Better For DL To Merge With NWA And Not UA?

boeingfever777 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:11 pm

Delta Should Pursue Northwest, Not United,

Has some good points and with NW getting the 787's this would help DL and their international expansion efforts.

Also being that DL, NW, AF, and KL are all in Skyteam would not that maKe much more sense?

iliribdl · Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:28 pm

I think Delta will pursue US.

I'm betting my money on that. Wink

ADXMatt · Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:32 pm

Pardus did talk about that too.... but Pardus feels that UA/DL is better.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...stories/2007/11/17/delta_1118.html

estimating that the latter deal would produce $1.5 billion in annual benefits, but said a United merger was the "most attractive and practical combination."

A Delta-United deal would be attractive for Pardus Capital.

The company owned 7 million Delta shares and 5.6 million United shares as of Sept. 30, according to the most recent filing.

deltal1011man · Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 1):
I think Delta will pursue US.

I'm betting my money on that.

that one makes sense look back right for DL come out of BK and see who tried to merge with them

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2):

it would be better for Pardus but NOT for UA and DL.......i do not see the feds letting the #2 and #3 (in the US) merge.Plus Delta wants to say Delta and stay in Atlanta. For that to happen NW will be the one. As far a there unions go as long as they keep the DL name then bye bye unions.

MKE22 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:29 pm

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 3):
Plus Delta wants to say Delta and stay in Atlanta. For that to happen NW will be the one. As far a there unions go as long as they keep the DL name then bye bye unions.

Exactly. All I hear is that DL is looking to receive, not be received by someone else. It would make sense for DL and NW to go together Hub wise, and they have pretty similar fleets.

Quoting BoeingFever777 (Thread starter):
Has some good points and with NW getting the 787's this would help DL and their international expansion efforts.

Exactly my point. NW and DL will have a very nice marriage. Smile

deltal1011man · Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:33 pm

i would also like to add this right from the CEO at Delta Air Lines "As long as I am CEO, there are certain conditions that are not negotiable," he said. "[The merged carrier] would be named Delta, the headquarters would remain in Atlanta, and the seniority rights of our people would be protected."

now I'm sure that DL would gladly take UA if they would give up the name, and ORD HQ and didn't try to f**k the delta work force.

iliribdl · Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:26 pm

If they merge with US, DL can keep the name and the HQ would remain in Atlanta.

It makes more sense to me.

MKE22 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:38 pm

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 5):
i would also like to add this right from the CEO at Delta Air Lines "As long as I am CEO, there are certain conditions that are not negotiable," he said. "[The merged carrier] would be named Delta, the headquarters would remain in Atlanta, and the seniority rights of our people would be protected."

now I'm sure that DL would gladly take UA if they would give up the name, and ORD HQ and didn't try to f**k the delta work force.

The UA-DL deal looks good too, but how would that shape up in places like JFK, or LGA?

Lexy · Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:46 pm

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 4):
Exactly my point. NW and DL will have a very nice marriage.

I agree totally. DL could benefit form the slots that NW controls in Asia more than anything else. Plus the stranglehold that KLM/NW have on AMS could be to DL's advantage with it's European network. I can see nothing that would really make this deal, DL & NW, that bad in the LONG RUN for both companies.

calpsafltskeds · Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:52 pm

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 5):
i would also like to add this right from the CEO at Delta Air Lines "As long as I am CEO, there are certain conditions that are not negotiable," he said. "[The merged carrier] would be named Delta, the headquarters would remain in Atlanta, and the seniority rights of our people would be protected."

And you don't think this is posturing? Of course,he has to say this, but the reality is that the CEO is to do what's best for the stockholders, and employees. Why is ATL so important and how important is a big name that's based on a regional identity? Regionally based names such as Piedmont, Allegheny, PSA, Eastern, Ozark, North Central, America West, NY Air, Texas International, Western, Air West, AirCal, Reno Air, etc. have all been absorbed into more global type names like, Untied, Continental, US Airways.

Regionally based names left are regionally based carriers like Alaska, Hawaiian, Aloha and Frontier while a few seem more national or global: Southwest, Northwest and Delta. A merged major international carrier of Delta and Northwest may best look for a new identity to be more global.

fxramper · Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:09 pm

I agree with the article. UA is a mess, but DL won't help them much. DL should go after NW.

