(Reuters) - The proposed merger of British Airways and Spanish peer Iberia could move a step closer on Thursday when Iberia bosses were expected to sign an agreement, as fears over BA's pension deficit recede.
An Iberia spokesman told Reuters the Spanish carrier was holding its end-of-month board meeting in Madrid on Thursday, triggering hopes for an imminent announcement of a definitive merger deal with the British carrier.
"I would expect the BA-Iberia to be signed, sealed and delivered very soon, maybe even today," said Davy Stockbrokers analyst Stephen Furlong.
A BA spokesman would not say whether its executives would sign the merger agreement on Thursday.
Dirkou From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 571 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8350 times:
TP is totally bankrupt with a deficit of over 2000 million EUR and full of labor problems.
It is (correct me if I'm wrong) the only airline in Europe that operates 95% of their long haul flight in monopoly and even with that isn't capable of giving a profit.
I don't see any airline picking up TP unless it is privatized and cleared of its deficit first.
Talaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8221 times:
Quoting buck3y3nut (Reply 5): Wow, that's a lot of change!!! How is it still operational?
It's publicly owned.
Actually to update the news, the agreement has been delayed for a few days/weeks until the last legal issues are cleared out. Apparently the lawyers of both companies still hadn't got into terms with all the paperwork. In any case, the formal signature is a given any time now, although for 100% reassurance we will have to wait until June, when BA's agreement over the pension deficit is to be formally agreed. Until then IB reserves the right to pull out any time.
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1764 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8024 times:
Quoting Dirkou (Reply 3): It is (correct me if I'm wrong) the only airline in Europe that operates 95% of their long haul flight in monopoly and even with that isn't capable of giving a profit.
SN was in that category with their African network. They're not in the red anymore I believe, since being taken over by LH. But previously when they were Sabena and SN Brussels, they lost money while their long-haul network had the same proportion of monopoly routes as TP, and in many cases they were countries that had no other service to Europe, let alone BRU. They were and still are minting coin on those routes with their fares.
Incidentally, the TP CEO (Mr Pinto) had been CEO of RG previously, and is Brazilian. When RG was going bust, he went all out in positioning TP on the monopoly routes it enjoys in about a dozen Portugal-Brazil routes. Though he obviously has not been very successful battling the costly bureaucracies, neither with TP or RG.
- Now that MA is back in 95% government ownership, and this good for nothing Russian "investors" are being kicked out, MA needs to be sold again soon and this time a strong and reliable partner could be the joint BA-IB. I am absolutely convinced that MA would be a valued addition to their network leveling out their absence in the East-European region.
What other options would there be? Star and LH already X-ed out OS and LO, while Skyteam is already in with OK, and AF-KL would be an ideal owner for OK when they go through with the privatization. So on a second thought, MA is not that of an unrealistic candidate for BA-IB ownership if they want to keep up with their biggest competitors…
Quoting scouseflyer (Reply 2): that's an interesting question - there's not too many large carriers left in Europe that either LH or AF haven't got an interest in, what about EI or TP?
Why the need of a big, but struggling airline? Get one that is strategically placed in a region you have room for expansion (MA? )
- Why TP? If TP goes bellyup IB can take over without risking any investment dumped in that deep money-pit.
- Why EI? Same thing applies as with TP. BA can take over the passengers without risking dumping money into EI…
OP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1764 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6738 times:
Quoting PEET7G (Reply 11): So on a second thought, MA is not that of an unrealistic candidate for BA-IB ownership if they want to keep up with their biggest competitors…
The folks at BA (who in the end will run the BA-IB show) are not very aggressive for that sort of thing. And they're finances are not there right now even if they were. If a foreign carrier takes MA over, look for it to be LH, AF or TK. The latter has expressed interest in owning a chunk in a Central European carrier or two, and last rumors pointed to negotiations with JAT. When you have an airline in the red like MA the first concern is finances, so its all about who comes up with the financial muscle. Alliance loyalty comes second.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6710 times:
Quoting PM (Reply 1): It has been a while in coming but when it arrives it will be a huge event.
I, for one, welcome it. Both parties stand to gain.
I disagree, since these deals are supposed to be economic, IB should hold off for a while to get a better financial deal. Due to the last strike and the one over this weekend, BA has and will suffer major damage in the next few months, the 7 million per day is not what I am talking about. Unless BA terminates all employees who went on strike, one can expect the level of service on BA to take a hit, folks who lost travel benefits, call the others scabs, do not a healthy work place make and it will eventually surface in the level of customer service.
BA will need a merger to continue at the "level" they deem they should be at, IB waiting 6 months or so will only make them the stronger and more desired partner to resolve the worker mess that is now BA.
sflaflight From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6415 times:
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 12): Having only one trans-Atlantic carrier -- one which already has a strong presence in South America -- for the entire Iberian peninsula actually makes a lot of sense
...but bad for the consumer. No thank you. I do not want a monopoly to control fares, quality, schedules. I love to have choices where I can choose which airline treats me better and gives me chioces. And if the carrier decides to strike. No thank you.
Actually the finances aren't that bad if you count in the huge amount of cash IB has in the bank and ready to be spent. BA is in trouble but not IB so that should even things out. As to buying MA I'm sure that it's not on their list of priorities but nevertheless if some other alliance tried to cuddle up they would eventually try and keep it in oneworld. How far would they go? I don't know but I wouldn't rule out a buyout.
kl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5140 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6144 times:
Quoting PEET7G (Reply 8): What other options would there be? Star and LH already X-ed out OS and LO, while Skyteam is already in with OK, and AF-KL would be an ideal owner for OK when they go through with the privatization.
Very true, but the OK deal has been put on hold since first KL/AF withdrew and then the only Czech investor as well. OK is losing a lot of money at the moment. But I agree that AF /KL is the prime candidate to take over OK, I just hope they dont wait to long.....
Asturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2153 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4883 times:
Very well, the executives get their bonus. Shareholders may well get something out of this, but this is recommended by executives, not shareholders. And executives are hired, after all, to be the experts.
All in all, this is not about a creation of a large airline - in fact no such thing has happened. I don't know how versed people are generally in corporate law, but this is a connected entity, but three companies. Not one company.
I realize people don't see much difference, but there is a considerable difference. While a friendly and close cooperation is almost guarranteed, neither IB nor BA are obligated to preserve anything except their own bottom line. And they are obligated to do so, no matter who owns them.
Either way, until I see direct benefits for pax, service and employees, then I'm going to wait until I applaud this .. venture.
trystero From Portugal, joined Oct 2008, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4821 times:
What will happen to the liveries of both companies? They're merging one of prettiest - BA - with one of the, let's not say ugliest, but excessively seventies. IB has a nice logo but very outdated colors, and in my humble opinion, they don't fit well in any aircraft I can remember.