (1) reducing costs by eliminating duplication; or (2) increasing revenue by raising prices or adding products. Often both.

The NW/DL merger will have to reduce a large part of their combined aircraft, pilots, FA's, ground crew, maintenance and support staff's to make money. The US/AW merger has failed to deliver on this promise to investors. I've seen no plans which indicate how much DL will cut the NW staffing and aircraft. Who knows how it will work out.

I don't see any additions to the NW/DL route structure, no increases in available seats, etc in the planning, so raising prices appears to be the way this merger is planned to succeed.

Yes the new Delta will have routes to the Pacific which Delta never had, but they will be the existing, or more likely a reduced version of the existing, NW routes.

Mergers need a lot of complicated things to work right to be successful, including fully integrating the operation of the two companies if they have a very similar core business.

US/AW hasn't done that - it still operates today as two separate airlines, with all the high costs of duplication.

I think CO looked at those negatives, and could not see enough positives to a merger. None of the potential candidates for a merger will ADD enough to over come the negatives.

Unions are going to be a huge issue because the only way the new company will be profitable is by firing thousands of people. Of course the union, and non-union, workers are going to be unhappy. And rightfully fearful about their jobs, losing their homes, not being able to pay for their children's college, or their retirement.

My personal opinion is CO was very smart. They recognize that the fundamentals of the airline industry in the US, the world, have to change soon. They have the very easy to observe failed to fulfill promises merger of US/AW as an example of how it will work in the current regulatory environment.

Airline travel will no longer be affordable for business travelers for quick last minute trips/ meetings. The leisure travel industry is going to cut significantly as the true costs of travel come into ticket prices.

It's a dire forecast, but if fuel prices stabilize at current levels, the total number of people carried on aircraft will probably be reduced by 20-25% over the next five years. The only way to maintain current levels is a reduction in fuel costs by at least 50%. I seriously doubt that will happen.

Being tied into a merger with an company struggling already is not a good way to face a dark future.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9586 times:

Here's a great piece from the WSJ regarding CO's decision to pursue and independent path, it was not a easy decision.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...0577069041.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9470 times:

I'm wondering if CO is making the right decision by teaming up wth AA/BA? if they do not get what they want in that alliance does anyone here think they can make it if they go out on their own? i can not see AA giving up to much to CO as they overlap quite alot here and AA/BA is no different than DL/NW when it comes to alliances and some in here have said that CO always took the back seat when it came to skyteam whether CO wanted it that way or not.


bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1028 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9420 times:

I believe the only thing of value that CO wanted from a UA merger was its Pacific division. If CO could pick up the division in a fire sale, it would do that...exactly like what UA did when Pan Am started declining in the 80's. Otherwise, the rest of UA does not offer much to CO.

In the end, CO made the right decision not to merge with UA.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineAirborne1 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9384 times:

heard some pilots talking the other day that CO and UAL were secretly doing another deal.. It's not over until the fat lady sings.. All you people wish United to die should get a life. Worry if you are going to have a job in a year from now.

User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9307 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
Here's a great piece from the WSJ regarding CO's decision to pursue and independent path, it was not a easy decision.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...s_wsj

can someone cut copy and paste this???


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4742 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9272 times:

While we all have our favorite airlines (myself included) and want to evaluate one situation against another, unfortunately you cannot.

What is good for the 'goose' may not be good for the gander. Blanket statements unfortunately aren't very realistic other than things like the sky is blue and guys and girls are built differently.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineNuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 213 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9248 times:



Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 8):
While we all have our favorite airlines (myself included) and want to evaluate one situation against another, unfortunately you cannot.

What is good for the 'goose' may not be good for the gander. Blanket statements unfortunately aren't very realistic other than things like the sky is blue and guys and girls are built differently.

who and what are you talking about???


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8975 times:



Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 7):
Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
Here's a great piece from the WSJ regarding CO's decision to pursue and independent path, it was not a easy decision.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...s_wsj

can someone cut copy and paste this???

