Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:25 pm

You hit the nail on his head. Strong brands and reignition, on the other hand, Norwegian is breaking this trend: even flying in South America and the Caribbean.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:26 pm

The different airline merging styles between the US and EU perplexes me. When the merger mania in the US happened, 2 entities met and one came out. In Europe, the various airlines airlines are owned by a handful of holding companies for the most part.

Would the US model work in the US and vice versa? I can see an EU style merger with B6/HA/AS because they are all very strong brands in their respective regions but if one name was the ruler, it wouldn't make sense to fly from JFK-SJU on Hawaiian or HNL-JFK on Alaska.

Please, this is not a merger proposal thread, just a disection of the different styles.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:32 am

Dutchy wrote:
You hit the nail on his hea.

I love hearing that, but why couldn't the same hold true with the US mergers? I.e. DL and NW remain separate brands but owned by the same holding company? Is it because theY are in the same country and therefore easier to merge and eliminate a brand in favor of the other?
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
DAL763ER
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 7:20 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:56 am

You're right about them being in the same country. Most people won't care if it says NW or DL on the side of the plane. In Europe, however, what do you call a merged BA+EI+IB? British Airways doesn't go well in Spain, or Iberia in the UK. Aer Lingus is probably the most neutral, but then people in the UK or Spain won't understand this new brand.

Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.
 
United1
Posts: 4209
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:21 am

Part of the reason for the difference is traffic rights are held by the individual countries that make up the EU. They have to remain as seperate companies (if only on paper) in order to retain that. May as well retain the individual brands at that point.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:44 am

DAL763ER wrote:
Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.

So are you pushing for the USA and all points in between to join the EU, why not elevate the UN to one country, it presently has more members than the EU.
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1248
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:00 pm

I think a large part of it is that in Europe, two different countries’ airlines merge. In the US, there is no need to keep both names. If American and Air Canada merged tomorrow, you can bet they’d keep their names. The “EU” and “US” styles are really just cross-border and local mergers.
-Andrés Juánez
 
bendytendy
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:28 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:44 pm

I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D
 
klakzky123
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:54 pm

You're all getting way to caught up in branding. If the EU mandated that all aviation agreements had to be done EU wide, then yes I'd see a case for full airline mergers. But that still isn't the case. With a few exceptions (like the EU-US Open Skies), most aviation agreements are still bilaterals so each AOC has separate rights based on the country of the AOC. There are also separate tax arrangements etc.. Yes I realize they could change the names to a single name while keeping separate AOCs, but if the US were in the same position of keeping separate AOCs, you'd see separate brands in the US because technically two AOCs can't share the same name. After all, in the US when two airlines merge, they stay separate until the AOCs are merged. Well imagine if the AOCs never merge, they just stay separate forever (exactly how it is in Europe).

KLM and Air France, for example, each have separate rights to most countries in the world. That's a good thing to have. Merging the two airlines would limit their opportunities for flight to only one of them. That would be silly. In Europe, airlines tend to chase AOCs just to gain additional opportunities to fly. That's not really necessary in the US. The US as as whole tends to have more open bilaterals and open skies arrangements.

Now if the EU decides to treat aviation rights like the customs union, then its a different story and the value of separate AOCs will go away. But for now, countries in the EU are still negotiating their own bilaterals so separate airlines has big value.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:40 pm

It goes beyond branding. KLM and Air France still are separate companies when it comes to operations. US carriers merged their engineering, maintenance, staff etc. In Europe, the airline entities remain separate. What is the point of Iberia having a separate maintenance program using different engineering resources and maintenance vendors from Aer Lingus and British Airways?
 
blockski
Posts: 695
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:33 pm

The key difference always comes back to the fact that the US is one country, and the EU is many countries.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:40 pm

klakzky123 wrote:
You're all getting way to caught up in branding. If the EU mandated that all aviation agreements had to be done EU wide, then yes I'd see a case for full airline mergers. But that still isn't the case.

