I suppose this could allow them to consolidate in South America by using bigger aircraft on the major routes and starting services to more secondary cities. Iberia looks set to become the Emirates of South America-Europe. I wonder if, as a consequence of this, they might add more routes to Asia.

Why hasn't Delta made a statement about this? Is it down-playing the significance of the deal by being silent? Or is the LATAM deal enough to quell its shareholders?

TYWoolman wrote:

Why hasn't Delta made a statement about this? Is it down-playing the significance of the deal by being silent? Or is the LATAM deal enough to quell its shareholders?

What’s Delta going to say? They don’t have a stake in Air Europa and honestly were not even particularly close to them as Air Europa barely flies to the US. Air Europa is not part of the TATL JV.

vhtje wrote:

Oykie wrote:

If this deal is approved will that affect IAG ability to buy Norwegian? They are also big in Spain. I’m surprised no one one has thought of buying Air Europa before. I agree it has a perfect name for European aviation.

IAG have sold their Norwegian shareholding and are not seeking to takeover Norwegian anytime soon.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... id-456397/

FlightGlobal wrote:

”We've fully exited it now," Walsh says of IAG's Norwegian holding, which was originally 4.6% before dilution to 3.93%. He assesses the chances of renewed interest in acquiring the Scandinavian operator thus: "I'd never say never, but I think it's unlikely."

Note: emphasis is mine.

In Norwegian press it is still speculated that IAG might return to buy Norwegian even after the sell off. But I see your point.

Back to topic, congratulations to IAG. Europe is slowly following the U.S. with consolidation. It’s bad for customers short term, but probably good for employees, airlines and environment

BA777FO wrote:

enilria wrote:

This seems hideously anti-competitive. It's not as if Europe is brimming with independent long haul airlines. This should not be approved.

Europe has more independent long haul airlines than the USA - roughly equivilent aviation markets. If the USA can cope with 3, Europe can cope with a dozen or so.

And if MAD to South America gets so expensive I imagine TAP will jump in, especially to Brazil, to offer competitive one-stop options and Air France will offer some competitive back-tracking fares as well as the US3 offering connections via MIA, ATL or IAD/EWR/IAH. They're not ideal connections but it's certainly an option for the price-conscious passenger.

It's not about Europe getting more expensive it's about Spain getting more expensive. There is no reason to ever allow a directly overlapping competitor to be eliminated. How does this serve the public interest? The primary economic justification for the merger is to gain market pricing control and raise prices. How does that benefit the consumer?

Still not quite sure what to make of this proposed acquisition. AirEuropa is a pretty uninspiring airline, but has a surprisingly large network to South America from Spain. Clearly it provided good competition to Iberia. IAG has classified it as a "value carrier", at least for now. Long-term AirEuropa could be a good brand for pan-europeans operations that don't naturally fit into the BA/IB/EI/VY spheres.

Oykie wrote:

Back to topic, congratulations to IAG. Europe is slowly following the U.S. with consolidation. It’s bad for customers short term, but probably good for employees, airlines and environment

I guess never say never, but I think Norwegian has taken a lot of tough decisions about their operation that will buy them enough time to allow profitability to catch up with the debt payments. I think the MAX grounding has been good for them, in all honesty.

BrianDromey wrote:

Still not quite sure what to make of this proposed acquisition. AirEuropa is a pretty uninspiring airline, but has a surprisingly large network to South America from Spain. Clearly it provided good competition to Iberia. IAG has classified it as a "value carrier", at least for now. Long-term AirEuropa could be a good brand for pan-europeans operations that don't naturally fit into the BA/IB/EI/VY spheres.

Oykie wrote:

Back to topic, congratulations to IAG. Europe is slowly following the U.S. with consolidation. It’s bad for customers short term, but probably good for employees, airlines and environment

I guess never say never, but I think Norwegian has taken a lot of tough decisions about their operation that will buy them enough time to allow profitability to catch up with the debt payments. I think the MAX grounding has been good for them, in all honesty.

I agree. If the MAX had not been grounded I believe we would have seen more bankruptcies in Europe especially and the rest of the world as well. Next year with all the MAX ready for delivery will be interesting.

enilria wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

enilria wrote:

This seems hideously anti-competitive. It's not as if Europe is brimming with independent long haul airlines. This should not be approved.

Europe has more independent long haul airlines than the USA - roughly equivilent aviation markets. If the USA can cope with 3, Europe can cope with a dozen or so.

And if MAD to South America gets so expensive I imagine TAP will jump in, especially to Brazil, to offer competitive one-stop options and Air France will offer some competitive back-tracking fares as well as the US3 offering connections via MIA, ATL or IAD/EWR/IAH. They're not ideal connections but it's certainly an option for the price-conscious passenger.

It's not about Europe getting more expensive it's about Spain getting more expensive. There is no reason to ever allow a directly overlapping competitor to be eliminated. How does this serve the public interest? The primary economic justification for the merger is to gain market pricing control and raise prices. How does that benefit the consumer?

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too. Like the USA, Europe is a single market. There are still plenty of competitors to and from Spain and there are no barriers to entry regarding slot or capacity restrictions. Across the Atlantic there's competition from Delta, United, Aerolinas Argentinas, Avianca, Latam, Aeromexico, Air Canada, Air Transat, Boliviana and Norwegian.

Iberia will have no control over Spain than Delta has over Minnesota. Is Minnesota so expensive because Delta dominates it? Is it anti-competitive?

