Potential Delta/United merger?

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by vertex

Gotta love the hypocrisy and short-sightedness of Delta management...

Ah, still bitter that little Dougie Parker didn't get his prize?

The pinnacle of hypocrisy and short-sightedness is alive and well and living in downtown Tempe. How many years has it been since the *cough* "merger" *cough* and you guys STILL haven't merged East & West?

And to top it off, now you guys are having a little hissy-fit with the Philadelphia Airport. Give us the gates we want and keep Delta out of Concourse A, or were pulling the China flight.

Yeah, right.

[airindia787]

Wouldn't the combined Delta/United be basically the new Pan Am? I know that Pan Am sold their Pacific Routes to United and their Atlantic routes to Delta just before they went bankrupt.

[JMGarcia]

^Internationally that's true. Domestically Pan Am never had much of a presence and a UA/DL combo would be huge. Pan Am also had a bigger presence in SA than either UA or DL.

[Go7SD]

Yeah, I remember seeing a lot of Pan Am jets lined up at the gates of Tokyo's Narita airport back in the early eighties. Maybe if Pan Am and Eastern merged back in the day they would still be around today.

[vertex]

atlantaguy and atl2phx, if either of you can come up with one reason why Delta should continue to exist as a stand-alone airline, I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise, this thread isn't about US Airways or about me. It's about how to put some lipstick on this pig named Delta.

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by vertex

atlantaguy and atl2phx, if either of you can come up with one reason why Delta should continue to exist as a stand-alone airline, I'd love to hear it.

Otherwise, this thread isn't about US Airways or about me. It's about how to put some lipstick on this pig named Delta.

punt on first down - good job!

seriously, to your point, given today's economic conditions and the overall state of the aviation industry, i don't think there's justification for any airline out there to continue as a stand-alone carrier. that doesn't mean, however, that us airways is the perfect partner.

[Major AWACS]

Southwest and Continental can both exist as stand alone airlines, just to name two. CO will consolidate if the industry does but it is an airline that has not done bankruptcy this cycle i.e. post Sept 11. In fact CO has made money and is constantly voted the best US legacy. southwest as a LCC has always made money.

Ciao,
AWACS

[Go7SD]

Originally Posted by Capt AWACS

Southwest and Continental can both exist as stand alone airlines, just to name two. CO will consolidate if the industry does but it is an airline that has not done bankruptcy this cycle i.e. post Sept 11. In fact CO has made money and is constantly voted the best US legacy. southwest as a LCC has always made money.

Ciao,
AWACS

I take it that Continental is doing better than it's next door neighbor to the north AA.

[Major AWACS]

Yes, though AA has never done bankruptcy. Gordon Bethune Turned CO around and it has done outstanding for a decade.
AA is having big time labour issues (pilots are the big one right now).
AA is also behind on ordering new jets. they need more capacity to grow their big markets like Latin America (where they are #1)

SO, All three Texas airlines are doing well, but again AA is behind on labour and growth right now. All three could survive on their own, but consolidation could force AA or CO to merge, though not with each other. Would never happen IMO, and the gov't would not allow.

Ciao,
AWACS

[ScizzoTX]

Didn't AA post the highest profits of any US carrier last quarter?

[atl2phx]

Originally Posted by Capt AWACS

Southwest and Continental can both exist as stand alone airlines, just to name two. CO will consolidate if the industry does but it is an airline that has not done bankruptcy this cycle i.e. post Sept 11. In fact CO has made money and is constantly voted the best US legacy. southwest as a LCC has always made money.

Ciao,
AWACS

agreed. i'm not saying there aren't airlines that can't standalone, i'm just saying given today's market, the benefits of consolidation generally outweigh the benefits (if any) of going it alone.

[bnk]

I don't think this one will go down. Delta means much more to Atlanta than United to Chicago. The employees and politicians down there would poison any HQ relocation.





http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...cago_1116.html

By MATT KEMPNER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/16/07

Chicago — Talk of a potential merger between Delta Air Lines and United Airlines smacks like a midair collision of cities with jumbo jet egos.