The beauty of the EU system, they ensure that third parties now have to negotiate with the EU as a group, but they have the fall back position of still utilizing the individual country AOC's, a case of having your cake and eating it too.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:55 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
it wouldn't make sense to fly from JFK-SJU on Hawaiian or HNL-JFK on Alaska.
why not? How many AS flights go to or from Alaska? Heck, I am going to be flying them from California to Hawaii later this year, not to mention all the flights I have taken on Southwest Airlines that never leave the eastern time zone.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4375
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:54 pm

DAL763ER wrote:
Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.


That'll never happen. In Europe countries aren't like states in America, they're real countries. The citizens don't feel like Europeans, they feel like Germans or Italians or Belgians for example. They got their national history, their national pride, etc. That'll never change. Sure the countries cooperate to a certain level, but no further than that.

In terms of aviation this means that certain airlines got very strong historical ties with their countries. In America the name of an airline is just a name, in Europe it's more than that. A foreign airline might do well, but it'll never become the national airline because it's foreign. And that thing "the national airline" is something unknown to Americans, but all too well known in Europe. America has always had a wide variety of airlines, but never one that stood out. Never one that represented the country. In Europe, each country has or had such an airline. That airline is more than just a name, it's a name with a meaning.

bendytendy wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D


I ain't surprised at all. These names are more than just brand names, they actually mean something. The name Delta could never replace KLM in the Netherlands because it's a foreign name. They might do well of course, but it's not the national pride. It's not something associated with the Netherlands. KLM is, and that's something you don't let go. KLM = Netherlands and Netherlands = KLM. But what is Delta? Something American, that's all they care about over here.
 
rutankrd
Posts: 3031
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:08 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:31 pm

It quite complex these Pan European holding companies are necessary to comply with the legalities shareholder and taxation regimes of quite differing domains across the EU and the setup is not restricted to aviation but ubiquitous across multiple industries.
Its way beyond simple branding and can be very complex.

Here in the UK an example might be Grand Central Railways which is an Arriva UK rail business reporting to Arriva UK however completely separate to other Arriva UK train and bus businesses. Arriva UK then reports to parent which is DB the German state rail company.
 
KLDC10
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:42 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
In terms of aviation this means that certain airlines got very strong historical ties with their countries. In America the name of an airline is just a name, in Europe it's more than that. A foreign airline might do well, but it'll never become the national airline because it's foreign. And that thing "the national airline" is something unknown to Americans, but all too well known in Europe. America has always had a wide variety of airlines, but never one that stood out. Never one that represented the country. In Europe, each country has or had such an airline. That airline is more than just a name, it's a name with a meaning.

bendytendy wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D


I ain't surprised at all. These names are more than just brand names, they actually mean something. The name Delta could never replace KLM in the Netherlands because it's a foreign name. They might do well of course, but it's not the national pride. It's not something associated with the Netherlands. KLM is, and that's something you don't let go. KLM = Netherlands and Netherlands = KLM. But what is Delta? Something American, that's all they care about over here.


I have often heard KLM referred to as "the Pride of the Netherlands", and I have noticed on recent flights with them that they really emphasize the label 'Royal Dutch Airlines' during cabin announcements - much more than they did a couple of years back.

An interesting problem is now unfolding for Lufthansa with regards to Brussels Airlines. There was a thread on this specific topic a few days ago, and the consensus seemed to be that Lufthansa doesn't really know how best to integrate Brussels Airlines into Eurowings (which is their grand plan). A couple of practical difficulties were raised in the other thread, but this one got me thinking about branding. If Lufthansa were to get rid of the Brussels Airlines brand, how would Belgians feel about that? I know that Brussels Airlines does not evoke the same kind of emotion as Sabena, but still, it surely would sting a little? Perhaps a Belgian member can chime in on this topic.
DC9/MD90/MD11/F70/BAE146
737/738/739/744/748/752/763/772/789
A319/A320/A321/A332/A333/A346/A359
Q400/E170/E175/E190/CS300
 
DWC
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:50 pm

In any case "Lufthansa Italia" folded just after two & half years, feb. 2009 to oct.2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Italia
Last edited by DWC on Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3505
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:53 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
DAL763ER wrote:
Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.