If Iberia starts raising prices other airlines will add capacity (if it's sustainable) and the market will find equilibrium.

peterinlisbon wrote:

I suppose this could allow them to consolidate in South America by using bigger aircraft on the major routes and starting services to more secondary cities. Iberia looks set to become the Emirates of South America-Europe. I wonder if, as a consequence of this, they might add more routes to Asia.

I think they should open new routes in Africa to work as a hub Africa/Europe/América.

I’m wondering how this merger will affect the airlines locations at MAD:

UX will move to T4, together with IB + OW airlines + Other airlines. Then T1 & T2 will loose their biggest airline (UX). Adding to the end of UX in these terminals, it should be noted that Norwegian its ending most of their MAD routes + Ryanair ending another bunch of destinations

As a result T4 Will be pretty crowded, while T1 & T2 half empty

One Solution could be that all the Airlines not belonging to OW that are located in T4 shift their operations to T1 and T2 such as Emirates, Avianca, EL AL, Air Algerie etc etc

This could be a great opportunity for Airlines like WizzAir and Ryanair to boost it’s MAD network in T1 and T2

This is American pressuring IAG into compensating for their mistake in South America. They loosened their grip on LATAM for just enough time to allow Delta through the door. Now they're trying desperately to forge a hasty partnership with Gol and shifting the weight of long haul travel to Europe to their partners. American have been dealt a heavy blow with the loss of LATAM, this is their surgery. They will never be as strong as they once were but they can do their best to recover. The only problem is that with IAG focusing their Latin American operations from Madrid they will need to start flying to more destinations in Latin America in order to turn Madrid into a gateway hub. IAG won't and can't turn Madrid into a major European connecting hub such as Heathrow and Frankfurt but they can turn it into a gateway hub. Europe's one stop hub for flights to Latin America.

Also has anyone else found the fact that Air Europa is being bought by Iberia not IAG. The Air Europa brand will be folded into Iberia within the next few years because it does not make sense to have four Spanish airlines owned by one company. This also leaves the BA branch free to acquire what they want. Norwegian, anybody?

Well this is not a big surprise for me, I did have an idea this would happen.

Luisvalero wrote:

One Solution could be that all the Airlines not belonging to OW that are located in T4 shift their operations to T1 and T2 such as Emirates, Avianca, EL AL, Air Algerie etc etc

This could be a great opportunity for Airlines like WizzAir and Ryanair to boost it’s MAD network in T1 and T2

EK would never move to T1 or T2.

BA777FO wrote:

enilria wrote:

It's not about Europe getting more expensive it's about Spain getting more expensive. There is no reason to ever allow a directly overlapping competitor to be eliminated. How does this serve the public interest? The primary economic justification for the merger is to gain market pricing control and raise prices. How does that benefit the consumer?

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

LongHaul101 wrote:

This is American pressuring IAG into compensating for their mistake in South America. They loosened their grip on LATAM for just enough time to allow Delta through the door. Now they're trying desperately to forge a hasty partnership with Gol and shifting the weight of long haul travel to Europe to their partners. American have been dealt a heavy blow with the loss of LATAM, this is their surgery. They will never be as strong as they once were but they can do their best to recover. The only problem is that with IAG focusing their Latin American operations from Madrid they will need to start flying to more destinations in Latin America in order to turn Madrid into a gateway hub. IAG won't and can't turn Madrid into a major European connecting hub such as Heathrow and Frankfurt but they can turn it into a gateway hub. Europe's one stop hub for flights to Latin America.

Also has anyone else found the fact that Air Europa is being bought by Iberia not IAG. The Air Europa brand will be folded into Iberia within the next few years because it does not make sense to have four Spanish airlines owned by one company. This also leaves the BA branch free to acquire what they want. Norwegian, anybody?

Lol - AA pressuring IAG to buy UX? Really? You live in a world of your own, don’t you?

IAG has sought to buy UX several times in the past (as recent as last year) but UX has resisted. When LATAM partnered with DL, UX knows they are the ones to be dumped in the trash next to the fate of G3 and AR.

LA was trying to be play smart by taking DL’s money & at the same time flirting with IAG without being in oneworld, and IAG seems to know better. They know that no partnership with DL or AF/KL is going to compensate for LATAM’s loss of both MIA and MAD. LA dug its own grave. IAG just wants to make sure that it is deep enough, that’s all.

Air Europa has a nice franchise to many Latin American cities plus MIA & JFK. Does it add any destinations, minor or major, Iberia doesn't fly to ? This seems like a play on getting more traffic rights to Argentina and other major Latin markets plus for IAG to get some more 787 Dreamliners. What WW motives are this is another brilliant acquisition.

LongHaul101 wrote:

This is American pressuring IAG into compensating for their mistake in South America. They loosened their grip on LATAM for just enough time to allow Delta through the door. Now they're trying desperately to forge a hasty partnership with Gol and shifting the weight of long haul travel to Europe to their partners. American have been dealt a heavy blow with the loss of LATAM, this is their surgery. They will never be as strong as they once were but they can do their best to recover. The only problem is that with IAG focusing their Latin American operations from Madrid they will need to start flying to more destinations in Latin America in order to turn Madrid into a gateway hub. IAG won't and can't turn Madrid into a major European connecting hub such as Heathrow and Frankfurt but they can turn it into a gateway hub. Europe's one stop hub for flights to Latin America.

Also has anyone else found the fact that Air Europa is being bought by Iberia not IAG. The Air Europa brand will be folded into Iberia within the next few years because it does not make sense to have four Spanish airlines owned by one company. This also leaves the BA branch free to acquire what they want. Norwegian, anybody?

The silly things one reads never ceases to amaze. AA pressured IAG to buy UX? IB purchased UX, not IAG?