Here's part of the article:

Quote:
Kellner Thwarts the Voracious Deal Machine
Continental CEO Bucks Powerful Forces
In an 11th-Hour Rejection of UAL Merger
May 6, 2008; Page C1
The Deal Machine is voracious. The Deal Machine is smart. You cannot shake the Deal Machine -- unless you're Larry Kellner, the bald-headed, bulldog chief executive of Continental Airlines.

Mr. Kellner stepped inside the Deal Machine months ago, and was just hours from announcing an industry-upending merger with United Airlines parent UAL. The Deal Machine prodded and pushed, but quite incredibly, Mr. Kellner said no.

Perhaps you've not met the Deal Machine yet. It is elaborate, stubborn and well-paid. It consists of bankers, lawyers, investors, analysts and the media. Each has a peculiar self-interest in seeing a deal come together.


Continental Airlines' Larry Kellner, the man who fought off the deal-making machine.
Last week was a rare rebuke to the Deal Machine. Microsoft's Steve Ballmer rebuffed the inevitable advice to up his bid for Yahoo.

Most of the time, the overall effect is inevitability. The deal will get done -- has to get done -- to appease outsiders and even one's own employees. Veteran deal-maker Bruce Wasserstein used to urge reluctant CEOs to "dare to be great." In this transaction, the Deal Machine hectored Continental that United was a once-in-a-lifetime buy.

"One reason that deals develop a life of their own is that they can make a lot of economic differences in people's lives," said Chuck Yamarone, a longtime Continental director. "That creates incentives."

How hard is it to resist the Deal Machine? Hard enough that there's even a seemingly medical term for its effects. Boards and CEOs often privately cite "deal fatigue" when they yield to a transaction.

"We always feel the undertow of it," says Mr. Kellner, in his first interview since announcing Continental would remain independent on April 27. "There's this huge momentum. You've got people working until 2 a.m. and coming back to the office at 8 a.m. But you've got to get confidence to come back and look at the facts."

The facts are horrific if you run an airline. Oil has climbed to about $120 a barrel. The struggling U.S. economy is crimping both leisure and business travel. The effects on United have been especially severe. In the days before the expected merger, United said it would post a massive loss. It gave little assurance on how it would cope with $2 billion in new fuel costs.

All that weakness was a plus for Mr. Kellner's negotiating. It meant that Continental, the nation's fourth largest airline, would prevail over United, the country's second largest. Mr. Kellner would be the unchallenged boss. The two sides had even agreed on price. "It was baked," said one person involved in the talks.

But Mr. Kellner and his close colleague, President Jeff Smisek, weren't so convinced, say people involved in the talks. For months they had studied the puzzle: integrating two different airplane fleets; spending new capital to pare back hubs and workers; measuring how fast new revenue would flow into the company. The risks were getting higher. The rewards were getting lower.

"It gets very detailed," says Mr. Kellner. "At the end of the day you're dealing with huge numbers. If you're off 1%, that's $150 million a year. And if you took Continental and doubled it, being off by 1% would be a $300 million swing."

Mr. Kellner's surprise rejection didn't go over well. United Chief Executive Glenn Tilton seemed shaken by the move. Others involved in the process described a deep emotional letdown. Months of work was cast aside -- not to mention millions in fees paid to advisers.

History will reveal whether Mr. Kellner made a shortsighted decision. For now it stands as a rare, welcome moment when man prevailed over machine.

Continued at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...0577069041.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7575 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8936 times:

One of the biggest reasons such deals are "good" in the eyes of Wall Street is that they let a lot of institutional investors get rid of bad stock at better than expected prices.

A merger almost always means the stock price goes up, or at least doesn't decline at some point in the process. That's when the big money Wall Street folks make their sales.

Thus the merger is a success, even if the company/business fails to deliver on promises after the merger.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3552 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8898 times:



Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 8):
While we all have our favorite airlines (myself included) and want to evaluate one situation against another, unfortunately you cannot.