Delta quickly batted down conjecture that merger discussions already were under way after a hedge fund publicly pushed for the airlines' marriage.

But talk of eventual consolidation among major airlines remains hot, juiced recently by high oil prices.

If mergers come to pass, some American city or cities will be losing a major airline headquarters.

Don't expect Chicago to easily let go of United, which traces its roots there to the 1920s.

"We'd fight like hell," said Paul O'Connor, executive director of World Business Chicago, a nonprofit organization focused on wooing and retaining companies in the area. "It's personal. It's a matter of pride. They are us."

If Chicago and Atlanta end up as rivals in an airline tug-of-war, they might find they have a lot in common. Both are known for effusive boosterism.

...

[vid]

They should merge them all into one airline, and let the government run it. How efficient it would be!!

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by vid

They should merge them all into one airline, and let the government run it. How efficient it would be!!

Americaflot...

[alleystreetindustry]

well, if "delta were to tackle united", no doubt the hubs would remain even for chicago/atlanta (although the headquarters would most likely be in atlanta). i don't see how united (being the smaller one in passengers served, air footprint, etc.), would have its way with delta. however, this is a very complex issue.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by alleystreetindustry

well, if "delta were to tackle united", no doubt the hubs would remain even for chicago/atlanta (although the headquarters would most likely be in atlanta). i don't see how united (being the smaller one in passengers served, air footprint, etc.), would have its way with delta. however, this is a very complex issue.

As most of the early press from the AP states that the airline called United would be HQ'ed in Chicago. It would be rather naive to think that Chicago would not be in the running for it. Ask Seattle, Denver, and Dallas about the Boeing site selection process. It would be foolish to assume that Atlanta is a given if this thing goes though. That said, in my previous post, I believe this thing will not go through due to the impact it would have on Atlanta and would be one hell of a mess down there if Delta was consumed.

Illinois and Chicago also have political clout.


Villaraigosa lavished praise on Daley. “I said to everyone from the very beginning, Never, ever count Richie Daley out. This is a man who has no peer in American cities. He is without question a great mayor. And we are very fortunate to have us leading the American bid.’’

[Sulley]

Delta and CO would be the best fit.

[Major AWACS]

Originally Posted by Optimus Prime

Delta and CO would be the best fit.

I disagree as did Paredus. CO's cost structure would actually cost in a merger with DL. Delta shed costs in bankruptcy CO did not.
Co has a fully funded pension, CO has a different labour cost structure, and CO has a younger all Boeing fleet.

Not to mention Atlanta would lose out in DL CO merger and GA politicians would not allow that because the CO management team would be kept as would the Houston HQs (as noted by Paredus and anyone that follows airtravel). NYC metro would get more europe with IAH keeping the South American traffic.

I would like to see a CO and AS (Alaska merger) but right now AS is having labour issues. CO could use a Western hub and the AS fleet works well with the CO fleet and MX.

But right now NW has the "golden share" in CO so NW has a say in several merger options with CO.

DL and US was a horrid merger scenario thus it failed.

Ciao,
AWACS

[Go7SD]

Originally Posted by vid

They should merge them all into one airline, and let the government run it. How efficient it would be!!

I can see the airport probably being run like a license branch waiting for a long ass time before your number is called out. 50/50 chance to make your flight if your lucky or wait for the next one available. Lady with a whiney voice: NEXT!! calling #204...this is your last call Next in line please. I think I'll go rent me a car

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by Roy McDowell

I can see the airport probably being run like a license branch waiting for a long ass time before your number is called out. 50/50 chance to make your flight if your lucky or wait for the next one available. Lady with a whiney voice: NEXT!! calling #204...this is your last call Next in line please. I think I'll go rent me a car

i think hes joking thats what happenned in Canada with Air Canada it was two airlines before - Canadian and Air Canada