Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Info On The DL/NW Relationship  
User currently offlineclrd4t8koff From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 225 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9985 times:

I'm curious about two things regarding the DL and NW deal:

1). What was the initial attraction to NW vs. UA, CO or AA? My first guess would be their Pacific operations, but UA has a huge Pacific operation and would have given them SFO, ORD, IAD and a greater LAX presence?

2). Did DL and NW merge or did DL acquire/takeover NW

Appreciate the info ...

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6474 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9974 times:

Quoting clrd4t8koff (Thread starter):
I'm curious about two things regarding the DL and NW deal:

1). What was the initial attraction to NW vs. UA, CO or AA? My first guess would be their Pacific operations, but UA has a huge Pacific operation and would have given them SFO, ORD, IAD and a greater LAX presence?

2). Did DL and NW merge or did DL acquire/takeover NW

Appreciate the info ...


More Sharing Services

1). What made them attractive over CO or AA was due to them having less overlap. As for UA, perhaps the likely reasons were due to them being alliance partners, as well as Richard Anderson being CEO.

2). While both airlines billed it as a merger, in truth, DL acquired NW, despite what many seem to think.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9951 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
As for UA, perhaps the likely reasons were due to them being alliance partners, as well as Richard Anderson being CEO.

Do you mean CO?


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9918 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
2). While both airlines billed it as a merger, in truth, DL acquired NW, despite what many seem to think.

In truth, it was a merger by every definition of the legal term "merger".

Companies of that size just don't get acquired.

NS


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9919 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
What made them attractive over CO or AA was due to them having less overlap. As for UA, perhaps the likely reasons were due to them being alliance partners, as well as Richard Anderson being CEO.

I'm not sure how you can argue that CO (EWR/CLE/IAH) had less overlap than UA (ORD/DEN/SFO/LAX/IAD). IAH and DEN/SFO/LAX are complementary. EWR was somewhat more overlapping than IAD (though remember that DL was much smaller at LGA then); by virtue of its much larger size, ORD was arguably more overlapping than CLE.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
While both airlines billed it as a merger, in truth, DL acquired NW, despite what many seem to think.

Not only the airlines, but the government and the media too. But it was structured as an (all stock) acquisition.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9895 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):
In truth, it was a merger by every definition of the legal term "merger".

I'm not sure how an all stock acquisition - which is how it was structured - is a merger by every definition. The trouble is the imprecise use of the word "merger" by entities such as the Department of Justice. The "horizontal merger guidelines" do not differentiate between mergers and acquisitions.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9885 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
2). While both airlines billed it as a merger, in truth, DL acquired NW, despite what many seem to think.

Uh oh, now you've done it. Try as we might, there will always be someone who will not accept the truth.

When RA became DL CEO, I told some rampers 'We're going to 'merge' with NW'. No one believed me. My rationale was that he already knew all there was to know about NW, our routes didn't overlap, we were already both in Skyteam, and we shared many facilities. At 15, I saw that DL and NW shared a terminal at TPA, at JFK, and at LGA and thought that they should merge way back in 1973. They waited for me to start working for DL to begin the process. So, you're all welcome!  Now my uncle Kenny in TPA (former NW) and I work for the same team.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9861 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):

Companies larger than that get acquired all the time.
For PR reasons the DL/NW combination was marketed to the public and employees as a merger. But from a legal and financial perspective it was an acquisition.


User currently offlineboeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 9778 times:

I believe the main reason why DL acquired NW was because of their close partnership they already shared. NW really didn't have much to offer DL though when you really look at it. Sure they had a strong Pacific route network, but that was mainly through DTW and MSP, also to the lesser degree NRT.

I feel like DL and UA would of been a mega merger, where they would of been set besides the South America presence, but DL is getting around to it. The only problem I could of saw coming out of this would of been the Anti-Trust, this carrier would of been too big.

Then DL and AA would of been a good merger too. It would of been a fixer upper merger though. AA has good bones, it just needs to be worked on. They would of been able to build an international network out of LAX and ORD since they already have the feed.