Alitalia744 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:23 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):
Why is ATL so important and how important is a big name that's based on a regional identity?

While DL's roots started in the southern delta region, I think it is fair to say that the brand name is beyond regional now.

The brand has awareness and salience outside of the southeast and outside of the country as well.

Would you say the "Continental" name should change given it was original based off of serving the NA continent?

jetlanta · Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:23 pm

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 11):

While DL's roots started in the southern delta region, I think it is fair to say that the brand name is beyond regional now.

The brand has awareness and salience outside of the southeast and outside of the country as well.

Would you say the "Continental" name should change given it was original based off of serving the NA continent?

In fact, I'd argue that "Delta" being a letter of the Greek alphabet and the universal "name" for the letter "D" in the aviation industry is more appropriate universally than just about any other U.S. airline name. In fact, my brief investigation reveals that "Delta" translates letter for letter in French, Spanish, Italian and of course Greek. I'll assume that this is true in all the Latin-based languages. Sounds like a perfect name for a global carrier!

lrdc9 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:48 pm

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 4):

Exactly. All I hear is that DL is looking to receive, not be received by someone else. It would make sense for DL and NW to go together Hub wise, and they have pretty similar fleets.

A320/737,M90
A330,747/767,777
How is that similar? Yes, DC-9/M80 CRJ/CRJ, but still, its not exactly a common fleet!

Will never ever happen but DL/CO/AA, US/UA/NW these have more common fleets, with exception of NW,US/UA longhaul.

CIDFlyer · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:02 pm

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 1):
I think Delta will pursue US.

I just don't see why they would do that, there would be nothing to gain as their route maps are similar. I really think that if anything they will be making a run for NW. With the Skyteam ties and minimal route overlap, it seems to make the most sense. They could even pull a KLM/AF type merger where they could still keep both brands for a period of time.

[Edited 2007-11-18 15:03:53]

Cubsrule · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:06 pm

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 3):
it would be better for Pardus but NOT for UA and DL.......i do not see the feds letting the #2 and #3 (in the US) merge

DL-NW might actually have more regulatory trouble because of the coverage that NW and DL have on service in the panhandle, Alabama, and Mississippi. Remember that the government's problem with UA-US was NOT the size of the combined carrier but rather the combined carrier's presence at DCA (thus the idea of creating Capital Air).

MKE22 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 13):
A320/737,M90
A330,747/767,777
How is that similar?

NW has some Airbus planes DL could sell, but they both still use Boeing equipment as well. And the CRJs once again, plus Their Hubs don't overlap whatsoever. NW- MSP,DTW,AMS,MEM,Tokyo DL- ATL,SLC,JFK,CVG,LAX

SLCUT2777 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:20 pm

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2):
but Pardus feels that UA/DL is better.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...stories/2007/11/17/delta_1118.html

estimating that the latter deal would produce $1.5 billion in annual benefits, but said a United merger was the "most attractive and practical combination."

For Pardus, since they have a significant stake in new investment for both carriers as they've emerged from chapter 11. I would have to say the opinion of the Pardus people is overly biased with their vested interest in both carriers. I think Michael Derchlin's comments come from a more strategic perspective, rather than the "make a fastest $$$" way of thinking. While it is a business, most executives beyond the original group of investors will look at longer term viability. While a UA+DL combination has some long term viability, the combination with NW offers the least resistance, and probably the least amount of pain.
Most analysts looking purely from the overall strategic point of view will find that DL+NW runs the least amount of friction with the USDOJ, and would probably eliminate the least amount of jobs right away. While I'm pretty sure they wouldn't follow the AF+KLM model (it would be more advantageous to merge completely under one operating certificate), they won't be under as much pressure as US+HP to consolidate their work groups. These same analysts looking strategically speaking for the last nearly 3 years have pointed towards a DL+NW merger as being the best for U.S. flag legacy carriers. This despite fleet commonality and work culture issues that can be worked out, especially if Boeing gets involved still further, which is why I think they came out in opposition the way they did to DL being sucked up by Doug Parker and his group.

[Edited 2007-11-18 15:21:33]

Evan767 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:21 pm

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 1):
I think Delta will pursue US.

