Hanjin KAL makes bid for Asiana. The Korean development bank will inject 500 billion won into Hanjin for capital increase to help fund deal.

https://www.reuters.com/article/asiana- ... SL1N2I202Z

Basically, a government bank paying Hanjin to help solve the national problem what to do with Asiana.

Is this a complete merger or a brand acquisition?

Korean Air's making it sound like a merger. "The merger of the two airlines". "However, Korea has two full service carriers, which gives it a disadvantage"

https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero/sta ... 3222285312

Ishrion wrote:

Is this a complete merger or a brand acquisition?

Korean Air's making it sound like a merger. "The merger of the two airlines". "However, Korea has two full service carriers, which gives it a disadvantage"

https://twitter.com/JournoDannyAero/sta ... 3222285312

As per the proposed structure chart by the bank, it will be a long term merger.

I don't know what they would do with their doubled-in-size A380 fleet after the merger.

Seems like we would see some more dozens of whales being retired.

Antaras wrote:

I don't know what they would do with their doubled-in-size A380 fleet after the merger.

Seems like we would see some more dozens of whales being retired.

Once the pandemic is over I think there will be a use for most of the A380s. ICN-LAX and JFK at the very least should be able to support multiple daily A380s.

Even during the pandemic, ICN-LAX is being operated 3-4x daily on many days of the week (combining both airlines, albeit not on the A380).

Will they keep the name?

UAUA wrote:

Will they keep the name?

Probably it will be just Korean Air.

The current deal structure allows Walter Cho, the son of the deceased former chairman, to purchase Asiana for free.
All the money Hanjin KAL has to pay will be covered by the new investment by Korea Development Bank (gov't owned).

In addition, the KCGI-Bando-Heather Cho (the Nut Rage lady) three-way alliance will certainly fail to win the controlling share of Hanjin KAL, the parent company of Korean Air.
(FYI, you can read this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437747&p=22119613&hilit=hanjin#p22119613 )

Therefore, the three-way alliance is strongly opposing the deal.
They assert that the Korean government is effectively using taxes to protect Cho's controlling shares, as well as giving Asiana to them for free.
Which is indeed true.

What about OZ's subsidiaries Air Seoul & Air Busan? Will they consolidate everything into Jin Air?

Antaras wrote:

I don't know what they would do with their doubled-in-size A380 fleet after the merger.

Seems like we would see some more dozens of whales being retired.

Sent for scrapings probably.

No sure the ke wants 380s. 350s will be a really good fits for future between 77w and 789.

ITSTours wrote:

The current deal structure allows Walter Cho, the son of the deceased former chairman, to purchase Asiana for free.
All the money Hanjin KAL has to pay will be covered by the new investment by Korea Development Bank (gov't owned).

In addition, the KCGI-Bando-Heather Cho (the Nut Rage lady) three-way alliance will certainly fail to win the controlling share of Hanjin KAL, the parent company of Korean Air.
(FYI, you can read this thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1437747&p=22119613&hilit=hanjin#p22119613 )

Therefore, the three-way alliance is strongly opposing the deal.
They assert that the Korean government is effectively using taxes to protect Cho's controlling shares, as well as giving Asiana to them for free.
Which is indeed true.

I wonder what will happen to the Hanjin-KAL ownership fight now. They don’t really have a chance with the KDB(government) taking Walther Cho’s side. Could we see the something like with Kumho Industrial and Petrochemical split between brothers? The government knows the public doesn’t like the Hanjin name and owner family and the feud is bad publicity for what will now be a somewhat publicly owned company. So maybe they push for a split where Heather takes the less valuable non Airline part of the Hanjin Group and goes away quietly, with the rights to the Hanjin Group name. Wather stays in charge of the larger and more prestigious Airlines but changes the conglomerate name to 대한항공 Group or KAL Group. No one will be happy with the outcome but the government could try and force it.

JeremyXWB wrote:

What about OZ's subsidiaries Air Seoul & Air Busan? Will they consolidate everything into Jin Air?