Last DL and US, the orignal post didn't mention them but we can throw them in for fun. This wouldn't of been beneficial for either party. The overlap would of been huge, for example ATL/CLT, PHL/NYC, and PHX/SLC. Would never of worked out.



Work Hard, Fly Right.
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 5):

I'm not sure how an all stock acquisition - which is how it was structured - is a merger by every definition. The trouble is the imprecise use of the word "merger" by entities such as the Department of Justice. The "horizontal merger guidelines" do not differentiate between mergers and acquisitions.

Simple. It's a merger because they said it was a merger. Was it a merger of equals? No, DL was bigger. But then almost no merger is a true merger of equals. If that's how you define a merger, there would pretty much be no such thing as a merger. You might as well banish the term from business. They could have issued all new stock, but it was cheaper to issue new shares of DL stock for the outstanding NW shares (and airlines love cheap). Acquisitions generally involve some or all cash transactions. Also, the acquiring company generally does not bring in management from the acquired company or involve them in the decision processes. The DL/NW and CO/UA mergers were both cooperative mergers that meet the definition of merger (because that's what they called then). There's lots of stuff on the internet and wikipedia on mergers and their definition. The AA acquisition of TWA assets is an example of an acquisition.

[Edited 2012-11-24 14:25:59]

User currently offlineTrijetsRMissed From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2345 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9551 times:

Quoting boeing773ER (Reply 8):

I believe the main reason why DL acquired NW was because of their close partnership they already shared. NW really didn't have much to offer DL though when you really look at it.

How can that be when the DTW and MSP hubs make the most money for DL behind ATL?

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):

In truth, it was a merger by every definition of the legal term "merger".

Companies of that size just don't get acquired.

Right, and Boeing truly "merged" with McDonnell Douglas. Just don't tell the people at LGB.  



There's nothing quite like a tri-jet.
User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 21 hours ago) and read 9536 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 2):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):As for UA, perhaps the likely reasons were due to them being alliance partners, as well as Richard Anderson being CEO.
Do you mean CO?

I believe he means that NW was chosen over UA for these reasons. Besides, CO was ALWAYS a very reluctant member of Skyteam.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAmfleet82 From United States of America, joined Sep 2012, 9 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9289 times:

DL needed access to Asia and a good Midwest hub (CVG is not Midwest but tries to serve the purpose). With NW they got the best network to Asia, lots of nice planes (though they were completely different than DL's fleet, TWO Midwest hubs with good O & D. They also got to be a monopoly in a whole new area (North Dakota, South Dakota and MN.

Plain and simple, DL couldn't figure out how to serve the American Midwest and Asia. NW couldn't figure out how to fly below the equator. The combined carrier is the best combination as could have been made at the time.

Adam


User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 932 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9136 times:

Quoting clrd4t8koff (Thread starter):
What was the initial attraction to NW vs. UA

NW was already in SkyTeam and they had a goood relationship pre-merger. That made the integration much easier.

But one of the issues overlooked was the size of UA compared to NW and the unionization issue. Delta is a mostly non-union airline and was much larger. By acquiring NW the majority of their employees would have been non-union after the merger making it less likely that workers could be organized. In fact, unionization efforts have failed since the merger.

UA on the other hand is 100% unionized and had more employees than DL and it's more likely the merged company would have become unionized and had to deal with more labor strife as a result.


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9070 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 3):
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 1):
2). While both airlines billed it as a merger, in truth, DL acquired NW, despite what many seem to think.

In truth, it was a merger by every definition of the legal term "merger".

Companies of that size just don't get acquired.

NS

Gigneil, You are mistaken. Companies that size get acquired all the time. I don't want to have my post deleted, but quite frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The surviving company is Delta. The headquarters are in Atlanta. The post merger management team is Delta's, not NW's. The primary maintenance base is in Atlanta, not MSP. Richard Anderson was with Northwest prior to joining Delta. Technically, it was a merger, because the balance sheets were merged. When our company, Louis Rich, Inc., was acquired by Oscar Mayer Foods Corporation, it was a "merger" too, but our company was acquired, even though the balance sheets were "merged".