That'll never happen. In Europe countries aren't like states in America, they're real countries. The citizens don't feel like Europeans, they feel like Germans or Italians or Belgians for example. They got their national history, their national pride, etc. That'll never change. Sure the countries cooperate to a certain level, but no further than that.

In terms of aviation this means that certain airlines got very strong historical ties with their countries. In America the name of an airline is just a name, in Europe it's more than that. A foreign airline might do well, but it'll never become the national airline because it's foreign. And that thing "the national airline" is something unknown to Americans, but all too well known in Europe. America has always had a wide variety of airlines, but never one that stood out. Never one that represented the country. In Europe, each country has or had such an airline. That airline is more than just a name, it's a name with a meaning.

bendytendy wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D


I ain't surprised at all. These names are more than just brand names, they actually mean something. The name Delta could never replace KLM in the Netherlands because it's a foreign name. They might do well of course, but it's not the national pride. It's not something associated with the Netherlands. KLM is, and that's something you don't let go. KLM = Netherlands and Netherlands = KLM. But what is Delta? Something American, that's all they care about over here.

I’m sorry, but one of the biggest airlines in Europe (the biggest?) is Irish and flies between early every European country. It may be romantic to fly with your own national airline, but Europeans fare hunt just like us Americans. It’s the national governments that stop it more than the customers
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
User avatar
Aisak
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:59 pm

And then we have a 3rd case scenario. In Latin America we have several airlines in their respective countries, but sharing a common brand. See LATAM and Avianca(-TACA)

That also happens in Europe but a very smaller scale:
Easyjet: with legal entities and AOCs in UK, Switzerland and Austria (EU)
Ryanair: establishing a local UK business to have a UK AOC as well as the traditional Irish (EU) one.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4375
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:37 pm

jetblueguy22 wrote:
I’m sorry, but one of the biggest airlines in Europe (the biggest?) is Irish and flies between early every European country. It may be romantic to fly with your own national airline, but Europeans fare hunt just like us Americans. It’s the national governments that stop it more than the customers


True, but they're a fairly young airline without much history. They never were a flag carrier.

I never said foreign airlines couldn't do well in other countries, of course they can. But they never get the status of a "national airline". Even in Italy for example, Ryanair hauls more passengers than Alitalia. Still Alitalia is their own airline, Ryanair isn't. Certainly in Italy people got the feeling that the airline is theirs, even if it's just a commercial company. But not to them! Portuguese feel the same way about TAP for example. Take away the brand name and you find the whole country against you. Even if the service level remains exactly the same and it's only the name changing, they just won't accept it. That other new name isn't theirs, it's foreign, so it feels different. They'll fly it, but they won't be proud of it.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4882
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:51 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
In terms of aviation this means that certain airlines got very strong historical ties with their countries. In America the name of an airline is just a name, in Europe it's more than that. A foreign airline might do well, but it'll never become the national airline because it's foreign. And that thing "the national airline" is something unknown to Americans, but all too well known in Europe. America has always had a wide variety of airlines, but never one that stood out. Never one that represented the country. In Europe, each country has or had such an airline. That airline is more than just a name, it's a name with a meaning.


Is that really still the case though? If airlines and populations really had such strong ties, why is KLM so successful? The Netherlands has a population of just 17 million, but KLM flew 30 million passengers in 2016. Unless every inhabitant of the Netherlands flies twice a year with KLM alone, doesn't that indicate that the concept is a bit outdated? Plenty of people from other countries flew with KLM, and the same goes for Lufthansa and I guess all the other major EU carriers. Those passengers must be coming from somewhere. Would these passengers care if KLM was suddenly renamed Air France?