FYI, MAD already serves the purpose of a European hub to Latin America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chepos wrote:

LongHaul101 wrote:

This is American pressuring IAG into compensating for their mistake in South America. They loosened their grip on LATAM for just enough time to allow Delta through the door. Now they're trying desperately to forge a hasty partnership with Gol and shifting the weight of long haul travel to Europe to their partners. American have been dealt a heavy blow with the loss of LATAM, this is their surgery. They will never be as strong as they once were but they can do their best to recover. The only problem is that with IAG focusing their Latin American operations from Madrid they will need to start flying to more destinations in Latin America in order to turn Madrid into a gateway hub. IAG won't and can't turn Madrid into a major European connecting hub such as Heathrow and Frankfurt but they can turn it into a gateway hub. Europe's one stop hub for flights to Latin America.

Also has anyone else found the fact that Air Europa is being bought by Iberia not IAG. The Air Europa brand will be folded into Iberia within the next few years because it does not make sense to have four Spanish airlines owned by one company. This also leaves the BA branch free to acquire what they want. Norwegian, anybody?

The silly things one reads never ceases to amaze. AA pressured IAG to buy UX? IB purchased UX, not IAG?

FYI, MAD already serves the purpose of a European hub to Latin America.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IAG owns IB. So IAG/IB is just semantics.

That said, the post is ludicrous. AA has no control over IAG's corporate decision making and certainly is not responsible for IAG shirking its fiduciary duty to "get even".

Sightseer wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

enilria wrote:

It's not about Europe getting more expensive it's about Spain getting more expensive. There is no reason to ever allow a directly overlapping competitor to be eliminated. How does this serve the public interest? The primary economic justification for the merger is to gain market pricing control and raise prices. How does that benefit the consumer?

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

They can make concessions, but who is going to step in and take them up? There's already sufficient competition in Spain (Malaga and Alicante are some of the most competitive European destinations!) And from Madrid Iberia will face competition on many of its long haul routes. The cries of "foul" are a bit over done. Consolidation had to happen in the USA to make the industry more sustainable rather than airlines constantly going bust, Europe is just about a decade behind.

Sightseer wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

enilria wrote:

It's not about Europe getting more expensive it's about Spain getting more expensive. There is no reason to ever allow a directly overlapping competitor to be eliminated. How does this serve the public interest? The primary economic justification for the merger is to gain market pricing control and raise prices. How does that benefit the consumer?

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

It is not comparable at all.

Air Europa is a minor player in domestic/intra-European routes out of Madrid. Ryanair is much bigger. And most of those UX flights exist only to feed their long-haul network (e.g. two/three daily MAD-BCN).

As for LatAm, some routes will have no competition or reduced competition, but I don't know how is that public interest. Is it public interest to have two carriers in Madrid-Montevideo? In other routes, I can see Iberia simply dropping their codeshare. For instance, they codeshare with Avianca in MAD-BOG. This could be dropped specially since with UX, IAG will have more frequencies between Madrid and Bogotá.

One of the biggest losers in this transaction will be Aeromexico, which will lose the ability to funnel passengers to Spanish destinations other than Madrid. Some arrangements can be made to connect some pax via CDG or AMS, but for sure Iberia will have a big advantage

According to spanish media (https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/) seems that AF-KLM was quite close to acquire 20% of Air Europa for EUR200M with an option to buy the rest of the airline over the next 5 years and this in combination with the LATAM-Delta tie up is what triggered the defensive move by IAG which was something that was looked at in the past but was just re-activated in the last couple of weeks.

Air Europa chairman, Juan José Hidalgo who's well known to be bigmouthed when talking to the press, in the last few months had expressed their intention of forming a JV with AF-KLM but wihtout mentioning the possibility of selling them a stake in the airline.

SCQ83 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

It is not comparable at all.

Air Europa is a minor player in domestic/intra-European routes out of Madrid. Ryanair is much bigger. And most of those UX flights exist only to feed their long-haul network (e.g. two/three daily MAD-BCN).

As for LatAm, some routes will have no competition or reduced competition, but I don't know how is that public interest. Is it public interest to have two carriers in Madrid-Montevideo? In other routes, I can see Iberia simply dropping their codeshare. For instance, they codeshare with Avianca in MAD-BOG. This could be dropped specially since with UX, IAG will have more frequencies between Madrid and Bogotá.

that's not true . AV has at least 21 frequencies from MAD to BOG UX has 7 IB 10
I do expect IB OR UX to drop MDE . UX flies either 3 or 4 same for IB .

the codeshare i highly doubt it will end , it's beneficial for both IB and AV .

Polot wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Why hasn't Delta made a statement about this? Is it down-playing the significance of the deal by being silent? Or is the LATAM deal enough to quell its shareholders?

What’s Delta going to say? They don’t have a stake in Air Europa and honestly were not even particularly close to them as Air Europa barely flies to the US. Air Europa is not part of the TATL JV.

I guess you're right. The only competitive response to this one-stop Madrid hub for Europe to S. America is more direct non-stops by LATAM into more of Europe. 787 direct flights seem better than a one-stop shop.

Prost wrote:

SkyTeam slowly seems to be dismantling, either by internal forces or external forces. I’m going to be interested to see how things play out during the next economic downturn, the carriers have either fortified themselves, or over extended. We’ll find out who has the best strategy.

Interesting topic, but could you expand on how you see Skyteam dismantling itself?
On a slightly different topic, or maybe one for a separate thread, Skyteam is the only alliance that never had one single carrier go belly up. Both Star Alliance and OneWorld have had more than a few go bankrupt and disappear ... Weaker or poor selection of carriers?