What is good for the 'goose' may not be good for the gander. Blanket statements unfortunately aren't very realistic other than things like the sky is blue and guys and girls are built differently.

Huh? So basically you're saying we can't even talk about this? If we couldn't speculate about anything on here, a.net would be a pretty dismal place.



PHX based
User currently offlineCOalways From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8856 times:

I think Continental made the BEST move by staying independent they have so much growth ahead of them with over 110 Narrowbody and Widebody A/C, they already have an instensive route struture across the Atantic, Latin America and a pretty good route struture in Micronease. They have the best Employees out of any US carrier and no US competitor can beat them for there inflight Services.

So i see CO haveing a very bright future ahead of them and let the rest who merge fall apart in there services and employee relations. Some of there mergers in my eyes are quick fixes, NW/DL lost a total of 10billion so seems like they just going to have a bigger debt and losses ahead of them.


User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4742 posts, RR: 45
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8845 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 12):
If we couldn't speculate about anything on here, a.net would be a pretty dismal place.

We speculate all the time on here and it is already dismal.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5365 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8812 times:

DL may choke on a few bones digesting NW, but their chance of survival is probably around 90%. With AF cut out of the current version of the deal, their chance of surviving long-term on their own improved also.

I think DL senior management saw it as the only chance of their careers to get big in Asian in a hurry, which no doubt overrode some of any management's usual caution. It would take DL a decade or more to try to duplicate what they gain from NW. As well, an all-stock transaction is the cheapest way to do it; and DL might not get that chance again, either.

So I'd say DL and CO have both made reasonable choices; whether they made the best choices remains to be seen.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9289 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8201 times:



Quoting Aircanada014 (Thread starter):
I was just wondering after thinking about CO backed out the merger proposal from UA because of the financial and struggling from UA , do you think DL/NW made the right choice or wrong choice? We all know both DL and NW are struggling, their financial is somewhat and they are taking risks however its not official approval of both merging. They did made some profits in the past. DL is taking a risk merging with NW. What are your thoughts? CO definately want to form an alliance than merging cause they don't want to take the whole load of debt and other issues like AC and CP did.

How is DL or NW in trouble? UA lost 500 mill (in cash) and DL/NW lost around 200 mill(again in cash)? now do you see why CO/UA didn't happen?

Quoting Nuggetsyl (Reply 9):
who and what are you talking about???

While merging might be what DL/NW needs it may not be the same thing CO needs.



yep.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8188 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2):
I don't see any additions to the NW/DL route structure,

The primary benefit for this merger is that DL will in fact open dozens of new routes to Asia in the next year, many of which could never happen if the merger doesn’t take place. DL through NW will have a very strong position in Asia and access to the 787 which will be very good for opening new routes and competing effectively against established Asian carriers. DL has the benefit of a huge domestic network (DL and NW will have the largest domestic network among network carriers and only slightly smaller than Southwest). There are new routes from all of DL/NW’s int’l gateways to Asia that will be possible because of the size of the new DL, the relative undeveloped nature of NW’s Pacific network outside Japan, and the availability of high performance competitive aircraft like the 787 and 777LR. The DL/NW merger is all about creating new revenues which could not be obtained if the two airlines remained independent; many of the opportunities will happen by opening new routes on the Pacific and pushing more traffic onto NW’s existing Japan flights but others will happen simply by reallocating aircraft between DL and NW hubs.

CO could have done the same thing with UA but they clearly saw the risk was way too high given UA’s financial condition. CO will continue to grow but it may have permanently relegated itself to being a much smaller carrier than any of its US network counterparts. It is possible to be small and profitable, however, CO will not be able to compete for business on a global scale the way DL/NW and UA plus whoever will do.


