It's been a long time now that industry leaders have been saying that mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are inevitable and long over due...
Look at what's happening in Europe...
LH which has always been a trend setter in the industry has been rallying for M&As forever now. They were the first to take the KLM/NWA alliance to a whole new level by creating the Star Alliance - the first step to M&A (some will argue that the Qualiflyer Group was the first attempt, and I agree. But Star is the one that got the formula right). Less than 2 yrs later names such as "Star Alliance", "OneWorld", and "SkyTeam" were part of the everyday travellers' common vocabulary - the same as saying "TWA" or "PanAM" back in the Golden days. Then they were the first airline to acquire another country's national carrier -
LX. Now talk is starting to go around of their huge cash reserves that's being positioned for yet another purchase, and the
OS,
BMI, LOT and SAS groups are the frontrunner candidates to join the
LH family eventually. Now this may take years if not decades, but eventually it will happen. And yes, the cash reserves are partly meant for the upcoming large aircraft order everybody has been talking about, but not entirely.
LH has been very vocal for years about its intention to control part of the European market, and if they're not able to do it through nice friendly alliances, they'll purchase that control outright. My money is on
OS personnally, but that's a completely different topic. And although
LH is denying any upcoming purchases, their business sense will not let them leak such info to drive the share price of any potential purchasee up, and therefore the acquisition cost.
This isn't a European phenomenon, but a worldwide one. Europe was the first to feel its effects because of the shear number of world class airlines based in such a small geographical area (LH,
BA,
AF,
KL,
LX, SAS,
IB,
AZ). And although the US market is geographically larger, the same effect exists with monster airlines like
UA,
AA,
CO,
DL,
NW, and US all competing against each other... and that's just for the domestic market. When you consider the US' position as an international destination market, the big 6 are now competing with the likes of
SQ,
CX,
BA,
LH,
AF,
KL,
JL,
QF,... and airlines far greater and more popular. Just take an example, if you were to fly out of
LAX to Singapore, what would you prefer to fly:
UA or
SQ (forget they are in Star). What about
JL,
TG,
CX,... how many far Eastern airlines would you choose before you settle on
UA. The US market desperately needs mergers and acquisitions, and they need yesterday.
I personally don't see how competition, and therefore low airfares, are going to be jeopordized by the existance of 1 or 2 less airlines of the above list. Whichever airline merges with whichever other airlines, routes are going to be taken over, as will hubs, aircraft, operations,... True, there will be a period of adjustement where prices will fluctuate both for and against consumers; but opportunities will also be created, new players will enter markets previously off limits, and life will go on. The market will always adjust and reach balance.
If
UA merges with
CO, they'll do it because the synergies of both airlines will complement each other, and at the end of the day,
UA will have a southern hub (Houston) - which presently it doesn't have being based in
IAD,
ORD,
DEN,
SFO, and
LAX - and therefore access to the Southern catchement area which it doesn't get with its present network. It will also have access to the Greater New York area (through
CO's
EWR hub), one of the world's most important O&D markets, which again
UA presently doesn't have access to. And, yes, with
DL and
AA already based in
JFK, a
UA/CO marriage would make sense if we're going to foresee 3 great US airlines led by
AA/whoever,
DL/whoever, and
UA/whoever.
So I do agree, and I have said it numerous times before on other threads, I have always believed that a
UA/CO merger made much more sense than the previously attempted
UA/US merger (see a few years back).
DL would actually do better with
NW, especially considering their existing ties with
AF and KLM which run far deeper that the European airlines' ties with
CO - making
CO's escape from Skyteam towards Star much easier. But even without the European connection,
DL/NW makes sense on even a network basis especially if you consider
NW's Asian services complementing
DL's much smaller operations to the continent, and vice versa for the European services that are much better served by
DL than they are by
NW.
As of
AA, I don't think that they are a really good match with US, nor that both airlines should merge just because they're the odd 2 left.
AA already has a pretty good operation spread out throughout the US with hubs very well strategically positioned all over the place to take advantage of all important catchment areas.
JFK for the North East,
ORD for the Mid-West, Miami in the South,
DFW for the Southern states,
LAX for the West Coast. And these hubs are supported by also well placed focus cities. Although they may lack a hub in the mountain time zone (
DEN for
UA), they remain the best strategically operated airline in the US. In my opinion, they don't need a merger... besides they already did that with TWA a few years ago, so time for the others to play their cards. This leaves US without a partner, which is the reason why they have been so hungry lately for mergers - they may realize that if they're not the first to seek it, they may be left to play in the sand box alone against all the big bullies. Personally, I have no idea what should be their best place for them. They'd be excess capacity and burden on any of the other 3 groups (UA/CO,
DL/NW,
AA).
Eventually this trend will also shift to the Asian market, as we have already seen with the Chinese market - the big 3 controlling groups; and as can be seen with what's been happening with
CX and
CA, and
CX and Dragonair.
Sorry for the huge novel... I don't write on many threads as can be seen in my profile, but when I do, it's long...