TYCOON wrote:

Prost wrote:

SkyTeam slowly seems to be dismantling, either by internal forces or external forces. I’m going to be interested to see how things play out during the next economic downturn, the carriers have either fortified themselves, or over extended. We’ll find out who has the best strategy.

Interesting topic, but could you expand on how you see Skyteam dismantling itself?
On a slightly different topic, or maybe one for a separate thread, Skyteam is the only alliance that never had one single carrier go belly up. Both Star Alliance and OneWorld have had more than a few go bankrupt and disappear ... Weaker or poor selection of carriers?

I think Ed Bastian said it best: "SkyTeam alliance I don’t think we’ve brought a lot of great value to customers, I don’t think we’ve brought a lot of great value to our member airlines. And we’re going at this thing in a very different approach." https://viewfromthewing.com/delta-ceo-s ... -carriers/
When your biggest member says that... I think the "Dismantling" comment speaks for itself.

Skyteam has always been the weakest of the three alliances which is why Delta has done such a great job outside Skyteam shoring up large weaknesses that Skyteam couldn't fix: Heathrow access, Canada, LATAM investment, Virgin Australia, etc.

Not that "the only alliance that never had one single carrier go belly up" Is any kind of sign of an alliance strength, but both Delta and Northwest went through bankruptcy as Skyteam members. Alitalia has been on state aid life support from Italy or the UAE basically since Skyteam's inception, to say nothing of when AZ joined.
The mere fact that other airlines like Canadien, Mexicana, Varig, Ansett or BMI (kind of fun writing those airline names down again) didn't get state aid via Chapter 11 protection or full up cash injections from various governments doesn't make Skyteam a better alliance.

TYWoolman wrote:

Polot wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

Why hasn't Delta made a statement about this? Is it down-playing the significance of the deal by being silent? Or is the LATAM deal enough to quell its shareholders?

What’s Delta going to say? They don’t have a stake in Air Europa and honestly were not even particularly close to them as Air Europa barely flies to the US. Air Europa is not part of the TATL JV.

I guess you're right. The only competitive response to this one-stop Madrid hub for Europe to S. America is more direct non-stops by LATAM into more of Europe. 787 direct flights seem better than a one-stop shop.

LATAM’s attempts at launching flights to non-partner hubs hasn’t been stellar (e.g. FCO, MUC) - even LIS is struggling? And I don’t see that changing.

SCQ83 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

It is not comparable at all.

Does UX not carry more total passengers through MAD than FR? Wikipedia's says so; obviously if there are better sources out there I'll take their word over Wiki. But if UX does carry more passengers than FR, then yes, it is absolutely comparable, and in any case the public interest is better served by more competition, especially long-haul where UX and IB are more comparably sized. But again, to repeat/elaborate on my first post, I don't see the EU sharing my opinion and restricting the merger.

Sightseer wrote:

Does UX not carry more total passengers through MAD than FR? Wikipedia's says so; obviously if there are better sources out there I'll take their word over Wiki. But if UX does carry more passengers than FR, then yes, it is absolutely comparable, and in any case the public interest is better served by more competition, especially long-haul where UX and IB are more comparably sized. But again, to repeat/elaborate on my first post, I don't see the EU sharing my opinion and restricting the merger.

Not exactly MAD but for the whole domestic Spanish market, IAG will control about 72% of it with the UX purchase.

From CAPA:
Domestic market by seat capacity 12 months to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 31.8%
Iberia: 26.1% (includes Iberia Express and Air Nostrum)
Air Europa: 15.0%
Ryanair: 13.3%
BinterCanarias: 8.7%
Norwegian: 1.9%
CanaryFly: 1.8%
Volotea: 0.8%
Others: 0.4%

From Spanish paper ElPais:
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/ ... 99892.html

Domestic Market by Pax carried Jan to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 32.1%
Iberia: 26.0% (includes IB Express and Air Nostrum)
Ryanair: 14.6%
Air Europa: 14.1%
BinterCanarias: 4.9%
Canarias Airlines: 4.6%
Norwegian: 1.6%
CanaryFly: 1.3%

panamair wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Does UX not carry more total passengers through MAD than FR? Wikipedia's says so; obviously if there are better sources out there I'll take their word over Wiki. But if UX does carry more passengers than FR, then yes, it is absolutely comparable, and in any case the public interest is better served by more competition, especially long-haul where UX and IB are more comparably sized. But again, to repeat/elaborate on my first post, I don't see the EU sharing my opinion and restricting the merger.

Not exactly MAD but for the whole domestic Spanish market, IAG will control about 72% of it with the UX purchase.

From CAPA:
Domestic market by seat capacity 12 months to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 31.8%
Iberia: 26.1% (includes Iberia Express and Air Nostrum)
Air Europa: 15.0%
Ryanair: 13.3%
BinterCanarias: 8.7%
Norwegian: 1.9%
CanaryFly: 1.8%
Volotea: 0.8%
Others: 0.4%

From Spanish paper ElPais:
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/ ... 99892.html

Domestic Market by Pax carried Jan to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 32.1%
Iberia: 26.0% (includes IB Express and Air Nostrum)
Ryanair: 14.6%
Air Europa: 14.1%
BinterCanarias: 4.9%
Canarias Airlines: 4.6%
Norwegian: 1.6%
CanaryFly: 1.3%

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

dmorbust wrote:

panamair wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Does UX not carry more total passengers through MAD than FR? Wikipedia's says so; obviously if there are better sources out there I'll take their word over Wiki. But if UX does carry more passengers than FR, then yes, it is absolutely comparable, and in any case the public interest is better served by more competition, especially long-haul where UX and IB are more comparably sized. But again, to repeat/elaborate on my first post, I don't see the EU sharing my opinion and restricting the merger.