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8035 times:

I believe it was UA's financial condition that scared CO. Any merger is a 50/50 proposition because of all of the issues the company really has no control over. In the short term CO will probably outperform DL/NW because they are doing a better job now. However after a couple of years the new DL will catch up (after several rounds of rationalization and new international start-up costs) because they will have a greater mass. After Open Sky's 2, CO will be swallowed by an European airline as their lack of mass will spell doom. Will DL merge with AF/KLM at that time? Probably 50/50. Depends a lot on labor and fuel.

In any industry if you are not in the top 2, you lose market clout the further you go down. You have to be in a position of being able to control (rather than follow) the market. Yes there will be niche players, but generally they are not long term players.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16817 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 8008 times:

It's more like a $495 Million loss for the first quarter when you combine DL and NWA's reports.

Quote:
April 23, 2008 8:38 AM EDT
EAGAN, Minn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Northwest Airlines Corporation (NYSE: NWA) today reported a first quarter 2008 net loss of $4.1 billion, or $15.78 per share. Reported results include a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $3.9 billion. This compares to the first quarter 2007 when Northwest reported a net loss of $292 million.

Excluding non-recurring, non-cash impairment charges and losses associated with marking-to-market out-of-period fuel hedges, Northwest reported a first quarter 2008 net loss of $191 million versus the first quarter 2007 when the airline reported net income of $73 million before the impact of reorganization items and out-of-period fuel hedge gains.



Quote:
Delta reported a net loss of $274 million in the first quarter of 2008 compared to a net loss of $6 million in the first quarter of 2007, excluding special and reorganization(4) items. The $268 million year over year increase in net loss was driven by a $585 million increase in costs due to higher fuel price. Delta did not record an income tax benefit in the March 2008 quarter.

That combined DL/NWA loss for the First quarter is not that far off of UAL's $500+ million dollar loss, and all three are lost much more than COs $80 Million.

[Edited 2008-05-08 14:04:48]


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinePHXtoDCAtoMSP From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7947 times:



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2):
US/AW hasn't done that - it still operates today as two separate airlines, with all the high costs of duplication.

This is slightly off topic addressing this....but there are no high costs of duplication. The only thing separate about the two airlines are the contracts of flight attendants and pilots. During the last conference calls, several analysts asked what benefits were being missed by having two contracts and two separate work groups. The response was "practically nothing". There is almost negligent additional cost with how US/HP is being run right now. This may have to do with the fact that there will be increased costs for a new contract...but either way...US/HP is reaping/has reaped all of the benefits that the merger will produce and the separate FA and pilot contracts haven't hurt anything.


User currently offlineManfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7828 times:



Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 1):
CO/NW would have been another one.

I have to disagree. The best merger opportunity of all the carriers would be AA/CO. Although it would never go through, everything about that merger would destroy all the competition.

I think CO is a special exception in that they are specialized when compared to the rest. They realized this and pulled from the negotiations. Yes I am biased towards CO, but for good reason. I know a good product when I see it. When the winds dies down in the market, (which is sooner than later) they will have been better off for it.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4875 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting STT757 (Reply 19):
That combined DL/NWA loss for the First quarter is not that far off of UAL's $500+ million dollar loss, and all three are lost much more than COs $80 Million.

Hmm and yet, CO managed to generate positive cash flow of only $69 million from operating activities compared to $362 million at NW, $283 million at DL , and $449 million at AA during the same quarter. UA generated negative cash flow of $80 million while US's was negative $25million.


User currently offlineLHR777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7565 times:



Quoting Airborne1 (Reply 6):
heard some pilots talking the other day that CO and UAL were secretly doing another deal.. It's not over until the fat lady sings.. All you people wish United to die should get a life. Worry if you are going to have a job in a year from now.

Pilots know no more about 'secret deals' than any other employee work-groups. They like to think they do, but they don't.


User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10347 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7442 times:



Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
I think CO is a special exception in that they are specialized when compared to the rest.

Specialized or special? CO is riding high right now but if you know anything, you know that the airline industry is cyclical and CO's time is coming. Don't get too smug.

Quoting Manfredj (Reply 21):
They realized this and pulled from the negotiations.

They didn't realize it UNTIL they were negotiating? Maybe they're not as special as you think.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
25 COalways : Hmmmm are u in the International Network development at Delta?
26 Nwab787techops : If the DL/NW is a go and if God is with Doug Parker to pull off a US/UA Merger, CO in time will be in a BAD place. CO may have played the game too saf
27 STT757 : CO, AA and WN have staked out their positions while DL, NWA, UAL an US are staking theirs. Time will tell who made the right decisions, but if I had
28 Alitalia744 : Yes but one of those carriers went through twice to clean up their sheets.
29 DeltaL1011man : So NW/DL merged? They got past the DOJ and are now one airline? No. You can't add DL/NW together just yet. If DL/NW end up with a loss of 500 mill AF
30 STT757 : Of course what happened 25 years ago does not have bearing on today's operating environment. DL lost $247 Million, NWA $191 million.
31 Lono : Much will depend on if DL can make employee groups happy and focused on the common objective.... this is going to be tough I think....
32 WorldTraveler : DL/NW is substantially larger than UA is.... and they aren't one company which means they don't have the benefit of managing costs or integrating rev
33 Mayor : Wow, that must be painful!
34 WorldTraveler : that's the beauty of the English language... we have so many verb tenses. It doesn't say you have always been being pregnant...
35 ER757 : I agree completely, which is why I was baffled by the part of the merger announcement that said they weren't closing any hubs. Time will tell I suppo
36 Ocracoke : Had CO not used the BK process 25 years ago, there would BE no CO today. How does that NOT have a bearing on today's CO? CO going out of business 25
37 9252fly : I agree that as an example,pilots don't necessarily know about secret deals. Yet,I suspect that the discussions between UA and CO are far from over.
38 WorldTraveler : we're still waiting, STT.
39 STT757 : You tell me, what from 25 years ago is still relevant? There have been several contracts come and go, as well as several changes in law. So please I
40 SparkingWave : There's a major problem with that argument and that would be the redundant hubs at Houston and Dallas, as well as Newark and Kennedy...
41 UAL777UK : Whilst I would loved to have seen a CO/UA merger, can we honestly see the CO board doing a complete about turn and announcing a merger with UA...they
42 Rockinflyer : Maybe, but not in the forseeable future. They're being pretty careful and I don't see them making too many mistakes.
43 STT757 : Only way is if CO and another party (perhaps AA) come in and break up UAL, put it through bankruptcy and purchase certain assets in a pre-packaged tr
44 WorldTraveler : How old are you? Tell me what you learned in the first 5 years of your life that you apply today. The reality is that whether life or business, every
45 STT757 : Old enough to know what Pedagogy means. The difference is the majority of the folks at CO now were not there 25 years ago, where it's the same folks
46 WorldTraveler : but can you tie your shoes or feed yourself? seriously, you can keep trying all you want to prove that CO's bankruptcy doesn't matter while DL/NW etc
47 Mayor : Sure I can......mainly because it happened to us at Delta. We were always at the top. Maybe not size wize but for on time, baggage and customer servi
48 STT757 : DL's employees are still working under the work rules and contract changes forced upon them by management since bankruptcy, CO's employees are not op
49 FFlyerWorld : Delta employees don't work under a contract with the exception of Pilots and Flight Dispatchers. All other Delta work groups are non-unionized and ha
50 STT757 : Not exactly, we all know DL/NWA will in fact reduce capacity, greatly curtail or eliminate hubs like CVG and MEM. To say a DL/NWA will give pay raise
51 FFlyerWorld : I beg to differ. Guess we will just need to wait and see. But if history is any lesson - Delta will offer early outs with nice severance packages (ju
52 CALPSAFltSkeds : Of course what happened in history matters and the dual BK experiences have clearly made CO a better airline - an airline who's got a measured growth