DWC wrote:
In any case "Lufthansa Italia" folded just after two & half years, feb. 2009 to oct.2011


But was that because Italians refused to fly them because it was a German airline, or was it due to other failures? :scratchchin:
 
DWC
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:31 pm

VSMUT wrote:
The Netherlands has a population of just 17 million, but KLM flew 30 million passengers in 2016. Unless every inhabitant of the Netherlands flies twice a year with KLM alone, doesn't that indicate that the concept is a bit outdated? Plenty of people from other countries flew with KLM, and the same goes for Lufthansa and I guess all the other major EU carriers. Those passengers must be coming from somewhere. Would these passengers care if KLM was suddenly renamed Air France?

It's not just about flying, but about opinion & perception.
Even the stubbornly patriotic French rants on AF ( strikes, service ) won't prevent them from defending their national champion against any foreign takeover ( yet AF is publicly traded ). Taking this to extremes, ask Dubaitis how they feel about their home carrier, they hardly make much % of all passengers carried. Now just suppose EY, QR or SV bought EK & rebranded it under their name : you may have a riot.

VSMUT wrote:
DWC wrote:
In any case "Lufthansa Italia" folded just after two & half years, feb. 2009 to oct.2011

But was that because Italians refused to fly them because it was a German airline, or was it due to other failures? :scratchchin:

Did you not read the link I provided, for a reason ? ;)
 
AAvgeek744
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:08 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:34 pm

Sooner or later the entire world will be merged into Norwegian. I'm looking forward to flying Norwegian Botswana and Norwegian Myanmar. :crowded:
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:00 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
It goes beyond branding. KLM and Air France still are separate companies when it comes to operations. US carriers merged their engineering, maintenance, staff etc. In Europe, the airline entities remain separate. What is the point of Iberia having a separate maintenance program using different engineering resources and maintenance vendors from Aer Lingus and British Airways?


That's not entirely true, at least with AF-KLM, but I get and agree with your point. A number of the back office functions have been consolidated and are operated as one. However, there is a huge number of things that are still separate and that seems silly and inefficient. Plus, unlike the US mergers where the old-rivalries and identities have melted away (you don't here that much "old-NW" anymore as people have folded themselves into the brand) you get a lot of AF vs. KLM comments.

The biggest inefficiency that I don't get is the regional/intra-European fleet. It seems to me that there should be some fleet branding commonality so that a plane from CDG that lands in MUC can turn to AMS if that makes the most sense for the schedule (similar to how a plane from IAH may go to ORD next, etc.). Right now an AF branded plane will sit and turn back to CDG, same with IB to MAD, LH to FRA/MUC, etc.

Notice how Ryanair, Wizz and Easyjet have developed pan-european brands and can move their fleet around with much more ease.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:34 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
It goes beyond branding. KLM and Air France still are separate companies when it comes to operations. US carriers merged their engineering, maintenance, staff etc. In Europe, the airline entities remain separate. What is the point of Iberia having a separate maintenance program using different engineering resources and maintenance vendors from Aer Lingus and British Airways?


As long as you require a separate AOC for each airline in the group (because otherwise you lose the bliateral traffic rights that come with the nationality of the AOCs you shed} you will also require a separate maintenance programme, at least on paper. Each AOC has designated postholders and has to meet the requirements of the national enforcement body that issues it, which includes documentation standards.