Not exactly MAD but for the whole domestic Spanish market, IAG will control about 72% of it with the UX purchase.

From CAPA:
Domestic market by seat capacity 12 months to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 31.8%
Iberia: 26.1% (includes Iberia Express and Air Nostrum)
Air Europa: 15.0%
Ryanair: 13.3%
BinterCanarias: 8.7%
Norwegian: 1.9%
CanaryFly: 1.8%
Volotea: 0.8%
Others: 0.4%

From Spanish paper ElPais:
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/ ... 99892.html

Domestic Market by Pax carried Jan to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 32.1%
Iberia: 26.0% (includes IB Express and Air Nostrum)
Ryanair: 14.6%
Air Europa: 14.1%
BinterCanarias: 4.9%
Canarias Airlines: 4.6%
Norwegian: 1.6%
CanaryFly: 1.3%

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

JAMBOJET wrote:

dmorbust wrote:

panamair wrote:

Not exactly MAD but for the whole domestic Spanish market, IAG will control about 72% of it with the UX purchase.

From CAPA:
Domestic market by seat capacity 12 months to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 31.8%
Iberia: 26.1% (includes Iberia Express and Air Nostrum)
Air Europa: 15.0%
Ryanair: 13.3%
BinterCanarias: 8.7%
Norwegian: 1.9%
CanaryFly: 1.8%
Volotea: 0.8%
Others: 0.4%

From Spanish paper ElPais:
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/ ... 99892.html

Domestic Market by Pax carried Jan to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 32.1%
Iberia: 26.0% (includes IB Express and Air Nostrum)
Ryanair: 14.6%
Air Europa: 14.1%
BinterCanarias: 4.9%
Canarias Airlines: 4.6%
Norwegian: 1.6%
CanaryFly: 1.3%

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

dmorbust wrote:

panamair wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Does UX not carry more total passengers through MAD than FR? Wikipedia's says so; obviously if there are better sources out there I'll take their word over Wiki. But if UX does carry more passengers than FR, then yes, it is absolutely comparable, and in any case the public interest is better served by more competition, especially long-haul where UX and IB are more comparably sized. But again, to repeat/elaborate on my first post, I don't see the EU sharing my opinion and restricting the merger.

Not exactly MAD but for the whole domestic Spanish market, IAG will control about 72% of it with the UX purchase.

From CAPA:
Domestic market by seat capacity 12 months to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 31.8%
Iberia: 26.1% (includes Iberia Express and Air Nostrum)
Air Europa: 15.0%
Ryanair: 13.3%
BinterCanarias: 8.7%
Norwegian: 1.9%
CanaryFly: 1.8%
Volotea: 0.8%
Others: 0.4%

From Spanish paper ElPais:
https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/ ... 99892.html

Domestic Market by Pax carried Jan to Sep 2019:

Vueling: 32.1%
Iberia: 26.0% (includes IB Express and Air Nostrum)
Ryanair: 14.6%
Air Europa: 14.1%
BinterCanarias: 4.9%
Canarias Airlines: 4.6%
Norwegian: 1.6%
CanaryFly: 1.3%

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

AF and KL networks are already highly replicative with the possible exception of Africa. They are already the largest player in Europe-Latin America traffic flows. CDG and AMS are further north of Spain and they badly want to reduce Spain to O/D and funnel as much traffic from Latin America through CDG/AMS. If AF/KL were to buy UX, there is no need for them to prop up UX. We will see UX flying same routes as Iberia and AF/KL picking up secondary markets (by virtue of their larger hubs). How is that positive for UX?

They did the same with AZ - AZ openly admitted that the partnership was one-sided and finally backed out of the JV.

BA777FO wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

dmorbust wrote:

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

Exactly.
FRA will not be what it is without LH’s domination.
CDG will not be what it is without AF’s domination.
MAD is not & cannot be what it can with both Iberia & UX competing. I am talking more along the lines of route diversity. Maybe instead of five daily flights to MAD-EZE, we could have thrice daily MAD-EZE, once daily COR and once daily MDZ? Route aithorities permitting of course.

BA777FO wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

dmorbust wrote:

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

That's not the way the EU will see this. The relevant measurement is market share on specific routes, which makes sense because antitrust law is about consumer protection and for a consumer wanting to fly it's irrelevant that there are many airlines on routes he doesn't fly on.

CJEU in Ryanair Holdings plc v European Commission:

As regards a concentration between two airlines, the Commission may decide, by carrying out an analysis of the effects of the concentration on each route affected, that the transaction would significantly impede effective competition as a result of the creation of a dominant position on a number of routes. As those positions are monopolistic, quasi monopolistic or very significant, they are sufficient, in themselves, subject to the analysis of possible commitments and efficiency gains, for a finding that the merger should be declared incompatible with the common market.

It also doesn't matter that competition can enter a market, but it's about if it is to be expected:

When, after assessing the competition between the parties to a concentration and the effects of the concentration on that competition and finding that the merged entity would eliminate competition between the parties to the detriment of customers, the Commission examines the issue of the entrance of new competitors onto the relevant markets, it takes as the starting point the situation where the new entrant is seeking to access the market on which the merged entity would be present. It therefore examines whether the entry of new competitors may be regarded as a competitive constraint which is sufficient to prevent or thwart the potential anti-competitive effects of the concentration.