I'm betting my money on that.

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 6):
If they merge with US, DL can keep the name and the HQ would remain in Atlanta.

It makes more sense to me.

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 6):
US Airways CSA

That's exactly what you might want, but employees at Delta might have a different view of things.

phishphan70 · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:53 pm

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 13):

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 4):

Exactly. All I hear is that DL is looking to receive, not be received by someone else. It would make sense for DL and NW to go together Hub wise, and they have pretty similar fleets.

A320/737,M90
A330,747/767,777
How is that similar? Yes, DC-9/M80 CRJ/CRJ, but still, its not exactly a common fleet!

Will never ever happen but DL/CO/AA, US/UA/NW these have more common fleets, with exception of NW,US/UA longhaul.

i am trying to understand why people say DL and NW have "similar" fleet types. 757's, and as said above, the CRJ's and DC-9's/MD's are similar, but as much as i hate to say it, and how many people think we'll be riding them until the year 3000, but the DC-9's are going to be gone before too long because of maintenance and that little thing called fuel prices.
DL and UA though have Really similar fleets. 737's, 757's 767's 777's, RJ's just to name a few...and an increase in intl capacity (meaning far more 777's for DL, and UA's 744's) would really be beneficial to DL. Now with all of that said, i honestly can't say i expect this to go through because DL's pride and wanting to keep name and location...but when i heard this first being talked about, i thought it was a no-brainer success. With UA having such a strong Asian network with a west coast hub in SFO, and DL having a massive European presence along with UA's Europe network, basing European services mainly out of JFK, ORD and/or IAD could really put DL/UA in a new league and give them the opportunity to offer a better product worldwide.

oh, and not to be left out....Pardus owns a combined 12.6 million shares of these two airlines, which is a Huge influence on their actions, and hopefully will lead them to each other in the end!!!

jimbobjoe · Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:56 pm

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2):
The company owned 7 million Delta shares and 5.6 million United shares as of Sept. 30, according to the most recent filing.

I bothered looking this up--that translates to 2.5% of Delta and 4.8% of United.

According the the major holders page off of Yahoo finance, that 4.8% is a big fish in regards to United shareholders. Not so much with Delta, which has some very big shareholders (JP Morgan has 21% of Delta shares.)

I guess the politics of it all can go different ways. All Pardus needs to do is convince a few shareholders with Delta (between JP Morgan and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp they've got 46% down), but might face a more complex task with United.

Of course, I have no idea if the PBC would vote for or against a merger, since they are kind of a governmental agency.

calpsafltskeds · Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 12):
In fact, I'd argue that "Delta" being a letter of the Greek alphabet and the universal "name" for the letter "D" in the aviation industry is more appropriate universally than just about any other U.S. airline name. In fact, my brief investigation reveals that "Delta" translates letter for letter in French, Spanish, Italian and of course Greek. I'll assume that this is true in all the Latin-based languages. Sounds like a perfect name for a global carrier!

I guess we all learn something new everyday. If international travelers think Delta was named after the 4th letter of the Greek alphabet, then you've got a new advertising campaign. In fact, the other majors should change their names to be more global: United = Upsilon, Continental = Kappa, Northwest = Nu and American = Alpha.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 11):
Would you say the "Continental" name should change given it was original based off of serving the NA continent?

If Delta can be interpreted to be a Greek letter regardless of the airline's origin, than CO can surely relate to being European as one of the word "continental's" definitions is "pertaining to the mainland of Europe, to Europeans, or to European customs and attitudes." "Continental breakfasts" are European.. Since another definition applies to the NA continent, what could be better for an American airline flying between continents?

Additionally, (found on a website) "Continental Philosophy" stresses current work drawing upon philosophical texts and traditions originating on European grounds (since Hegel, Marx, and Nietzsche). "Continental philosophy" as a style of philosophizing has not closed itself off. In fact, continental philosophy operates in terms of an orientation toward openness."

Wow, European and American continents with an open philosophy - sounds like a perfect name for an international airline.

avek00 · Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:31 pm

It's best for Delta to merge with no one.

SPREE34 · Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:33 pm

Quoting IliriBDL (Reply 1):
I think Delta will pursue US.