That's not to say that IAG isn't moving closer towards a common standard. British Airways no longer has a paint shop, most of the painting is done by Iberia in Madrid. There is a group standard for equipment on A320 series, A330s, and A350s, and only the seats and bulkhead decoration vary between group airlines on new builds. Aircraft are being retrofitted to group standards while out of service for heavy checks. The objective is that any Airbus plane operated by Aer Lingus, BA, IB or Vueling (except perhaps A380s which might not fit!) will be able to be maintained in any group facility, that spares are usable across the group fleet, and that planes can be redeployed between fleets with very little more than a repaint and change of seats. They are very proud of this and report on progress to shareholders each year.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:14 pm

DAL763ER wrote:
You're right about them being in the same country. Most people won't care if it says NW or DL on the side of the plane. In Europe, however, what do you call a merged BA+EI+IB? British Airways doesn't go well in Spain, or Iberia in the UK. Aer Lingus is probably the most neutral, but then people in the UK or Spain won't understand this new brand.

Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.

Here's a non-nation referencing brand name for you; IBERIA :lol:
No, it doesn't just mean Spanish. Iberia is a peninsular that includes Spain and Portugal. Indeed, as I mentioned in a recent thread, it also includes Andorra, Gibraltar, and a small part of France. But you will have to ask someone from Spain how they view their national flag carrier. Just don't ask anyone from Barcelona.....

As for Scandinavia; they built a world class airline by eschewing national boundaries.

In the world of geo-politics, there are two equal and opposing forces. One faction sees benefits in gathering us all together under one roof, with common goals and common government (USA, USSR, EU, UN)
And an equal number of people fight fiercely to retain national or regional identities because we are all different (hence the break up of Yugoslavia, Scottish devolution, Catalan independence)

In a similar way I see airlines following both paths, in order to appeal to these different markets.

In the not so distant past, British Airways boasted these two sub-divisions reflecting regional identities within the UK.
,
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:20 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
DAL763ER wrote:
Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.


That'll never happen. In Europe countries aren't like states in America, they're real countries. The citizens don't feel like Europeans, they feel like Germans or Italians or Belgians for example. They got their national history, their national pride, etc. That'll never change. Sure the countries cooperate to a certain level, but no further than that.

I'll add one more.
Each country has it's own LANGUAGE. That counts for a lot. In fact it's probably the biggest issue of all.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4882
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:29 pm

DWC wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
DWC wrote:
In any case "Lufthansa Italia" folded just after two & half years, feb. 2009 to oct.2011

But was that because Italians refused to fly them because it was a German airline, or was it due to other failures? :scratchchin:

Did you not read the link I provided, for a reason ? ;)


I did read it. It says economic problems. The big question is what caused the economic problems in the first place. I doubt the airline being German was the issue here. Poor marketing, pricing or heavy competition seems far more likely.
 
DWC
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:50 pm

I don't know the specifics, but can't be unforeseen italian problems either, Lufthansa should have known better.
Same for AF, funded Alitalia twice before pulling out, then EY comes in to lose its share of money for pulling out.
Perhaps some Italian members can share some insights...
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:55 pm

bendytendy wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D


Or have them all branded as Delta World like Delta Connection. I'm sure at some point when Delta gets these customers focused on the Delta brand they'd very much like to brand all these carriers as Delta.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:10 pm

And then watch for the consumer and government backlash as for example a delayed flight to Amsterdam on Delta Netherlands is eligible for EC261 compensation, while a similarly delayed flight on Delta itself between the same airports is not. There's enough confusion with the codeshares as it is.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4375
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:39 pm

klm617 wrote:
Or have them all branded as Delta World like Delta Connection. I'm sure at some point when Delta gets these customers focused on the Delta brand they'd very much like to brand all these carriers as Delta.


I have to disagree here. Delta may be a strong brand, but it's an American brand. To Europeans, it's foreign. It's not their own. That doesn't mean they won't fly it, but it feels different. Delta may try to get customers focused on the Delta brand and to a certain level they may succeed, but never enough to replace the Air France and KLM brands with the Delta brand. In that they'll always fail because Delta isn't Air France or KLM. Delta isn't French or Dutch, it's American. That makes a world of difference.
 
