Delta And UA Now In Merger Talks

flydl2atl · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:31 pm

It's official, so I thought it might deserve it's own thread...if not I guess the moderators can delete it:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071114/delta_united.html?.v=6

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:34 pm

Prediction: This goes nowhere.

N766UA · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:37 pm

I'm sure all the airlines have dialogues with each other regarding mergers. Just about every CEO in the industry has said it has to happen. That's all I'd think this is, for now anyway. The news just likes to run with stuff like this. I really don't see UA and DL matching up very well, personally.

pilotboi · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:37 pm

WHY?

There is no point in it.

flyf15 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:37 pm

Good luck to CVG, SLC, and IAD if this happens....

sxf24 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:37 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 1):
Prediction: This goes nowhere.

I think it has legs.

LAXdude1023 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:38 pm

This is almost humorous. What will the folks in Georgia think about the combined company being HQ'ed in Illinois?

B747forever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:38 pm

I really doubt that it will happen.

But if it happens what will happen with the alliances???

UA is in STAR

DL is in SKY.

MAH4546 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:40 pm

This merger makes no sense to me. DL/NW makes sense. AA/DL makes sense. This is just moronic.

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 4):
Good luck to CVG, SLC, and IAD if this happens....

Good luck indeed. CVG is a goner; the airlines will claim "SLC will be a key part of our network, blah, blah" and then become the next PIT/STL. Dulles will stay, though, IMO. Huge local market.

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:41 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 5):
I think it has legs.

It doesnt...the story is interesting: "There is a sense of urgency" meaning that if this does get done, it will be done incorrectly. Looks like UA mgmt mostly gets to run the airline. Yet it is DL mgmt that is the far more competent of the two carriers. UA mgmt can even run their own airline properly.

AGAIN: This is to make a few people at Pardus rich at the expense of everyone else. There is no reason for a merger.

flyf15 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:43 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
Good luck indeed. CVG is a goner; the airlines will claim "SLC will be a key part of our network, blah, blah" and then become the next PIT/STL. Dulles will stay, though, IMO. Huge local market.

I could see the smaller CVG and SLC hubs being very easily combined into the much larger more dominat ORD and DEN hubs (respectively).

It would seem to me that a lot of IAD's trans-atlantic traffic would be cut in favor for already existing services out of ATL and JFK, with ATL also handling a lot of southeast domestic travel. IAD would most likely become a focus city maintain services to major cities in the US as well as probably LHR and FRA.

CV880 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:44 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 5):
I think it has legs.

So does Wall St.....stocks are going up up up.....

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:45 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
Dulles will stay, though, IMO. Huge local market.

What make you think DOT and DOJ allow IAD to stay?

The idea that this can get done by Jan 2009, is ridiculous.

UA wasted precious time in 2000-01 to adjust to the economic downturn pre-911, with the moronic UA/US merger..this will be at least 2x as difficult.

AA, FL and WN should be dancing over this. While these two DL and UA are dicusiing way to destroy their companies, AA, FL, CO and WN are looking for ways to grow smartly, ie internally without the pain of integration of fleets, employees etc.

BigGSFO · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:45 pm

Interesting that they have already decided the name "United" will remain and HQ will be in Chicago. I guess there's more water up there. Wink

hoya · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:45 pm

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 10):
IAD would most likely become a focus city maintain services to major cities in the US as well as probably LHR and FRA.

But what about all the government travel? Most int'l routes would probably stay to take advantage of the Fly America act.

USAF336TFS · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:46 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 1):
diction: This goes nowhere.

I agree with you. Let's hope we're both right. There are better opportunities for both carriers elsewhere.

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:46 pm

Quoting CV880 (Reply 11):
So does Wall St.....stocks are going up up up.....

that's the idea.....drive up the stock quickly and watch Pardus dump theirs......as for the long term health of UA/DL..who cares?

PavlovsDog · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:48 pm

Aside from the SLC/DEN overlap its a solid combination. CVG would undoutedly lose more flights but not hub status. I can see the new carrier spinning off the SLC operations for later sale or floatation to raise cash

Whether or not its a good merger is largely dependent on what type of deal they put together. If it's United buying Delta then the new carrier would be so saddled with debt that survival would be difficult. If it's a true merger with no money changing hands then the new carrier would be very solid.

UA/DL would be a market leader in all the major markets in the US and would have coverage to every region of the World. It could be a very profitable airline if managed well.

PADSpot · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:48 pm

Would the outcome be associated to SkyTeam or StarAlliance?

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:49 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 18):
Would the outcome be associated to SkyTeam or StarAlliance?

Mostly likely STAR....Skyteam would go away with members breaking up and going to OneWorld or STAR. I cant see AF going to STAR.