Very few true mergers take place. The only recent ones I can think of were when Citizens & Southern Bank merged with North Carolina National Bank to form Nations Bank, which later acquired Bank of America and took their name, and Exxon/Mobil. Perhaps Burlington Northern/Santa Fe could be called a merger. But even there, the Santa Fe was acquired. United and Continental merged. That is a better argument, although one could say that Continental acquired United, and they kept the United name and decided on keeping the headquarters in Chicago. But Northwest Airlines, Inc., was acquired by Delta, and it no longer exists.


User currently offlinedeltaffindfw From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 20 hours ago) and read 9070 times:

I know this wasn't a huge factor, but DL's extremely close European partner, Air France, purchased NW's extremely close Euro partner, KLM, years earlier. Since all four are in Skyteam, it probably seemed like a nice transatlantic powerhouse alliance.

User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 19 hours ago) and read 8966 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 14):
The post merger management team is Delta's, not NW's.

You might want to check on that. I'd be willing to bet that there's a decent portion of them that are NW.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 14):
But Northwest Airlines, Inc., was acquired by Delta, and it no longer exists.

In name, no.......but their people, fleet, most of the facilities, some operational functions, etc., do.


I was involved with two mergers and one acquistion (with PA) and this SURELY smells like a merger, to me. The only ones that don't want to admit that are the "US vs THEM" crowd.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22876 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 8416 times:

Quoting michman (Reply 9):
There's lots of stuff on the internet and wikipedia on mergers and their definition.

I don't usually like wikipedia for technical legal distinctions, but wikipedia is helpful here, as it accurately describes this transaction:

Quote:
Usually, one company will buy another and, as part of the deal's terms, simply allow the acquired firm to proclaim that the action is a merger of equals, even if it is technically an acquisition. Being bought out often carries negative connotations; therefore, by describing the deal euphemistically as a merger, deal makers and top managers try to make the takeover more palatable.

Delta bought up all of Northwest's outstanding stock. It's an acquisition.

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
I was involved with two mergers and one acquistion (with PA) and this SURELY smells like a merger, to me. The only ones that don't want to admit that are the "US vs THEM" crowd.

I think you are on to something (though I'd argue it slightly differently: only fanboys insist on it being called a merger, either because it makes it look less like NW died or because it makes DL look like the benevolent merger instead of the evil acquirer).

The issue is that the legal niceties of merger versus acquisition simply don't matter very much. In fact, I had to take to google before posting in this thread because I did not remember how the NW/DL deal was structured. UA/CO is more of a merger since United Continental Holdings will be the surviving corporate entity. But in five years, will that matter? No. Certainly, the fact that UA/CO is more like a merger than NW/DL has not helped the integration at UA/CO, which we all agree is much worse than the NW/DL integration.

The way a deal is structured has nothing to do with how much of one company versus the other is retained, which company's leadership is in charge, whether the two predecessor companies are truly equals, or really anything that matters to anybody but shareholders and lawyers.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1995 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 16 hours ago) and read 8048 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
I was involved with two mergers and one acquistion (with PA) and this SURELY smells like a merger, to me. The only ones that don't want to admit that are the "US vs THEM" crowd.
Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
In name, no.......but their people, fleet, most of the facilities, some operational functions, etc., do.


I was involved with two mergers and one acquistion (with PA) and this SURELY smells like a merger, to me. The only ones that don't want to admit that are the "US vs THEM" crowd.

If Delta didn't want to keep the operating employees and equipment of NWA, Inc., there would have been no reason to acquire it. I am glad it smells like a merger to you in FT. SMITH, AR. That is surely the center of Delta's operations. . The last time I checked, Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc. never operated one scheduled flight into that city, although their regional partners have. As I remember Ft. Smith was a BN and FL town. Do you claim that Pan Am merged with National Airlines, or that they merged with AOA?

You are willing to bet? Please spare me Mitt!