At this stage of the game that would be sort of like pursuing a date with a social disease. US has issues to deal with before anyone looks at them seriously. 2c

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 5):
and the seniority rights of our people would be protected."

That could be out of his hands.

Quoting Lrdc9 (Reply 13):
A320/737,M90
A330,747/767,777
How is that similar?

With the size of the combined fleet in some of these merger possibilities, equipment similarities/differences aren't paramount to success, or possibly even an issue.

gsosbee · Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:37 pm

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2):
but Pardus feels that UA/DL is better

Pardus is only concerned about what is good for Pardus. Ignore any and everything else coming from them.

Super80DFW · Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:00 am

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 16):
plus Their Hubs don't overlap whatsoever. NW- MSP,DTW,AMS,MEM,Tokyo DL- ATL,SLC,JFK,CVG,LAX

Well, there is no way they would have 10 HUBS! They would dump CVG, MEM, and SLC right away anyway. AMS would help the Europe Expansion. Tokyo would be good for an Asia expansion. Whoever DL looks to marry, they will have a Tokyo hub because of NW and UA. Whichever they would go with, this would be the best fleet and hub locations:

DL/UA-

757, 737, 767, 777, CRJ, EMB.
ATL, ORD, DEN, JFK, LAX, NRT, and possibly SFO.

DL/NW-

757, A319, A320, A330, MD** (until they get all 738's), 738, and CRJ.
ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, AMS, and NRT.

The only reason in MY eyes that DL/UA shouldn't happen is the alliance problem. The only reason DL/NW would happen would be because they are both Skyteam, and they would have an amazing international strength.

bobnwa · Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:13 pm

Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 25):

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 16):
plus Their Hubs don't overlap whatsoever. NW- MSP,DTW,AMS,MEM,Tokyo DL- ATL,SLC,JFK,CVG,LAX

Well, there is no way they would have 10 HUBS! They would dump CVG, MEM, and SLC right away anyway. AMS would help the Europe Expansion. Tokyo would be good for an Asia expansion. Whoever DL looks to marry, they will have a Tokyo hub because of NW and UA. Whichever they would go with, this would be the best fleet and hub locations:

DL/UA-

757, 737, 767, 777, CRJ, EMB.
ATL, ORD, DEN, JFK, LAX, NRT, and possibly SFO.

DL/NW-

757, A319, A320, A330, MD** (until they get all 738's), 738, and CRJ.
ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, AMS, and NRT.

Why would DL/UA keep the JFK hub, but DL/NW would drop it.

BigOrange · Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:57 pm

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 4):
Exactly. All I hear is that DL is looking to receive, not be received by someone else. It would make sense for DL and NW to go together Hub wise, and they have pretty similar fleets.

We have NW with DC9, A319, A320, A330, B747, B757

We have DL with 737, 757, 767, 777

How is that similar fleets.

Now look at CO and DL and NW and UA

CO has 737, 757, 767, 777

UA has A319, A320, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 7):
The UA-DL deal looks good too, but how would that shape up in places like JFK, or LGA?

UA don't have that big a presence in NY any more, just flights to and from their hubs

Why not a 3-way tie-up between UA, DL and NW?

You could eliminate the DC9's and the MEM hub would be replaced by ATL, the UA 737's, the DL SLC and CVG hubs and merge them into DEN and DTW respectively. You then merge the UA and DL long haul B767/B777 fleets to serve Europe, and the NW and UA B747 fleet to serve Asia.

The NW 330's could be traded in to Boeing for more B777's.

That leaves CO and AA who could merge, but either DFW or IAH would have to go.

USeless Airways would be a standalone operation

B6 and F9 could merge as could WN and FL.

Then you move on to the regionals.

Air Wisconsin would be bought by PSA and still operate as a USX carrier

Republic, ASA, Expressjet and Skywest are big enough to stand alone

All the Mesa brands would stay except for Air Midwest which is of no use anyway.

Compass/Mesaba/Colgan would become one.

EXAAUADL · Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:04 pm

Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 2):
Pardus did talk about that too.... but Pardus feels that UA/DL is better.

of course becasue Pardus can make more money out of UA/DL than our of DL/NW regardless of which merger actually makes sense....please dont post Padrus' position as though they have the best interest of airlines at heart.