Jin Air is the natural surviving entity in for the merger, they have the largest market share, Hanjin-KAL currently have a majority share, and as the acquirers of the whole of Asiana it would only be natural. Air Seoul is by far the smallest so it wouldn’t make sense. There is a chance Air Busan could be the surviving company instead however. Air Busan was formed with investment from Busan City government and Busan focused companies and the optics of the brand disappearing would be bad politics for the current government that would want votes from Busan. So I would put it at 50/50 between Jin Air and Air Busan.

Also looking at the holding structure if everything was concentrated to Jin Air they would be a sibling company to Korean Airsiana while in the Air Busan case they would be a subsidiary of Korean Airsiana. But its not clear if this affects things.

I guess KE+OZ will stay in SkyTeam ?

JeremyXWB wrote:

What about OZ's subsidiaries Air Seoul & Air Busan? Will they consolidate everything into Jin Air?

That is the plan, eventually.

Antaras wrote:

I don't know what they would do with their doubled-in-size A380 fleet after the merger.

Seems like we would see some more dozens of whales being retired.

I would say its a good bet that either the KE birds (GE/PW engines) or OZ birds (RR engines) will be parked at the very least.

If KE doesn't just eliminate the type like I think most 380 operators will.

How is KE going to answer the anti-trust questions from USA, Japan and China?

Well, this makes me really sad. Just got my gold status with them this year and it's suppose to last for 2 more years. I hope OZ can at least operate independently for a while longer.

Heavy divestitures will be needed. The only fleet models in common with both are the A330, 747 freighter, and 77E. Also, slots abroad will have to be relinquished all over as well as at ICN.

Also, are Air Seoul and Air Busan being sold separately?

chonetsao wrote:

How is KE going to answer the anti-trust questions from USA, Japan and China?

Would the combined business really impact the US/EU/etc-Korea business that much?
I would imagine it would look just like the AF-UTA and BA-British Caledonian mergers....aka not much happens. Maybe some slot divestments at JFK, etc.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Heavy divestitures will be needed. The only fleet models in common with both are the A330, 747 freighter, and 77E. Also, slots abroad will have to be relinquished all over as well as at ICN.

Also, are Air Seoul and Air Busan being sold separately?

They both have A380s, and Korean Air will also get A-321neo's anyway so eventually I see synergies. I also think Korean Air will like the A350 and even without merging would most likely have them by the end of this decade, apart from the 787 they haven't decided yet on an aircraft replacing the pax 748s, A380s and 777s and using Asiana's A350 fleet will enable them to see how it works out.

Quite the coup for DL and Skyteam.

I fly through ICN regularly. It's a spectacular facility and ideally positioned as a hub for US to North and East Asia and China traffic flows.

A powerhouse.

This strengthens the DL/KE JV as the MOST PREMIER HUB in Northeast Asia. KE/OZ fly to literally every major city in every country in the region. I think KE will like the A350.

I wonder what's going to happen to Air Busan and Air Seoul. Air Busan have a pretty large fleet and a good, strong brand image, especially in SE Korea so it wouldn't really be great for them to be amalgamated into Jin Air. Air Seoul on the other hand...

Curious as to how this will get past the Korean anti-monopoly laws...

This is good news for Delta too. They won't have to worry as much for the United/Star Alliance feed to connect with Asiana now. I wonder what United will do to offer any more service to Korea now that their alliance won't have a hub in Seoul anymore.

AWACSooner wrote:

Curious as to how this will get past the Korean anti-monopoly laws...

Probably the same way it would in the U.S. - they argue that Asiana will fail (having nobody else step forward with adequate funds and expertise) in the absence of the KE deal.

TWA, meet AA.

Kbud wrote:

This is good news for Delta too. They won't have to worry as much for the United/Star Alliance feed to connect with Asiana now. I wonder what United will do to offer any more service to Korea now that their alliance won't have a hub in Seoul anymore.

IMHO you could look for less UA service, not more, as passengers won't have connections beyond ICN.

AWACSooner wrote:

Curious as to how this will get past the Korean anti-monopoly laws...

I'm quite sure they'll find a "good solution". Even though Hanjin is not what it used to be, it's still an important chaebol with some leverage capacity in South Korea.

I'm wondering what will happen to the terminal arrangement at ICN? KE moved fairly recently to a new terminal, all SkyTeam is there I think. I am not sure the two terminals are connected airside?

AWACSooner wrote:

Curious as to how this will get past the Korean anti-monopoly laws...

Although I’m by no means an expert on Korean competition law, the existence of “chaebol” conglomerate companies would seem to imply a fairly lax attitude toward consolidation in South Korea. Hyundai, Samsung, Hanjin, etc.

Will they run as separate airlines or will OZ's name be gone?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Kbud wrote:

This is good news for Delta too. They won't have to worry as much for the United/Star Alliance feed to connect with Asiana now. I wonder what United will do to offer any more service to Korea now that their alliance won't have a hub in Seoul anymore.

IMHO you could look for less UA service, not more, as passengers won't have connections beyond ICN.

I doubt you'll see much difference on UA services. UA only serves ICN from SFO, and I would doubt there's much onward connections to OZ today. Given their JV with NH, they are likely mostly pushing onward connections over Tokyo rather than Seoul. Additionally, UA already serves all the major markets nonstop in Asia so there's less need for connections and those that are needed, can be handled by NH.

Delta's merger/acquisition consulting got it goin' on! Bam! Just a thought.

Sad to see Star losing OZ, since it's always easier to get a reward ticket on OZ than other Star carriers in the region. But I guess with NH there, OZ is always going to be overshadowed and not able to realize its full potential as part of Star.

If the merger between OZ and KE does happen, I think it will be successful as South Korea as the merged company will stand on a soli foundation and if Air Seoul/Busan does end up merging with Jin air the combined carrier will dominate the FSC as well as the LCC sector. It also helps that KE has a strong partner in DL, which probably also profits from a merger. So overall a win-win situation. Will be interesting as to what is going to happened with the fleet. Communality is not exactly high, especially when also considering the LCC affiliates.

airzim wrote:

I doubt you'll see much difference on UA services. UA only serves ICN from SFO, and I would doubt there's much onward connections to OZ today. Given their JV with NH, they are likely mostly pushing onward connections over Tokyo rather than Seoul. Additionally, UA already serves all the major markets nonstop in Asia so there's less need for connections and those that are needed, can be handled by NH.

I see things differently. United is the US3 800lb gorilla to Asia and Seoul is an awfully important market to serve. If UA/Star lose the code share with Asiana and SkyTeam serves ICN from a dozen or so US cities, any connection through Japan to get to Seoul is going to be a big drawback for US-originating traffic. OW or Star don't necessarily need connections beyond ICN to make the market work. Just like TLV, CDG, SYD etc., UA could more than likely sustain non-stop service from several US hubs with all O&D traffic on the other end. (in normal times that is)

x1234 wrote:

This strengthens the DL/KE JV as the MOST PREMIER HUB in Northeast Asia. KE/OZ fly to literally every major city in every country in the region. I think KE will like the A350.

That would be HND or PEK.

HND and PEK are fragmented with multiple carriers (like ORD, and DEN, and LAX) in the way ICN would not be. It's more than just total passenger numbers that makes a successful hub.

Well, this kind of sucks. Two of my favorite airlines (especially OZ), but to say this climate necessitates some consolidation is an understatement - and one is better than none surviving.

MIflyer12 wrote:

HND and PEK are fragmented with multiple carriers (like ORD, and DEN, and LAX) in the way ICN would not be. It's more than just total passenger numbers that makes a successful hub.

I'd agree on HND, but CA dominates PEK. PKX really can't compete with PEK for local traffic. Neither ICN nor PEK offers particularly good coverage of south east asia.

I never saw the point for a "small" country like South Korea to have two legacy airlines. This is not any different than Canada (Air Transat merging into Air Canada) or Spain (Air Europa into Iberia).

jetblastdubai wrote:

airzim wrote:

I doubt you'll see much difference on UA services. UA only serves ICN from SFO, and I would doubt there's much onward connections to OZ today. Given their JV with NH, they are likely mostly pushing onward connections over Tokyo rather than Seoul. Additionally, UA already serves all the major markets nonstop in Asia so there's less need for connections and those that are needed, can be handled by NH.