Quoting mayor (Reply 16):
You might want to check on that. I'd be willing to bet that there's a decent portion of them that are NW.

And how much is a decent portion? I never claimed that everyone with Northwest was shown the door, but the Delta management team is running the show. As Cubsrule pointed out, many acquisitions are called mergers to make the acquired entity's employees feel good. Very few true mergers ever take place. A merger is a consolidation of EQUALS.

25 years ago, Delta "merged" with Western too. And 40 years ago, Delta "merged" with Northeast. And almost 60 years ago, Delta merged with Chicago & Southern. In the first case, they kept all of the aircraft for a while, but evenutally dumped the DC-10's and older 737-247's; they kept the employees, and they kept the LAX and SLC hubs. With NE, they kept the aircraft for a while but eventually replaced every bird from NE. Delta kept the route structure for a while, and the BOS base. In the case of C&S, they kept the people and equipment and routes, but sold off the L-649's.

I think most will see my point.


User currently onlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 7581 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 18):
If Delta didn't want to keep the operating employees and equipment of NWA, Inc., there would have been no reason to acquire it. I am glad it smells like a merger to you in FT. SMITH, AR. That is surely the center of Delta's operations. . The last time I checked, Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Northwest Airlines, Inc. never operated one scheduled flight into that city, although their regional partners have. As I remember Ft. Smith was a BN and FL town. Do you claim that Pan Am merged with National Airlines, or that they merged with AOA?

You are willing to bet? Please spare me Mitt!

Don't be such a smartass. Just because FSM is where I live has nothing to do with where I worked for DL.....I worked at ORD, SHV & SLC. In this day and age, I could live at the south pole and still be able to keep abreast of things that are going on. I don't see the reasoning (if any) of your reply. All I'm saying is that the two entities, MERGED. Fleets, facilities, employees, etc. I think I might have just a smidgen of knowledge about these mergers, because I was there, in the middle of them. Those are MY qualifications....what are yours?

Sure they "eventually" dumped the WA DC-10s and older 737s. They also KEPT the 727-200s of WA. They KEPT the employees, facilities, hubs, part of the fleet, route system, etc.

In the NE merger, they kept some of the fleet, for awhile, as well as the employees, route system, etc.


To me (a humble layman   ) no matter how you use the definitions, in the end, the companys' have MERGED into one unit. They may have acquired the assets, in total, but they merged those assets into one company. The PA deal was different as DL acquired those assets in PA's bankruptcy court proceedings. That doesn't make it any more a merger than the deal UA made, earlier, to buy PA's Pacific system.

[Edited 2012-11-24 21:10:57]


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 7478 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 18):
Very few true mergers ever take place. A merger is a consolidation of EQUALS.

By your definition, there has never been a "true" merger as I'm quite sure you won't find a case where companies have combined while having same net worth, market cap, or whatever metric you choose to consider.

[Edited 2012-11-24 21:29:53]

User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4976 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 7446 times:

When two companies "merge" there is a better tax treatment than with a buyout. When Exxon bought Mobil, Exxon really bought Mobil but all the employees of both companies were told that this IS a MERGER, like it or not.


Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 500 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 7415 times:

"Merger" and "Merger of Equals" have two different meanings. Note that when the term "Merger of Equals" is used, it means "roughly" equal as you won't find a case where companies are exactly equal. If you want to argue that it wasn't a "Merger of Equals", there may be grounds for an argument. However, when you say it wasn't a "Merger" at all, that is a very different statement. From both a textbook and legal definition, it qualifies as a "Merger".

User currently offlinePassedV1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

I thought for sure NW and CO were going to merge. I seem to remember that they had a pretty tight relationship (i.e. AS/DL) right up until they were merged/acquired/stapled/attached/combined/fused/incorporated/joined/married/melded/slapped on/tacked on/thrown together/united.

What is the history there?


User currently offlineusdcaguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 6484 times:

What creates a "merger" in my mind is how employees are treated even though the actual transaction may technically be an "acquisition". From what I understand, many of the managers from NW moved to ATL to take over a number of leadership roles to the effect that there was a good balance of people from both sides. Many employees from MSP were extended offers to work in ATL, although such an offer may not have meant much to those who couldn't move. In some areas, legacy DL processes were retained and in others NW processes were used while many new processes were established to create a more efficient, profitable carrier. This balanced approach looks more like a merger to me from the human side, although it was obviously different on paper.

WN/FL, which was a true acquisition, is a different story. I've heard that WN basically came in and laid off most of the FL managers while those that got offers to move to Dallas were basically told that things had to be done the "Southwest" way without asking for their input, although there may have been some exceptions.

Quoting deltaffindfw (Reply 15):

I know this wasn't a huge factor, but DL's extremely close European partner, Air France, purchased NW's extremely close Euro partner, KLM, years earlier. Since all four are in Skyteam, it probably seemed like a nice transatlantic powerhouse alliance.

This was obviously a huge benefit; I think the combined entity was able to work with AF/KL much more easily as "DL" instead of DL and NW. Had UA been thrown into the mix with LH at its side, DL would have likely lost all the time it had spent establishing a close relationship with AF. AF/KL would have then had to create a JV with NW/CO. That would not have been bad at all and might have been better (that's a different thread), but I don't think that was ever in the cards.


