Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Merger Or Acquisition?  
User currently offlineValorien From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

A coworker and I were discussing the recent airline mergers and acquisitions and were at disagreement about what they actually were.

For example, I argued that the Delta-Northwest consolidation was a merger and he argued that it was an acquisition (Delta purchased Northwest).

When trying to find the answer on "Google" were both able to produce news stories that said "Delta purchases Northwest" and "Delta merges with Northwest". We also "googled" the Southwest-AirTran consolidation (we were both in agreement that this was an acquisition) and also found articles referring to it as the "Southwest-AirTran Merger".

Is the news media wrong or do we not know what we're talking about?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 11166 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

The concept is very gray. It isn't clear at all anymore. It really depends on what definition you are going to use.

In most economics circles, mergers are not very common. A merger results in the cancellation of both company stocks and creation of a new stock.

Very rarely does that happen. United and Continental did not merge in that sense because United acquired Continental based on the fact that the UAL stock continued to be traded and the CAL stock was exchanged for shares in UAL.

If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinepackcheer From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

By the same token, in most operations circles, current airline situations are almost always mergers.
Acquisitions, in Airlines, in my opinion really only happen during bankruptcy. Think about AA purchasing TWA, and selling large parts of the fleet, etc. If AA had truely been interested in "merging" they certainly could have found great uses for some of the TWA aircraft they sold.

The management and operations staff from one organization are merging with the other organization, and in most cases, you emerge with the benefits of both organizations that help overcome the shortfalls of either of the single organizations.

This is very subjective of course, DL fans will argue the DL - NWA situation was GREAT, while NW fans will argue it was terrible... but that seems to be the case with most mergers/acquisitions.

Things that fly, Girls and Planes...
User currently offlinerobsaw From Canada, joined Dec 2008, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2181 times:

The distinction is fuzzy and the definition varies depending upon whether the discussion is about:
1. The legal definition (from corporate and tax law perspectives, which may not always be the same thing)
2. The business objective
3. The PR objective

There is no ONE correct definition.

User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4992 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 1940 times:

These days, the only thing you could call a pure acquisition would be a hostile takeover. The vast majority of deals are agreed to by both parties beforehand.

User currently offlinektrick45 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day ago) and read 1894 times:

Pretty much what everyone above said. By the economics/business textbook definition:

A merger is when one company, the merging partner, issues an ownership interest in that company to the owners of the second company, the merged partner. The first company continues to exist under its original articles of incorporation, and the second becomes a wholly owned property of the first, and may be dissolved or kept as a subsidiary as the first company, now with the additional ownership of the owners of the second, wishes. That's what Delta and Northwest did. Delta issued Delta stock to the shareholders of Northwest. The former owners of Northwest are now among the owners of Delta. Delta continues to exist under its original articles of incorporation. Northwest is... I'm not sure if Delta dissolved it, or continues to keep it in their corporate structure as a subsidiary. It's also what America West and US Airways did, but with a twist. HP was the merging partner and US was the merged partner, but at the same time, HP changed their name to US Airways, which they could do since they owned the name as part of the merger. Nonetheless, the US that exists today exists under the America West corporate charter, and former US shareholders are now shareholders in the company.

A consolidation is when the shareholders of two or more companies create a new company under new articles of incorporation and a new corporate charter, and transfer the assets and liabilities of both (or all) previous companies to the new one. The new, consolidated company now exists, and the older ones are either dissolved or kept as subsidiaries of the new one. That's pretty rare these days, because it's lawyer-intensive, and therefore more expensive.

An acquisition, colloquially called a buy-out, is when one company offers cash or something of value other than an ownership interest in the company for the assets and liabilities of another company. The first company continues to exist. The second company is dissolved or becomes a subsidiary. The previous owners of the second company have no ownership in the remaining company. They are literally bought out.

An asset acquisition is when one company offers cash or something of value other than an ownership interest for all or some of the assets of a second company. Both companies continue to exist, but the assets transfered now belong solely to the first company. This is what AA did with TW. TW was being liquidated, and the value of the assets were used to pay off the remaining debtors.

There are other permutations, too, but those are the ones that happen most with airlines.

Again, these are economics textbook definitions. In common speech, the distinctions are not always made.

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...
UA/CO Merger-Hype Or Reality? posted Tue Sep 21 2010 20:15:16 by traindoc
UA And CO-Buyout Or Merger posted Wed May 26 2010 18:30:22 by caleb1
Chances Of An SWA & AS Or At Merger posted Wed Nov 18 2009 18:16:44 by Flyiguy
What Next For Qantas? A Merger With CX Or MH? posted Sat Dec 20 2008 00:23:17 by Shanxz
DL/NW Merger And ORD Terminals: T2 Or T3? posted Mon Sep 22 2008 06:55:23 by FWAERJ
Merger Mania Good Or Bad? posted Sat Jan 26 2008 10:13:13 by JRDC930
Which Is A Better Merger: UA/CO Or UA/DL? posted Wed Sep 12 2007 15:30:58 by United787
AI To Join Star Alliance After Merger. Good Or Bad posted Thu Jun 7 2007 02:53:59 by Jlk
Iberia CEO Mentions Merger/acquisition Possibility posted Tue Feb 27 2007 15:12:35 by R2rho
No JM, Bahamasair Or Liat Merger posted Sat Feb 24 2007 18:17:40 by Mbj-11