User avatar
VCEflyboy
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:23 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:02 am

DWC wrote:
In any case "Lufthansa Italia" folded just after two & half years, feb. 2009 to oct.2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Italia


Totally wrong example. LH didn’t take over AZ - at least until now.
Secondly there’s not only Norwegian Argentina. Avianca and air Asia also work well in different countries. LH Italia was likewise a marketing strategy that in the end turned out to cannibilize LH traffic. Therefore they just stocked through funneling their passengers from LIN through FRA and MUC because it made more business sense than promoting MXP that still now a decade later finds it hard to attract passengers from Milan.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3353
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:17 am

While it would be more interesting going to the airport and still seeing NWA,US, and CO at the gate. Employee integration would be a headache and be an impediment to why those three airlines merged in the first place.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:54 am

I think Lufthansa could be the sole brand for LX/OS, given they are german speaking countries and lufthansa is literally translated as like "flying port/harbor/commerce" and not air germany or anything of the like.
 
User avatar
B727skyguy
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:23 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:00 am

DAL763ER wrote:
You're right about them being in the same country. Most people won't care if it says NW or DL on the side of the plane. In Europe, however, what do you call a merged BA+EI+IB? British Airways doesn't go well in Spain, or Iberia in the UK. Aer Lingus is probably the most neutral, but then people in the UK or Spain won't understand this new brand.


In 1979, North Central Airlines (NC) and Southern Airways (SO) merged. Since each airline had a region-specific name, the merged airline was called Republic Airlines. They even got a new IATA designator of RC.

The same thing could happen in Europe, or anywhere else. BA, IB, and EI could be merged into one entity and be renamed and rebranded with a single identity. The same is true with KL and AF.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:53 am

B727skyguy wrote:
DAL763ER wrote:
You're right about them being in the same country. Most people won't care if it says NW or DL on the side of the plane. In Europe, however, what do you call a merged BA+EI+IB? British Airways doesn't go well in Spain, or Iberia in the UK. Aer Lingus is probably the most neutral, but then people in the UK or Spain won't understand this new brand.


In 1979, North Central Airlines (NC) and Southern Airways (SO) merged. Since each airline had a region-specific name, the merged airline was called Republic Airlines. They even got a new IATA designator of RC.

The same thing could happen in Europe, or anywhere else. BA, IB, and EI could be merged into one entity and be renamed and rebranded with a single identity. The same is true with KL and AF.

Well, they could do that. But then they'd be unable to fly to many countries outside the European Common Aviation area. Just to give two simple and close examples, Turkey and Russia. Both these countries have separate bilateral Air Service Agreements with each member of the ECAA, (or in some cases no ASA at all), rather than an agreement that permits any airline from any EU/EEA country to fly there from any EU/EEA country. So if the merged airline was registered in Ireland, it could only operate flights to Russia and Turkey from Ireland, and any routes from the UK or Spain would have to be surrendered. Same applies to many, many countries worldwide. Merging airlines registered in different countries results in an immediately reduced mid-haul and long-haul network. Merging airlines based in the same country is a totally different thing.
You can of course merge airlines that only operate within the ECAA and to/from those countries like Israel and Morocco that have an ASA with the EU/EEA as a whole, with no effect on the route network.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:20 pm

DAL763ER wrote:
Maybe one day when the EU becomes one country and everyone that believes in nonsensical national values dies, we'll be able to have non-nation referencing airline brand names.

PatrickZ80 wrote:
That'll never happen. In Europe countries aren't like states in America, they're real countries. The citizens don't feel like Europeans, they feel like Germans or Italians or Belgians for example. They got their national history, their national pride, etc. That'll never change. Sure the countries cooperate to a certain level, but no further than that.

In terms of aviation this means that certain airlines got very strong historical ties with their countries. And that thing "the national airline" is something unknown to Americans, but all too well known in Europe. America has always had a wide variety of airlines, but never one that stood out. Never one that represented the country. In Europe, each country has or had such an airline. That airline is more than just a name, it's a name with a meaning.