B747forever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:49 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 18):
Would the outcome be associated to SkyTeam or StarAlliance?

That is what I also asked, look reply 7

MAH4546 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):
What make you think DOT and DOJ allow IAD to stay?

Good point. The hub status of Dulles will stay, IMO, but it could be sold off to somebody else with some assets.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 17):
CVG would undoutedly lose more flights but not hub status. I can see the new carrier spinning off the SLC operations for later sale or floatation to raise cash

I doubt CVG will remain as anything. I personally believe one of DL's goals in merging is closing CVG.

SirDeath · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:52 pm

I wonder if we could see an airline in TWO major alliances. Unlikely, but an interesting prospect.

pilotboi · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:52 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 8):
This merger makes no sense to me. DL/NW makes sense. AA/DL makes sense. This is just moronic.

I'm gunna stand behind you on that one. Moronic is a perfect word.

hoya · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:52 pm

Won't this become the new Pan Am? Didn't UA buy the Asia, S. America and LHR routes, and DL the European routes, from Pan Am?

This merger would be a labor mess. Aren't most of the labor groups at DL non-union? How would they merge the workforce (militant unions with non-union ppl)? Route combinations make sense, but beyond that not much else.

B747forever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:53 pm

Quoting SirDeath (Reply 22):
wonder if we could see an airline in TWO major alliances.

That cant work.

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:54 pm

If DL and UA are really desperate t omerge then they will make some huge concession...B6 and FL should demand that ALL DL slots at ORD be sold off to LCCs. AA should demand that sice DL has a decent presence at DCA, and UA at IAD that DCA slots go to them...etc etc.....this wont get done before Jan 2009....

comorin · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:54 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 5):
I think it has legs.

Very much so. If DL/UA is not as good a fit as UA/Someone Else, then there is even more urgency for Pardus to shoehorn this deal by EOY to head off other players.

However, I suspect this will trigger other bids for a merger, and the shareholders will decide what makes sense.

sampa737 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:56 pm

That brings Sao Paulo to Chicago, Washington, New York and Atlanta on one airline. Does anyone think they would cut any of these and increase frequency to another? I sure would miss Delta being a "southern class" international airline.

sxf24 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:56 pm

I don't know why people think this doesn't make sense.

Outside of the inter-mountain west, there is very little overlap in route systems. The International networks are very complimentary and the combined carriers would have very strong positions in the largest O&D markets.

The biggest losers would be UA staff in Elk Grove, DL FAs, SLC and the regional carriers.

DiscoverCSG · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:56 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):
The idea that this can get done by Jan 2009, is ridiculous.

What makes you think this is the beginning of the talks? The news could have been leaked in an attempt to scuttle the deal, or else as a test to see what stocks would do ... if the latter, an announcement is probably coming shortly.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 21):
The hub status of Dulles will stay, IMO, but it could be sold off to somebody else with some assets.

AA, anybody? They alone among the majors don't have a solid hub in the eastern time zone. IAD would be perfect for North-South connections, with international traffic.

blueflyer · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting Flyf15 (Reply 10):
It would seem to me that a lot of IAD's trans-atlantic traffic would be cut in favor for already existing services out of ATL and JFK

UA (or the combined entity) would lose some of its biggest corporate contracts if it shuts down the IAD hub. There are organizations that have signed on with UA because of the IAD hub and that will redistribute their traffic to other European and Asian carriers out of IAD if the hub shuts down.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):
What make you think DOT and DOJ allow IAD to stay?

What would they not ? Would they require one or more specific hubs to be closed, or would they be more generic and request that a certain number of hubs be closed, without specifying which ones ?

B6FA4ever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:57 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 13):
Interesting that they have already decided the name "United" will remain and HQ will be in Chicago. I guess there's more water up there.

wouldn't that have to be the case anyhow more particularly with United's valuable NRT 5th freedom rights? i remember someone mentioned in another thread regarding a NW/DL team-up and the NW name would somehow have to remain if they wanted to keep the NRT hub. otherwise all those NRT slots would go back into a pot for the grabbing and the 5th freedom rights would no longer apply.

tho i could be wrong, please correct me if i am. Smile

~B6FA4ever

hoya · Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:59 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 29):
Outside of the inter-mountain west, there is very little overlap in route systems. The International networks are very complimentary and the combined carriers would have very strong positions in the largest O&D markets.

The US Government will need to approve. Just like with UA/US proposed merger, the combined DL/UA would cause monopoly issues (ORD 'slots', DCA slots due to IAD hub, three hubs on east coast, ect)

B747forever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:01 pm

Quoting Hoya (Reply 33):
The US Government will need to approve

I really doubt tha the government would say no to this.