In order to challenge the Commission’s analysis, what counts is the prospect of an entrant which offsets the anti-competitive effects specifically established. Consequently, the mere ‘threat’ of an entry by a competitor is not sufficient. The argument that the absence of entrants is explained by the current efficiency of one of the parties to the concentration on the relevant markets and by customer satisfaction, which rule out any prospect of an entrant being profitable on those markets, can also not be accepted.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 2007TJ0342

May as well scoop up Plus Ultra while they are at it. Or, might Plus Ultra add a couple of new Latam routes now that they only have 1 competitor in the market instead of 2.

onwFan wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

Exactly.
FRA will not be what it is without LH’s domination.
CDG will not be what it is without AF’s domination.
MAD is not & cannot be what it can with both Iberia & UX competing. I am talking more along the lines of route diversity. Maybe instead of five daily flights to MAD-EZE, we could have thrice daily MAD-EZE, once daily COR and once daily MDZ? Route aithorities permitting of course.

Apples and oranges. If separate companies would want to merge to what AF @ CDG and LH @ FRA are now they would have to make concessions. Competition law applies differently to mergers than to natural growth. LH wasn't allowed to take over HG either.

The question here isn't if IAG is allowed to take over UX, but how many concession they have to make, and if the merger is still attractive after that.

Skyteam is losing members so fast. China Southern, now Air Europa and soon Alitalia as it looks like.

BA777FO wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

dmorbust wrote:

Thanks for sharing. No way the EU competition authorities allow this without huge carveouts that would render the deal useless to IAG. I really think this was a poor move by Hidalgo, who should have been patient to accept what seemed to have been a similar but phased deal from AF/KLM: https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas ... s_2313364/ .

Once the EU authorities reject this deal, I wonder if AF/KLM can get away with offering less since there are really no other potential bidders that I can think of besides LH group.

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

Want to make a friendly wager? Winner gets to come back to this thread and say I told you so.

dmorbust wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

Honest question here. Why does it matter what the domestic Spanish market is? The EU is a single aviation market. Air France could start a hub in BCN tomorrow if they wanted. I know they won’t but I don’t understand why the relevant measurement for this would be the Spanish market? Isn’t the relevant metric the size of IAG within the single market of the EU?
It would be like only considering the state of Georgia and saying Delta should be broken up due to their size there.

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

Want to make a friendly wager? Winner gets to come back to this thread and say I told you so.

Happy to take that friendly wager

Any concessions will be very minor.

BrianDromey wrote:

I guess never say never, but I think Norwegian has taken a lot of tough decisions about their operation that will buy them enough time to allow profitability to catch up with the debt payments. I think the MAX grounding has been good for them, in all honesty.

Such as....?

I imagine in a few decades the world is just going to have one airline per continent. So much for "free market"

JAMBOJET wrote:

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know the # of Departures for all IAG+UX vs total out of MAD? % of total?

Then the same for KL/AF/HV out of AMS, CDG.
And the same for all LH Group out of FRA and MUC?

The investor presentation is clearly relying on a comparison to the other hugely dominant hubs in Europe vs IB/UX overlap?

I'm just curious how dominant the new carrier would be relative to the other dominant European carriers. If the EU has allowed LH to dominate Germany and KL to dominate The Netherlands, it would seem difficult to prevent Iberia from being such a dominant player in Spain.

https://crankyflier.com/2019/11/07/iag- ... quisition/

Seat Share by Hub of holding group:
MUC: 69.9% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 179B Euros
ZRH: 67.4% LH Owned -- GDP of Canton: 128B Euros (data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... ons_by_GDP ; quick google conversion to Euros; nothing fancy)
FRA: 65.7% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 142B Euros
MAD: 45.4% + UX = 61.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of city: 212B Euros
VIE: 59.1% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 123B Euros
AMS: 57.9% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 166B Euros
LHR: 50.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of City: 764B Euros
CDG: 48.0% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 684B Euros

I'd guess (total guess) that a hub like AMS and CDG would be higher JV portion (include DL, AA, and UA) than LHR, FRA, MAD, etc. Due to the higher amount of flying Delta does from their partner hubs. But... I truly doubt it would change these percentages substantially from a competitive view.

GDP info is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ion_by_GDP
I'm not trying to say it's the most current. I was just curious about the dominant market share in a hub city relative to the city's relative wealth in Europe.

To Jetty's point above: LOTS of overlap (this is a straight copy/paste from Cranky too) where there would be zero competition going forward.

Europe
A Coruña
Alicante
Asturias
Barcelona
Bilbao
Dusseldorf
Málaga
Sevilla
Valencia
Venice
Vigo

Americas:
Miami*
Montevideo
Panama City
Santo Domingo (DR)
*Miami counts only if you include joint venture partner American’s service

a350lover wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

I guess never say never, but I think Norwegian has taken a lot of tough decisions about their operation that will buy them enough time to allow profitability to catch up with the debt payments. I think the MAX grounding has been good for them, in all honesty.

Such as....?

Not being on the hook for paying for a bunch of incoming aircraft. Giving an excuse to cut marginal routes and expansion plans without having to worry about what to do with the spare capacity. The Max grounding is basically a giant order deferral right when they really needed it.

Polot wrote:

a350lover wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

I guess never say never, but I think Norwegian has taken a lot of tough decisions about their operation that will buy them enough time to allow profitability to catch up with the debt payments. I think the MAX grounding has been good for them, in all honesty.

Such as....?