In my youth (& innocence) I always viewed Pan Am as America's national flag carrier. :lol:

jetblueguy22 wrote:
I’m sorry, but one of the biggest airlines in Europe (the biggest?) is Irish and flies between early every European country. It may be romantic to fly with your own national airline, but Europeans fare hunt just like us Americans. It’s the national governments that stop it more than the customers

Not exactly true.
Firstly, Ryanair has several subtle advantages. Although it has numerous local operating bases, the airline overall speaks English, and that is the first choice second-language for many across Europe. The subtlety comes from the fact that the airline is definitely not English (or British, or American) so it feels less disloyal. In contrast, for many europenas booking a flight with BA is like sleeping with the enemy. :lol:

So, if you don't have a national airline of any consequence, or if it doesn't serve the destination you are going to, or if Ryanair is just massively less expensive, then Ryanair gets the ticket.
But if you are French (or German) and you have a choice between a variety of airlines, and one of them is French (or German), even if it is a few $ more expensive, it gets selected.

Second choice might be an airline that speaks a recognisable language; for Germans this would include Austria. If you are Belgian, your choice of airline might be Dutch, French or German, depending on what part of Belgium you originate from.

Of course, if you are a regular traveller, comfortable in airports anywhere in the world, fluent in several languages, or maybe an a.netter and more interested in some obscure detail of the flight, then national identity becomes less relevant. Indeed, if you have flown eight times this year already, and had poor experiences with your own national airline, you might prefer something foreign. A.netters & regular travellers might be different in that respect. :D
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4882
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:31 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
I think Lufthansa could be the sole brand for LX/OS, given they are german speaking countries and lufthansa is literally translated as like "flying port/harbor/commerce" and not air germany or anything of the like.


?

It doesn't mean that. Hansa refers to the northern trade cities that went under the name of the Hanseatic League. The Hanseatic League was made up of rich port cities, but the word Hansa doesn't mean port or harbour. It would make very little sense to the Swiss or Austrians. It literally refers to a certain geographical entity.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:48 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
I think Lufthansa could be the sole brand for LX/OS, given they are german speaking countries and lufthansa is literally translated as like "flying port/harbor/commerce" and not air germany or anything of the like.


?

It doesn't mean that. Hansa refers to the northern trade cities that went under the name of the Hanseatic League. The Hanseatic League was made up of rich port cities, but the word Hansa doesn't mean port or harbour. It would make very little sense to the Swiss or Austrians. It literally refers to a certain geographical entity.


Oh, but it makes total sense for an airline with hubs in Frankfurt and Munich? :roll:

lmao get outta here. :lol:
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4375
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:51 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Oh, but it makes total sense for an airline with hubs in Frankfurt and Munich? :roll:

lmao get outta here. :lol:


The location of the hubs is actually less relevant. Lufthansa is German and for Germans that's all that matters. And eventhough pretty much every German also speaks English it's a benefit for them that they know the cabin crew is also German and they can speak with them in their own language. This is even more relevant in countries like France and Italy where the number of people that don't speak English is higher. Certainly in France there are lots of people who say "Why should I learn English? I can speak French." They won't fly an airline where the crew doesn't speak French, and therefor end up with Air France.
 
Jerry123
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:58 pm

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:48 pm

bendytendy wrote:
I'm surprised we haven't seen AM become Delta Mexico, VS become become Delta UK, KL become Delta Netherlands, and AF become Delta France :D

Out of them the only one i could see not causing much of a national outcry would be changing Virgin Atlantic to Delta UK.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1383
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: US Merger Style vs EU merger Style

Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:45 am

Varsity1 wrote:
I think Lufthansa could be the sole brand for LX/OS, given they are german speaking countries and lufthansa is literally translated as like "flying port/harbor/commerce" and not air germany or anything of the like.


I think the literal translation of Lufthansa is "Air Enterprise", not flying port/harbor/commerce.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos