Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Republic (RW) To Acquire Frontier (F9) Part 2  
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

This thread is a continuation of the discussion of Republic's acquisition of Frontier Airlines.

Republic (RW) To Acquire Frontier (F9) (by Mariner Jun 22 2009 in Civil Aviation)

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25290 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It was long rumored that Republic would try to engineer a merger of Frontier and Midwest.

About four or five weeks ago, I thought it was possible and wrote a blog about it. Then Republic replaced Skywest on the Midwest regional routes and I changed my mind.

I still thought some association was possible which is how it has played out. There are all sorts of good reasons for not having a full-on merger at this stage - most of them financial - but it is also possible that Republic's Bryan Bedford (a smart man) has read the political tea leaves.

The DOJ has put something of a roadblock on the United/Continental deal. This is mostly out of concern for competition on international routes, and it will likely be approved - with changes - but the DOJ has also raised a red flag about domestic compeittion as well.

It may - stress "may" - go further. A number of business commentators believe that the DOJ under this administration may be considerably less merger or alliance friendly than the DOJ under the previous administration:

http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/200...doj_signals_headwinds_for_airl.php

"The U.S. Justice Department strongly opposes granting antitrust immunity allowing Continental Airlines Inc. to join the international Star Alliance. The DOJ's stance, outlined in a filing late Friday with the Transportation Department, is the clearest signal yet of the difficulties airlines will likely have if they contemplate dealmaking during the Obama administration."

This article even suggests that some alliances may - stress "may" - be unwound:

http://www.glgroup.com/News/A-More-D...h-for-Airline-Alliances-40980.html

"A More Difficult Path for Airline Alliances

The objection to widespread antitrust immunity for United and Continental indicates a change in regulatory policy by the Obama administration, with likely more scrutiny to come. Legislation has been introduced by congressman Oberstar, a democrat and long-time leader in aviation matters, to review and possibly dismantle airline alliances over the next three years."


I've no idea how the DOJ would have react to two tiny airlines like Frontier and Midwest getting into bed, but the way Republic has structured things allows time for the dust to settle if they do ever intend to merge the two airlines.

I would not be at all surprised to see some further "intermingling" of Frontier and Midwest though.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3302 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 1):
"A More Difficult Path for Airline Alliances

The objection to widespread antitrust immunity for United and Continental indicates a change in regulatory policy by the Obama administration, with likely more scrutiny to come. Legislation has been introduced by congressman Oberstar, a democrat and long-time leader in aviation matters, to review and possibly dismantle airline alliances over the next three years."

Sounds to me like Oberstar's gonna make other airlines pay for NWA's demise. Doesn't seem fair, but Congress doesn't seem to care what "business" people think. So much for any new ATI going through anytime soon, even if their cases are rock-solid.



It's a Great Day for Hockey!
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

I had said this on the prior thread...

"I am saying that I'm hearing the HQ is probably going to move..."

Frontier's silence is making my sources look more correct and the media has picked up on it.

"But Frontier has not said whether it would keep its headquarters in Denver, and a June company statement hinted that some staff cuts are possible."

http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver...s/2009/07/13/daily1.html?ana=yfcpc

Quoting Mariner (Reply 1):

The DOJ has put something of a roadblock on the United/Continental deal.

Guess not, huh?


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2853 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 1):

The DOJ has put something of a roadblock on the United/Continental deal.

Guess not, huh?

You realize that, as of now, Mariner wrote this 1 week & 4 days ago, right? The ATI got approved the just recent....the other day. Not sure where you are coming from on this...  confused 



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBriguy1974 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

guess I posted on the wrong thread a minute ago so I will repost here. How do these deals effect the contracts in place for the flying republic does for UA? I would think that UA is not happy about one of its regional partners owning its major competitor at DEN....

I do not want to hear about the different operating certificates making this all ok in UA's eyes. At some point these contracts have to go up for bid again. Does anyone think Republic has a shot to continue flying for UA after these contracts come up for bid? Does anyone think UA has a clause that would allow them to cancel the contracts now??

Mariner, would love your input on this...


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2703 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 4):
The ATI got approved the just recent....the other day. Not sure where you are coming from on this..

The ATI development was Friday.

He was saying that the DOJ stand would somehow be an issue for some kind of deal with F9. His whole premise of the ATI having any bearing on F9's ability to do deal code share with UA or others was flimsy, but now the DOT ignored the DOJ (mostly). So now that spurious argument is completely dead.

Anyway, I mostly updated this thread because of the HQ comment.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2694 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 6):
The ATI development was Friday.

Right.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 6):
He was saying that the DOJ stand would somehow be an issue for some kind of deal with F9. His whole premise of the ATI having any bearing on F9's ability to do deal code share with UA or others was flimsy, but now the DOT ignored the DOJ (mostly). So now that spurious argument is completely dead.

My logic still stands. He posted that 1 week and 4 days ago. Again, not sure what your point is other than updating the thread itself.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2694 times:



Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 5):
guess I posted on the wrong thread a minute ago so I will repost here. How do these deals effect the contracts in place for the flying republic does for UA? I would think that UA is not happy about one of its regional partners owning its major competitor at DEN....

There was a long discussion on that. The current thinking in the industry is that UA (unable to buy anything because they are broke) is, in fact, supporting Republic and plans to work with F9/YX in some way.

Not sure who here supports that thinking, but your point is very valid and I think this theory has grown because it is the only suitable explanation as to why UA would allow one of its biggest partners to be the owner of one of their biggest competitors (as defined by route overlap).


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2691 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 7):
Again, not sure what your point is other than updating the thread itself.

The article I quoted is from today. I commented on that other issue because I saw it.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Here's some more news from moments ago...

"The Republic investment agreement provides for an auction period, during which Frontier may seek higher or otherwise better competing bids. If Frontier identifies such a bid, it can terminate the Republic investment agreement and accept the other offer. Under the auction procedures approved today by the Court, any interested bidders must submit an initial proposal by Aug. 3, 2009, and a final proposal by Aug. 10, 2009. "

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Court-...public-bw-1402283649.html?x=0&.v=1


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2674 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 9):
The article I quoted is from today. I commented on that other issue because I saw it.

I don't think you're understanding me. I was talking about what you quoted Mariner:

Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):
Quoting Mariner (Reply 1):

The DOJ has put something of a roadblock on the United/Continental deal.

Guess not, huh?




A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25290 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2574 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):
Guess not, huh?

How so?

Any merger must be approved by the DOJ - and only the DOJ - and they have made their attitude very clear in the filing on United/Continental.

That the DOT has gone against the DOJ on United/Continental has zero bearing on would would happen if someone tried to acquire Frontier.

Quoting Enilria (Reply 6):
His whole premise of the ATI having any bearing on F9's ability to do deal code share with UA or others was flimsy,

I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth - again.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25290 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Briguy1974 (Reply 5):
How do these deals effect the contracts in place for the flying republic does for UA? I would think that UA is not happy about one of its regional partners owning its major competitor at DEN....

I don't know how United will react. There is a school of thought that says United will be miffed and cancel their Republic contracts.

They may be miffed - or surprised - but I doubt they would go that far. Delta, for example, seems to have embraced the Midwest deal, and with it the Frontier/Midwest code share.

We've speculated for a long time - a long time - that United may one day contract Lynx for some DEN flying.

I don't know enough about United to know if that is still on the cards. I imagine so.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5582 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2521 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 12):
Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):
Guess not, huh?

How so?

Any merger must be approved by the DOJ - and only the DOJ - and they have made their attitude very clear in the filing on United/Continental.

That the DOT has gone against the DOJ on United/Continental has zero bearing on would would happen if someone tried to acquire Frontier.

Delicious!  Big grin

Quoting Enilria (Reply 3):

I had said this on the prior thread...

"I am saying that I'm hearing the HQ is probably going to move..."

Frontier's silence is making my sources look more correct and the media has picked up on it.

I think most (though likely not all) would agree with your assumption. Doesn't make sense to keep multiple corporate office locations.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7195 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2383 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 12):
Any merger must be approved by the DOJ - and only the DOJ - and they have made their attitude very clear in the filing on United/Continental.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 12):
I did not say that. Please do not put words in my mouth - again.

Then why are you discussing the CO/UA ATI in threads about YX/F9 and their potential future deals with other carriers? If there is no connection then why didn't you post that in the ATI thread?  Confused


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2360 times:



Quoting Enilria (Reply 15):
Then why are you discussing the CO/UA ATI in threads about YX/F9 and their potential future deals with other carriers? If there is no connection then why didn't you post that in the ATI thread?  confused 

The reason being is because Republic does contract flying for UA, US, etc etc and this could be a hit to Republic if they do acquire F9 since F9 is a direct competitor to UA. That is the point Mariner was trying to make. Sometimes, Enilria, you gotta read between the lines to get the whole idea.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25290 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Enilria (Reply 15):
Then why are you discussing the CO/UA ATI in threads about YX/F9 and their potential future deals with other carriers? If there is no connection then why didn't you post that in the ATI thread?  

I can't think it should matter to you where I post. If I see a connection and you don't, I shrug.

mariner



aeternum nauta
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...
Republic To Acquire YX posted Tue Jun 23 2009 12:40:32 by JoePatroniYX
Airbus Delegation In Serbia - JAT To Acquire A319? posted Fri Jun 5 2009 09:48:46 by JoKeR
Mexicana's Click To Acquire Ex-Midwest 717s posted Sun Jan 25 2009 11:34:28 by Falcon Flyer
Pinnacle To Acquire 15 Additional Q400s For CO posted Thu Jan 15 2009 09:45:52 by STT757
LH To Acquire 45% Stake In SN posted Thu Aug 28 2008 07:25:51 by Ota1
UPS To Acquire TNT? posted Tue Jul 29 2008 20:29:34 by PITrules
SAA To Acquire New Fleet posted Tue May 13 2008 06:53:32 by Haan
LH To Acquire A Share In Austrian Airlines Group? posted Tue May 6 2008 09:35:18 by MrBrightSide
Tiger Airways To Acquire Another LCC posted Mon Apr 21 2008 04:09:44 by GneissGuy
Malev To Acquire Turboprops. posted Wed Mar 26 2008 07:41:59 by KrisYYZ