Not being on the hook for paying for a bunch of incoming aircraft. Giving an excuse to cut marginal routes and expansion plans without having to worry about what to do with the spare capacity. The Max grounding is basically a giant order deferral right when they really needed it.

Absolutely. Possibly some compensation payments too. I think they also do some charter flying for TUI UK, so that will also help.

BA777FO wrote:

dmorbust wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

Completely agree and that's most likely the way the EU will see this. The EU is a single market and given that there are no restrictions or constraints on new entrants in the Spanish market I don't see carveouts being necessary.

Want to make a friendly wager? Winner gets to come back to this thread and say I told you so.

Happy to take that friendly wager

Any concessions will be very minor.

It's on then. Of course this now becomes arbitrary since "minor" is tough to define. I think your original "I don't see carveouts being necessary" is pretty far off. I myself will admit that my original thought that the concessions would be too major and cause IAG to abandon their bid could also be a bit extreme, but I still believe significantly more likely than no carveouts being required. The truth may likely be somewhere in between, but I still believe major concessions will be required. Cranky seems to think the same: https://crankyflier.com/2019/11/07/iag- ... quisition/

JAMBOJET wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know the # of Departures for all IAG+UX vs total out of MAD? % of total?

Then the same for KL/AF/HV out of AMS, CDG.
And the same for all LH Group out of FRA and MUC?

The investor presentation is clearly relying on a comparison to the other hugely dominant hubs in Europe vs IB/UX overlap?

I'm just curious how dominant the new carrier would be relative to the other dominant European carriers. If the EU has allowed LH to dominate Germany and KL to dominate The Netherlands, it would seem difficult to prevent Iberia from being such a dominant player in Spain.

https://crankyflier.com/2019/11/07/iag- ... quisition/

Seat Share by Hub of holding group:
MUC: 69.9% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 179B Euros
ZRH: 67.4% LH Owned -- GDP of Canton: 128B Euros (data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... ons_by_GDP ; quick google conversion to Euros; nothing fancy)
FRA: 65.7% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 142B Euros
MAD: 45.4% + UX = 61.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of city: 212B Euros
VIE: 59.1% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 123B Euros
AMS: 57.9% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 166B Euros
LHR: 50.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of City: 764B Euros
CDG: 48.0% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 684B Euros

I'd guess (total guess) that a hub like AMS and CDG would be higher JV portion (include DL, AA, and UA) than LHR, FRA, MAD, etc. Due to the higher amount of flying Delta does from their partner hubs. But... I truly doubt it would change these percentages substantially from a competitive view.

GDP info is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ion_by_GDP
I'm not trying to say it's the most current. I was just curious about the dominant market share in a hub city relative to the city's relative wealth in Europe.

To Jetty's point above: LOTS of overlap (this is a straight copy/paste from Cranky too) where there would be zero competition going forward.

Europe
A Coruña
Alicante
Asturias
Barcelona
Bilbao
Dusseldorf
Málaga
Sevilla
Valencia
Venice
Vigo

Americas:
Miami*
Montevideo
Panama City
Santo Domingo (DR)
*Miami counts only if you include joint venture partner American’s service

Thanks for this information! I think competition wise, domestic Spain and Miami are the ones that will be most affected. Perhaps Norwegian would be interested in MAD-MIA like they did with AMS-JFK and FCO-JFK with the divestitures from investigation into the AF/KL/DL JV. Ryanair will be first in line for domestic Spain routes. One thing I find quite interesting is that MOL doesn't say that he doesn't want the merger to go through - Instead, he simply says he will make sure there are divestitures - which is probably even better for him, as it would appear that Ryanair stands to gain the most. This is probably the best chance for Ryanair to expand their MAD hub. Any chance that easyJet could get a foot in between?

I don't think routes like MVD/PTY will raise as much of an issue - some of these routes were started not long ago and not even daily during most of the year. It could be even said that the combined carrier would be better positioned to better serve these daily & launch new destinations in Central/South America that are currently unserved from Europe non-stop; rather than multiple non-daily flights by each carrier on existing routes. COR, CLO, MDE, MVD, ASU and secondary Brazil come to my mind.

I think a pattern is beginning to emerge in all the big European markets: one major flag carrier and Ryanair/easyJet + a few long haul holiday/leisure carriers/Norwegian. The times of two flag carriers are gone.

JAMBOJET wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know the # of Departures for all IAG+UX vs total out of MAD? % of total?

Then the same for KL/AF/HV out of AMS, CDG.
And the same for all LH Group out of FRA and MUC?

The investor presentation is clearly relying on a comparison to the other hugely dominant hubs in Europe vs IB/UX overlap?

I'm just curious how dominant the new carrier would be relative to the other dominant European carriers. If the EU has allowed LH to dominate Germany and KL to dominate The Netherlands, it would seem difficult to prevent Iberia from being such a dominant player in Spain.

https://crankyflier.com/2019/11/07/iag- ... quisition/

Seat Share by Hub of holding group:
MUC: 69.9% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 179B Euros
ZRH: 67.4% LH Owned -- GDP of Canton: 128B Euros (data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... ons_by_GDP ; quick google conversion to Euros; nothing fancy)
FRA: 65.7% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 142B Euros
MAD: 45.4% + UX = 61.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of city: 212B Euros
VIE: 59.1% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 123B Euros
AMS: 57.9% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 166B Euros
LHR: 50.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of City: 764B Euros
CDG: 48.0% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 684B Euros

I'd guess (total guess) that a hub like AMS and CDG would be higher JV portion (include DL, AA, and UA) than LHR, FRA, MAD, etc. Due to the higher amount of flying Delta does from their partner hubs. But... I truly doubt it would change these percentages substantially from a competitive view.