Quoting MKE22 (Reply 4):
Exactly my point. NW and DL will have a very nice marriage.

youre joking right......the employee groups wont get along at all...

why may i ask is it the default that there must be mergers?

Super80DFW · Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:35 pm

Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 26):
Why would DL/UA keep the JFK hub, but DL/NW would drop it.

Because NW's DTW hub would cover that I thought.

membase · Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:02 pm

Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 25):
Well, there is no way they would have 10 HUBS! They would dump CVG, MEM, and SLC right away anyway.

Dump CVG and MEM and run all that volume through....where? Certainly they aren't going to eliminate that much capacity. And how much more can they cram through the existing hubs, especially ATL? I think this might become a point of contention for regulatory approval. At a time when the President is having to step in to deal with airport congestion, let's move flights from uncongested airports like MEM into maxed-out hubs like ATL!

SPREE34 · Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:05 pm

Quoting MEMbase (Reply 30):
At a time when the President is having to step in to deal with airport congestion

But he's not. He's running his trap about an action that happens every evening about sunset and holidays already.

4everRC · Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:22 pm

Can someone, ANYONE explain to me (and be nice please, I'm tired of snotty responses to questions on this site) why it seems to be assumed that if NW merges with anyone the name and the red tail will disappear?!?!?!

EXAAUADL · Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:49 pm

DALAP called Pardus what they should be called: a maurading hedge fund.

rwy04lga · Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:19 am

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 12):
"Delta" being a letter of the Greek alphabet and the universal "name" for the letter "D" in the aviation industry

And yet, the ATL underground shuttle system refers to Terminal D as 'D, as in David'. I guess the other airlines thought that naming it Delta would be indirect advertising.

rwy04lga · Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:27 am

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 14):
They could even pull a KLM/AF type merger where they could still keep both brands for a period of time.

My thoughts exactly!

SPREE34 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:00 am

Quoting 4everRC (Reply 32):
if NW merges with anyone the name and the red tail will disappear?!?!?!

Nobody really knows. Until some sort of deal actually happens we won't know.

4everRC · Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:14 am

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 36):
Nobody really knows. Until some sort of deal actually happens we won't know.

I understand that. My point is that it seems to be a given in many people's opinion on a.net that if NW is involved in a merger of any kind, that they will not be the surviving carrier. Why is that?

ER757 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:19 am

Quoting 4everRC (Reply 37):
Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 36):
Nobody really knows. Until some sort of deal actually happens we won't know.

I understand that. My point is that it seems to be a given in many people's opinion on a.net that if NW is involved in a merger of any kind, that they will not be the surviving carrier. Why is that?

Good question - just taking a guess here as I can't really speak for others, but maybe it's because NW is in such poor financial shape that the thought is they would be taken over rather than doing the taking in an eventual merger and therefore would lose the name. But as SPREE34 says, no one really knows until a deal happens - and that's far from certain

eghansen · Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:53 am

I don't understand why everyone in ths forum and in Wall Street seems to feel that an airline must be gargantuan to survive. Many of the world's successful airlines (Singapore, Cathay, LAN, Alaska, AirTran, Frontier, ANA) are much smaller than Delta, United or American. It seems that being small and focused on a certain market works very well.

Delta has a very strong position in Atlanta and JFK. They are strong in the South America, Caribbean, European and Florida markets. They have good tie-ins and code-shares to cover some of the missing regions, specifically Asia.

I worked for Continental when it went through its multiple mergers and it was a total nightmare. It took a bankruptcy to sort everything out and put Continental back on its feet. The problems with certification, unions, fleets, computer systems and airport terminal leases are just horrendous in a big merger and I can't imagine why a big airline would want to go through the trouble. The expected increase in efficiency never seems to be as great in the end as everyone thought it would be in the beginning.

bobnwa · Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:26 pm

Quoting ER757 (Reply 38):
Good question - just taking a guess here as I can't really speak for others, but maybe it's because NW is in such poor financial shape that the thought is they would be taken over rather than doing the taking in an eventual merger and therefore would lose the name. But as SPREE34 says, no one really knows until a deal happens - and that's far from certain

Compared to what airline, is NWA in "such poor financial shape"? During the last two quarters, NWA has led the industry in profit margin, has sizeable cash on hand, and has manageable debt compared to other airlines.