53 NYCAA : Where did you come up with this..a few days? Delta was in BK for 19 months 9/05-4/07, and CO was in BK 9/83-6/86 and again 12/90-4/93 a total of more
54 WorldTraveler : really? that's news to everyone here. WHERE did you read that? they told Congress just the opposite. they said that WHERE? yes, can't do this with a
55 LAXdude1023 : If they dont reduce capacity, then what is the point of mergeing in the first place? I thought the whole deal with the industry is that its in hurt a
56 Planefxr : Everything as some sort of bearing, regardless if it was 1 year ago or 25 years ago. Just as CO has been there twice and DL once. Where do you come u
57 Rwy04LGA : If the employee/management relationship is so good at CO, why not chip in to buy it a 787? That would be a REAL indication of good employee/management
58 COalways : That was the most retarted post ive seen lately LOL
59 Rwy04LGA : And that was the most ridiculous misspelling I've seen lately. Who's laughing at who? LOL
60 Planefxr : Rwy, I am guessing that one flew right over COalways head. But they have better employee/management relations, yeah right.
61 COflyerBOS : Who knows if Continental made the right choice? It is way too early to tell. That said, as a 15 year loyal Continental flyer, I am ELATED. Bigger does
62 COalways : Nope im still luaghing at U. Hehehe
63 Mayor : And you're STILL misspelling words. To all you CO fans and employees, I'll repeat the warning I said before. Don't get too smug. Just because you're
64 MasseyBrown : This thread needs to be shut down. All heat and no light.
65 Mayor : Makes you wonder if the OP didn't start it just to stir the pot.
66 Sac : Maybe, but then again it gives WorldTraveler who know everything and everything in the industry another place to rant on DL. And CO employees do dese
67 WorldTraveler : totally agree.... but if you can be bigger AND better, I'm not sure anyone argues about being small just for the sake of being small. DL will be stro
68 STT757 : DL is not free to expand effortlessly from JFK , slot restrictions at all three NYC area airports pretty much guarantee the current position of the t
69 LAXdude1023 : Believe me, you dont disappoint on that front! If you want a good fight, we could all get together and throw pies at each other!
70 Sac : DL should be doing great now - they have alot of mgmt people that had great training while they worked for CO
71 WorldTraveler : actually, no. Any of those airlines can grow by restructuring their operations and reallocating slots from smaller to larger aircraft. CO and DL have
72 CatIII : I think whether or not these were the right decisions depend on which lens you look at them through. Personally, I think the cultural collisions and p
73 Mayor : And alot of original DL people that were even better have left OR were not even promoted or considered for these positions. I agree, but I also say t
74 CALPSAFltSkeds : Hasn't DL already cut domestic feed to international flights at JFK? DL has an impressive European/Africa operation from JFK and numerous Caribbean f
75 FlyHoss : Is there just one right answer for all the legacy carriers? IMHO, DL made the right choice; with NW they've added what they've been lacking. But I als
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...
When Will The DOT Rule On DL/NW/CO posted Sun Dec 1 2002 15:49:00 by DeltAirlines
When Did Cathay Retire The 747-200 And -300? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 10:09:31 by Airbus_A340
Did CO Operate The MD-11 posted Mon Jan 26 2004 17:55:51 by Cmckeithen
Did They Do The Right Thing? posted Sat May 6 2000 20:28:26 by 1stClassFlyer
Beyond The Pension Ruling: NW, AA And DL posted Wed May 11 2005 05:22:44 by StevenUhl777
NW/CO And DL Codeshare posted Mon Jul 28 2003 17:18:55 by Flairport
International Implications For The DL/NW/CO Union? posted Sat Apr 12 2003 00:57:21 by ConcordeBoy
DL NW CO Alliance Am I Out Of The Loop posted Wed Mar 19 2003 05:52:24 by Wilcharl
AA/NW And DL/CO posted Sun Jun 4 2000 20:51:56 by Kaitak
Can DL Handle NW,KL,AF And DL All At Once? posted Thu May 1 2008 07:22:52 by BillReid