I see things differently. United is the US3 800lb gorilla to Asia and Seoul is an awfully important market to serve. If UA/Star lose the code share with Asiana and SkyTeam serves ICN from a dozen or so US cities, any connection through Japan to get to Seoul is going to be a big drawback for US-originating traffic. OW or Star don't necessarily need connections beyond ICN to make the market work. Just like TLV, CDG, SYD etc., UA could more than likely sustain non-stop service from several US hubs with all O&D traffic on the other end. (in normal times that is)

Agreed. Without Asiana, UA will likely increase ICN. I wouldn't be surprised to see four UA routes to ICN when they can no longer use OZ to serve the city. SFO, LAX, EWR, and ORD.

It's unlikely for the merged airline to keep such a diversified wide-body fleets: A330, B777, B787, A350, A380. Fleet simplification is expected soon:

pmOZ:
A35K - order cancelled, no need for more WB due to COVID
A359 - keep or sold, all-787 fleet is more prefereable
A380 - retire immediately
B744 - retire immediately
B763 - retire immediately

pmKE:
B744 - retire immediately
A380 - retire immediately
B789 - keep for now, order more after COVID
B78X - keep the order, maybe deferred, order more after COVID

MEA-707 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Heavy divestitures will be needed. The only fleet models in common with both are the A330, 747 freighter, and 77E. Also, slots abroad will have to be relinquished all over as well as at ICN.

Also, are Air Seoul and Air Busan being sold separately?

They both have A380s, and Korean Air will also get A-321neo's anyway so eventually I see synergies. I also think Korean Air will like the A350 and even without merging would most likely have them by the end of this decade, apart from the 787 they haven't decided yet on an aircraft replacing the pax 748s, A380s and 777s and using Asiana's A350 fleet will enable them to see how it works out.

Why would KE have decided on an aircraft to replace the 748s, A380s, and 777s (namely the 77Ws)? None are up for retirement in the foreseeable future such that a replacement aircraft would have been selected.

moyangmm wrote:

It's unlikely for the merged airline to keep such a diversified wide-body fleets: A330, B777, B787, A350, A380. Fleet simplification is expected soon:

pmOZ:
A35K - order cancelled, no need for more WB due to COVID
A359 - keep or sold, all-787 fleet is more prefereable
A380 - retire immediately
B744 - retire immediately
B763 - retire immediately

pmKE:
B744 - retire immediately
A380 - retire immediately
B789 - keep for now, order more after COVID
B78X - keep the order, maybe deferred, order more after COVID

I think that they should keep the A359s and start retiring the 772s. However, I think that they should defer the A35K for 5-10 years when the KE's 77W start aging (youngest 1.4 years old at this moment). And KE should immediately retire its non-ER B773.

My idea about the narrowbodies fleet.

OZ fleet:
Retires the single 20-year-old A321-131
Slowly retires all A320-232
Keep all the A321-231

KE fleet:
Slowly retires the non-ER B739 and all of the B738 (will be replaced by the MAX 8 order anyway).
Swap all the A321neo order from PW GTF to CFM LEAP.
May order some more MAX 8/9 or A320neo (prefer the MAX)

Alias1024 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

airzim wrote:

I doubt you'll see much difference on UA services. UA only serves ICN from SFO, and I would doubt there's much onward connections to OZ today. Given their JV with NH, they are likely mostly pushing onward connections over Tokyo rather than Seoul. Additionally, UA already serves all the major markets nonstop in Asia so there's less need for connections and those that are needed, can be handled by NH.

I see things differently. United is the US3 800lb gorilla to Asia and Seoul is an awfully important market to serve. If UA/Star lose the code share with Asiana and SkyTeam serves ICN from a dozen or so US cities, any connection through Japan to get to Seoul is going to be a big drawback for US-originating traffic. OW or Star don't necessarily need connections beyond ICN to make the market work. Just like TLV, CDG, SYD etc., UA could more than likely sustain non-stop service from several US hubs with all O&D traffic on the other end. (in normal times that is)

Agreed. Without Asiana, UA will likely increase ICN. I wouldn't be surprised to see four UA routes to ICN when they can no longer use OZ to serve the city. SFO, LAX, EWR, and ORD.