Please show the numbers that prove your point!!

jetlanta · Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:47 pm

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 34):
And yet, the ATL underground shuttle system refers to Terminal D as 'D, as in David'. I guess the other airlines thought that naming it Delta would be indirect advertising.

Actually, even taxiways in ATL are referred to as "David". It's actually to eliminate confusion, in both cases.

bucky707 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 2:08 pm

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 41):
Actually, even taxiways in ATL are referred to as "David". It's actually to eliminate confusion, in both cases.

Taxiway D in ATL is referred to as "Dixie" not "David".

bhmbaglock · Thu Nov 22, 2007 3:14 pm

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
DL-NW might actually have more regulatory trouble because of the coverage that NW and DL have on service in the panhandle, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Alabama should not be a problem. There are only two airports where either carrier is dominant and that's because they're the only choice. A merger would not change this at all. DL has pulled back seriously over the last decade and really doesn't show much in the way of inclination towards gaining back market share.

SLCUT2777 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 4:57 pm

Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 25):
Well, there is no way they would have 10 HUBS! They would dump CVG, MEM, and SLC right away anyway.

SLC would stay in a DL+NW merger since it is an interior west strategic point of connection. However in a UA+DL scenario, SLC would be dumped in favor of DEN since it is a much larger O&D market, a substantially newer and better facility designed to be a multi-airline hub. CVG and MEM would likely be scaled back anyhow substantially since eliminating capacity is part of the merger issue.

bucky707 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:13 pm

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 44):
CVG and MEM would likely be scaled back anyhow substantially since eliminating capacity is part of the merger issue

Not taking shots at you SLC, but I always laugh when I hear about eliminating capacity is part of a merger. What do you think would happen if DL and NW merged, and took out say 10% of the capacity of the combined airline? It would be added back within six months by Airtran, Jetblue, Virgin, Skybus, Southwest, etc. And now the LCCs, which are driving fares ever lower, would have an even bigger percentage of the overall market, further eroding the pricing power of the legacies.

deltal1011man · Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:30 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):

yea the largest TATL carrier(of the US carriers) and #2 in the Latin American carrier but no one has ever heard of Delta?
sure hope your joking

Quoting 4everRC (Reply 32):
why it seems to be assumed that if NW merges with anyone the name and the red tail will disappear?!?!?!

with me its just the fact of A)Delta is larger and B) take DL name NW unions go away

calpsafltskeds · Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:06 pm

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 46):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 9):

yea the largest TATL carrier(of the US carriers) and #2 in the Latin American carrier but no one has ever heard of Delta?
sure hope your joking

I was being a little tongue in cheek, but I find it even funnier that another post related Delta to the 4th letter of the Latin language instead of the Mississippi Delta to make the name more global. Do people really care about the name??? Southwest to the Northeast, Alaska to Mexico, Delta to Asia, etc. etc.

Obviously UA was a merger of several airlines. CO was probably named after the Continental Divide, but can be viewed as being part of the North American continent OR European Continent. Many carriers have become household names and could become larger global carriers through mergers. However, the carriers you and I may think have important names aren't so important to passengers, especially those in markets that the carrier doesn't serve. Due to current and recent reputations and/or financial condition, I would think names like Northwest may not survive a merger and ones like United may survive by size instead of reputation. Management and acquirer surely have an impact on the surviving name, or a new name.

NW-DL = DL: size, reputation, surviving management
DL-UA = ?: DL management and slightly better reputation, vs. UA size
AA-anyone = AA: how can you get rid of a generic name representing America?
CO-NW = CO size, reputation, surviving management
CO-DL = ? DL size, CO slightly better reputation, unknown management

KarlB737 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:38 pm

Here is another twist for the mix................................

Courtesy: Reuters

United Airlines L00king For A Merger

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/071122/united_deal.html?.v=4

Philly65 · Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:43 pm

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 48):
Here is another twist for the mix................................

Courtesy: Reuters

United Airlines L00king For A Merger

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/071122/unite...?.v=4

I wish UAL would just get on with it already. I think everyone is convinced the management wants to cash out. I just wish they would announce a deal already and let everyone get on with life. This is getting old and I believe the constant reports of UAL wanting to merger is nothing but a short term attempt to keep the stock price at a certain level.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net