LAXdude1023 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:01 pm

Does anyone think that they might cut some ATL-Europe service in favor of IAD-Europe should this happen?

BigGSFO · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:02 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 29):
The biggest losers would be UA staff in Elk Grove, DL FAs, SLC and the regional carriers.

They've already stated HQ will be in Chicago. The staff in Atlanta will be the losers.

airportplan · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:03 pm

Here is more information hot off the press. This seem to be very serious.

http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=27131

7e72004 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:06 pm

Will USAirways "re-enter" the bid for Delta?

Airstud · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:06 pm

Paint schemes, folks.

I am not going to allow a reduction in number of airline paint schemes currently plying the skies.

The merger is disallowed.

(Did the Pardus board of directors somehow NOT read my post on the NW merger thread?)

B747forever · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:06 pm

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 37):
This seem to be very serious.

yes, I am now really getting afraid of this.

LAXdude1023 · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 29):
The biggest losers would be UA staff in Elk Grove, DL FAs, SLC and the regional carriers.

I disagree. The losers are the staff in ATL where loads of jobs would be cut and CVG. Its already been noted that the company would be located in Chicago. If the state of Georgia and the city of Atlanta have any brains, they will try and stop this.

Stitch · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm

All I will add is that I do not believe the domestic US aviation market can sustain six full-service international operators, so consolidation must happen. Otherwise, we will continue to lurch from boom to bust to boom to bust again as has happened since Deregulation.

DL and UA make as much sense as anybody and they would stay in STAR because the US does not need three SkyTeam carriers and US cannot begin to serve STAR like UA can.

RDUDDJI · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm

Dang it, I read the Pardus report 3 hours ago, I should've bought some stock then...

UA/DL would be a powerful, powerful combination...but also one that would have trouble getting regulatory approval without shedding alot of weight. CVG/SLC gone. Both carriers could be forced to dump some of their Int'l CTY pairs and downsize their largest hubs to allow competition. And then come the other mergers...

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 31):
What would they not ? Would they require one or more specific hubs to be closed, or would they be more generic and request that a certain number of hubs be closed, without specifying which ones ?

You obviously dont remmeber the UA/US merger proposal in 2001 when DOT/DOJ required thaqt US give up GATES in PHL.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 35):
Does anyone think that they might cut some ATL-Europe service in favor of IAD-Europe should this happen?

No

Quoting AirportPlan (Reply 37):
Here is more information hot off the press. This seem to be very serious.

Until reality causes it to come crashing down

I dont understand why some here at A.net, unless they are hedge fund managers, this this is a good idea....it is a herrendous idea. sit cuz mergers are exciting and you need some excitement in your life?

yellowtail · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm

Big question is Dl was moving closer to AF.....if this happens would AF bail and look towards CO.....

and yes I agree...this is Moronic! CO buying AS....now there is something a bit more logical

DL787932ER · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:08 pm

This rumor doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Ed Bastian has made several public statements just in the past week indicating that while DL is strongly considering merger possibilities, they would only act as acquirer and not acquiree. It would also ruin all the new loyalty built up in the DL community - employees, customers in hub cities, even politicians - from the "Keep Delta My Delta" campaign. I'm inclined to think this "source" is a hedge fund investor who's in favor of some quick gains he might get from this proposal and wants to attract attention to it.

RDUDDJI · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 12):
UA wasted precious time in 2000-01 to adjust to the economic downturn pre-911, with the moronic UA/US merger..this will be at least 2x as difficult.

Are you serious? That was under a totally different administration (Dems.) and before the airline economic downturn of early '01. Airlines don't (can't) merge during times of prosperity.

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 46):
This rumor doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Ed Bastian has made several public statements just in the past week indicating that while DL is strongly considering merger possibilities, they would only act as acquirer and not acquiree. It would also ruin all the new loyalty built up in the DL community - employees, customers in hub cities, even politicians - from the "Keep Delta My Delta" campaign. I'm inclined to think this "source" is a hedge fund investor who's in favor of some quick gains he might get from this proposal and wants to attract attention to it.

That os cuz even the mgmt of DL isnt in control of this..it is Pardus. And all your points are right of course. But pardus doesnt care about the health of a post merger UA/DL...this is about a quick bump inthe share prices so Pardus can dump the shares.

DeltaRules · Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:12 pm

Surprised nobody's speculated about fleet combination yet:

Here's what each operates at a glance:
744 (UA)
777 (both, DL has more coming)
764 (DL)
763 (both)
757 (UA RR powered, DL PW powered)
738 (DL)
73G (to be delivered to DL)
733/735 (UA)
A319/320 (UA)
MD-88 (DL)

Fire away.

[Edited 2007-11-14 12:13:44]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net