25 rwsea : DL was weak in the upper midwest and in the Pacific (before the merger, DL had only one TPAC flight: ATL-NRT). NW was strong in these places, but weak
26 bobnwa : How do you explain the fact that NW brought more unrestricted cash to the merger ? ASFAIR new stock was issued by the new company and exchanged for t
27 Jano : 55% + 48% = 103% so the percentages must have been different.
28 bobnwa : you are right, the numbers should have been 55% for DL and 45% For NW
29 CIDFlyer : DL & NW really were a match made in heaven. From Star Alliance ties to the fact that Richard Anderson ran NW and then on to DL the marriage made a
30 dcann40 : *A? Do you mean SkyTeam?
31 LAXtoATL : Delta issued new stock when they exited bankruptcy protection. The acquisition of NW was done with existing stock. DL shares exchanged for NW shares,
32 LAXtoATL : One more thought... Considering that both DL and NW were in favor of combining the two companies. NW could have been the acquiring entity from a legal
33 United1 : Actually UA/CO was structured almost exactly like DL/NW in terms of how they completed the transaction. UAL Corporation issued additional shares whic
34 tommy767 : Some say the writing on the wall for the DL/NW merger was how back in August 2005 both Delta and Northwest declared BK on the same exact day. I didn't
35 rwy04lga : EXACTLY (and I mean 100%) what I wanted to say but I couldn't say as eloquently. Thank you!
36 NW : I think this is what got the ball rolling and has a lot more to do than SkyTeam, it was all about the Joint Venture between NW and KL.
37 Post contains links gigneil : I don't understand what you people think you know. This was a legal merger with no cash changing hands. Delta didn't buy a thing. They reissued shares
38 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : As a retired Northwest Airlines employee that went through some of the problems leading up to the formation of the NEW Delta, I have written below wha
39 mayor : Immaterial, as UHC was the healthcare provider, LONG before the merger. The are ALREADY less uselful and desirable, mostly because of changes in book
40 Post contains images CIDFlyer : yes sorry I meant skyteam...fingers and brain werent working at the same time
41 Post contains links TrijetsRMissed : You can say it was a merger, after all that is what is was filed as. And indeed there are some legacy NW employees at the VP level at DL. But looking
42 Cubsrule : You are the second person to suggest that an acquisition must be conducted with cash. What gives you that idea? They bought the assets of Nautilus Me
43 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : If UHC was Delta's health care provider long before the merger, it only made it easier for Richard to become CEO of Delta, by being a member of Delta
44 mayor : Unless I'm mistaken, UHC was DL's healthcare provider, even BEFORE Anderson was with UHC. Not sure who's quote this is, but I don't understand the "M
45 usdcaguy : From what I heard, MSP employees got the standard DL relocation package. A number on both the DL and NW sides did take early retirement (offered with
46 bobnwa : Excellent recap of the DL/NW merger
47 delta2ual : Well unfortunately, there are no guarantees about anything, anywhere. In my experience, most people that are RD's ("real Delta") like myself tend to
48 mayor : Just as an fyi, I found out when UHC became DL's healthcare provider.....it was January 1, 2001. BEFORE Anderson was on the BOD, I believe.
49 AADC10 : The only possibility on that list was NW. A merger or other combination among the big 3, (AA, UA & DL) was unlikely to receive approval from the
50 ktrick45 : Back when I learned the whole merger/acquisition thing, the definitions were as follows: When two companies combine by creating a third company, and t
51 ocracoke : The potential DL/UA hookup was "shot down" by objection from the pilot's union. I think you are thinking of the potential US/UA hookup that got nixed
52 AADC10 : No, that was a merger proposal that the pilots objected to. They tried an extensive code share but the advice given from DOJ was that it did not pass
53 KGRB : Does the DOJ really have to approve a simple code share? I thought they only got involved in joint ventures.
54 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Richard Anderson became a member of Delta's Board of Directors on April 30, 2007. This was his first official position with Delta Air Lines. He becam
55 mayor : So, that answers my question. Anderson did not "return" to DL because he had never been with the company, before 2007.
56 milesrich : NWAROOSTER, thank you. Perhaps your post will disgorge the amateurs of the illusion that Delta and NW were a merger of equals. As far as UHC and Delta
57 Post contains images mayor : Perhaps you should check the posts.......I believe the distinction being made was that it was a merger (not necessarily of equals) and not an acquisi
58 Post contains links ocracoke : I've searched and searched and searched, but no where can I find that it was the DOJ that nixed a potential DL/UA tie-up. I know that the DOJ put a s
59 usdcaguy : I don't see this ever happening between two very sizable carriers like DL and NW. No carrier wants to pay cash for something unless it's relatively s
60 United1 : AFAIK the DOJ never turned down a DL/UA merger....more then likely because UA/DL didn't get that far along for them to have the chance. The way it wa
61 michman : I never claimed that it was a "merger of equals" and I think there are valid arguments that it was not. Nonetheless, it can still be called a "merger
62 strfyr51 : The UA/CO merger was a 55/45 split, the UAL name and Chicago headquarters were the Example of who did what to WHOM and it was non-negotiable. . We mi
63 TrijetsRMissed : Those quotes were taken from the recent WSJ article. I specified it in my post w/ a link, looked fine in the preview, and then came out differently (
64 strfyr51 : Bethuune said that?? I'm Shocked !! Rumor had it HE was the one Most adamantly against it unless He was the CEO. He CERTAINLY didn't win any friends
65 ktrick45 : Exactly. In most cases, a merger works out to the greatest advantage of the shareholders when the values are in the same range. Acquisitions usually
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...
Any Further Info On The DL Shtl Smoke In Cabin? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 18:23:41 by Cpos
Richard Anderson On The DL Soft And Hard Product? posted Thu Jun 28 2012 19:50:23 by questions
Info On The Operators Of The Following Aircraft. posted Sat May 26 2012 07:52:42 by Giancavia
Any Original Delta Jets In The DL/NW Deal posted Mon Feb 13 2012 13:31:02 by B727
Info On The New National Airlines? posted Fri Dec 3 2010 14:39:08 by 747400sp
Current Info On The Tu-204 Series posted Fri Feb 27 2009 21:14:25 by Silverstreak
Any Updates On The DL 763 With Winglets? posted Thu Jan 22 2009 07:25:14 by AV8AJET
Any Info On The China 717,s Being Manufactured posted Sun Sep 28 2008 00:24:18 by JetJeanes
What Will The DL/NW Cabins Become? posted Sun Jul 20 2008 11:20:14 by DL767captain
New Info On The CRJ 1000? posted Sun Jun 8 2008 20:56:02 by Flyboy80