GDP info is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ion_by_GDP
I'm not trying to say it's the most current. I was just curious about the dominant market share in a hub city relative to the city's relative wealth in Europe.

To Jetty's point above: LOTS of overlap (this is a straight copy/paste from Cranky too) where there would be zero competition going forward.

Europe
A Coruña
Alicante
Asturias
Barcelona
Bilbao
Dusseldorf
Málaga
Sevilla
Valencia
Venice
Vigo

Americas:
Miami*
Montevideo
Panama City
Santo Domingo (DR)
*Miami counts only if you include joint venture partner American’s service

in the Americas they overlap : Caracas , Bogota , Medellin , Lima , Buenos Aires, New York JFK and Sao Paulo beside the ones you mentioned . ( Miami , Montevideo , Panama , Santo Domingo )

OGLOBAL wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

JAMBOJET wrote:

Out of curiosity. Does anyone know the # of Departures for all IAG+UX vs total out of MAD? % of total?

Then the same for KL/AF/HV out of AMS, CDG.
And the same for all LH Group out of FRA and MUC?

The investor presentation is clearly relying on a comparison to the other hugely dominant hubs in Europe vs IB/UX overlap?

I'm just curious how dominant the new carrier would be relative to the other dominant European carriers. If the EU has allowed LH to dominate Germany and KL to dominate The Netherlands, it would seem difficult to prevent Iberia from being such a dominant player in Spain.

https://crankyflier.com/2019/11/07/iag- ... quisition/

Seat Share by Hub of holding group:
MUC: 69.9% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 179B Euros
ZRH: 67.4% LH Owned -- GDP of Canton: 128B Euros (data from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... ons_by_GDP ; quick google conversion to Euros; nothing fancy)
FRA: 65.7% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 142B Euros
MAD: 45.4% + UX = 61.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of city: 212B Euros
VIE: 59.1% LH Owned -- GDP of City: 123B Euros
AMS: 57.9% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 166B Euros
LHR: 50.9% IAG Owned -- GDP of City: 764B Euros
CDG: 48.0% AF/KL Owned -- GDP of City: 684B Euros

I'd guess (total guess) that a hub like AMS and CDG would be higher JV portion (include DL, AA, and UA) than LHR, FRA, MAD, etc. Due to the higher amount of flying Delta does from their partner hubs. But... I truly doubt it would change these percentages substantially from a competitive view.

GDP info is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ion_by_GDP
I'm not trying to say it's the most current. I was just curious about the dominant market share in a hub city relative to the city's relative wealth in Europe.

To Jetty's point above: LOTS of overlap (this is a straight copy/paste from Cranky too) where there would be zero competition going forward.

Europe
A Coruña
Alicante
Asturias
Barcelona
Bilbao
Dusseldorf
Málaga
Sevilla
Valencia
Venice
Vigo

Americas:
Miami*
Montevideo
Panama City
Santo Domingo (DR)
*Miami counts only if you include joint venture partner American’s service

in the Americas they overlap : Caracas , Bogota , Medellin , Lima , Buenos Aires, New York JFK and Sao Paulo beside the ones you mentioned . ( Miami , Montevideo , Panama , Santo Domingo )

Read the article above, they were only counting markets with no other competition (not counting AA as a competitor due to AJB).

SCQ83 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

That's a bit like saying Michigan became more expensive when Delta merged with Northwest forgetting that those in Michigan still have plenty of one-stop options and other airlines serve Michigan airports too.

That may be true if DL had been a major player in Michigan prior to the merger, but it was not. This would be more like DL buying AS or B6; competition at SEA and BOS/JFK, respectively, would be significantly reduced, and many people on this forum, myself included, would expect concessions to get either merger approved (more so in the case of B6). That said, recent history doesn't suggest that will happen with IB/UX.

It is not comparable at all.

Air Europa is a minor player in domestic/intra-European routes out of Madrid. Ryanair is much bigger. And most of those UX flights exist only to feed their long-haul network (e.g. two/three daily MAD-BCN).

As for LatAm, some routes will have no competition or reduced competition, but I don't know how is that public interest. Is it public interest to have two carriers in Madrid-Montevideo? In other routes, I can see Iberia simply dropping their codeshare. For instance, they codeshare with Avianca in MAD-BOG. This could be dropped specially since with UX, IAG will have more frequencies between Madrid and Bogotá.

If iag gets green light to buy us, 72% of national flights will be operated by iag

I think you don’t have much idea or ignore what ux is
It is heavy used for business travelers to connect pmi to mad and bcn, also: ux has is own maintainance on the pmi airport
Many Spanish people like me love ux, and are very sad to see them go away, ux will probably be a low cost brand in the future

TYWoolman wrote:

Why hasn't Delta made a statement about this? Is it down-playing the significance of the deal by being silent? Or is the LATAM deal enough to quell its shareholders?

Quell its shareholders? I can tell that you are a big fan of DL. I do not hold any shares whatsoever, of DL or any other company, but I have always assumed that DL shareholders are better satisfied than AA shareholders or UA shareholders, merely by looking at DL's annual earnings. Do DL shareholders really need to be quelled in your estimation? DL can not buy LA and UX both in the same week, can they? I wonder how much IAG jumping on UX came as a result of DL grabbing LA. Losing G3 and UX, replacing them with LA - I think that's a pretty good trade for DL, don't you? Especially if DL can bring some of their money and service magic to LA, which is sorely in need of some magic. I want to hear from these quelled shareholders, if any!