Perhaps. I highly doubt that United is sending much traffic to OZ via the long haul sectors served by OZ. They would much rather capture that traffic themselves via SFO for Korea bound traffic. Anything going beyond ICN, they'll carry themselves, or send via NH.

That said I agree that United is really the only carrier positioned to effectively compete with a new very large KE in the Korea market. So we might see EWR and possibly LAX or an increase in SFO frequencies.

x1234 wrote:

This strengthens the DL/KE JV as the MOST PREMIER HUB in Northeast Asia. KE/OZ fly to literally every major city in every country in the region. I think KE will like the A350.

Skyteam will now have a fully competitive offering in that part of the world. They won't even need a Japan alliance which was a long-running stance on this forum.

People seem to not understand the nature of markets such as ICN. Most of the O&D flows are Korea point of sale meaning the hometown airline(s) have an advantage and most of the time can charge a premium over their foreign counterparts. Just step on any flight between the US/EU - Korea and you'll quickly see this, in all cabins, airlines that don't have a partner either don't fly to ICN or send the minimum required plane to serve the market. I don't think UA will suddenly add flights left and right, if anything they might add EWR but thats it. If they get more gates then maybe LAX will make the cut.

There will be a transition period during which both airlines will operate separately I suspect fleet decisions and such will be taken then.

Long term I expect them to go for one narrowbody for their LCC and another for KE, this will allow them to maintain their MRO capabilities and segregate fleet types. KE was already in the process of trying to simplify their fleet, this also comes as they were reviewing the future of their cabins so the timing is pretty good. I suspect they will just decide to deal with the A350, a good opportunity for RR as it would be their first foray into KE. If Airbus and RR play their cards right they could onboard KE in the future.

For now I believe KE will reduce their A380 fleet size, to maybe 6, enough to serve LAX and JFK with multiple frequencies. Other destinations were ATL, LHR, CDG, FRA, SYD, BKK, TPE and NRT. They will likely just keep OZ's frequencies to these markets as they will have a surplus of widebodies. Don't forget KE and OZ currently have a plenty of 787/A350 on order. KE also has many 77Ws that were delivered in the past 5 years.

Once the merger is completed in say 5 years the combined full-service+lcc fleet will be comprised of -A220/737/A320/787/A350/777/747/A380

After that the A380 will silently die off whilst the 77W and 747 will likely stick around as they will feed off the cargo fleet commonality.

Alias1024 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

airzim wrote:

I doubt you'll see much difference on UA services. UA only serves ICN from SFO, and I would doubt there's much onward connections to OZ today. Given their JV with NH, they are likely mostly pushing onward connections over Tokyo rather than Seoul. Additionally, UA already serves all the major markets nonstop in Asia so there's less need for connections and those that are needed, can be handled by NH.

I see things differently. United is the US3 800lb gorilla to Asia and Seoul is an awfully important market to serve. If UA/Star lose the code share with Asiana and SkyTeam serves ICN from a dozen or so US cities, any connection through Japan to get to Seoul is going to be a big drawback for US-originating traffic. OW or Star don't necessarily need connections beyond ICN to make the market work. Just like TLV, CDG, SYD etc., UA could more than likely sustain non-stop service from several US hubs with all O&D traffic on the other end. (in normal times that is)

Agreed. Without Asiana, UA will likely increase ICN. I wouldn't be surprised to see four UA routes to ICN when they can no longer use OZ to serve the city. SFO, LAX, EWR, and ORD.

Perhaps. I highly doubt that United is sending much traffic to OZ via the long haul sectors served by OZ. They would much rather capture that traffic themselves via SFO for Korea bound traffic. Anything going beyond ICN, they'll carry themselves, or send via NH.

That said I agree that United is really the only carrier positioned to effectively compete with a new very large KE in the Korea market. So we might see EWR and possibly LAX or an increase in SFO frequencies.

KE-OZ tie-up just be more material for DALPA to jump on.

As is the KE JV and its flying violates DALPA pilot agreement and union has already prevailed in grieving the violations.