Delta and United discuss merger

Two thoughts on this:

1. Around 20,000 people at Delta's Atlanta headquarters might be out of a job as a result.

2. However, there is no way the DOJ will approve this. They rejected a USAir-United merger in 2000, which was way smaller than this one would be. Therefore, HUGE waste of time and money, IMHO.

For their sake hopefully United can make them it's regional southeast discount carrier.

Looks pretty national to me already.

:rofl:


edited to add: The value of Delta as an acquisition or a merger parter has aways been as a southeast regional carrier.

What is this 25-year disaster you refer to?

I guess you don't have an answer then, just random mud-slinging...like referring to the nation's 3rd-largest carrier as a "regional". Thanks for playing.

and have become the target of takeovers and mergers. Their profit is in the southeast but they did not want to stick to just that and now could very well become part of United.

Prior to this, there was only one takeover or merger attempt, by USAirways in 2006. Hardly the 25 year disaster that you allege.

I know people in Louisiana that are original delta shareholders and they have known this was coming for a long time and accepted it.

:eyes:

Still waiting on evidence of your 25 year disaster, BTW.

for a company? You call that a success?

I'm not talking about what's happened since bankruptcy (which was 1 year ago, btw, not 25). I'm talking about your goofy claim of Delta "trying to be a national carrier for 25 years" Can you actually provide evidence of a 25 years of disaster? Or can you only talk about what's happened in the past year?

then no I guess I can't answer how what they have done for the last 25, 20, 10, or 5 years has been a disaster. I think it's a culmination of whatever time frame that has lead to this. They have tried to generate profits from routes all over the country and have not been able to do so but would not pull back to their base and most profitable regional strength. Now that could possibly be done for them.


Now, why do you have such concern over Delta remaining an airline, or not being taken into United? Delta would make a fine and profitable division of United operating as a southeast/East coast discount carrier. It's a good use of the strength Delta has created in that region and could help to lower pricing.

You've shown nothing to connect Delta's actions over 25 years with the OP, even though I've asked several times. Since you're completely missing my point, I'll spell it out for you: yesterday's situation is due to the bankruptcy (hint: bankruptcy was last year, not over 25 years) (another hint: bankruptcy was due to rising fuel costs over the past 2 years, not Delta's actions over 25 years)

In other words, you made a really dumb assumption, and when challenged, you can't back it up, other than to repeat your original dumb assumption.

As for Delta remaining an airline, see point #1 of my OP.

As for Delta being a "discount carrier", you clearly have zero knowledge of airline economics. Neither United nor Delta have an interest in "lowering pricing", and having a "discount carrier" would not make United profitable, nor is it a "good use of strength in a region".

nothing to do with them not going bankrupt over rising fuel costs? Since nothing Delta did before had anything to do with their going bankrupt over fuel costs then the same rise must have prevented others from going bankrupt because nothing they did before would have anything to do with it. :rofl: :rofl: :crazy:

First, Delta was the only airline out of the big 6 that did NOT have massive layoffs in September 2001, as a result of their "previous actions". They had previously restructured their long-term debt, and thus had more cash on hand than the other 5. Their main financial problem in 2005 (other than fuel costs) was that the pilots refused to reduce their salaries as had American's and United's.

Oh, and by the way? United, USAir, and Northwest also filed for bankruptcy--before Delta did. Delta held out longer than they did before having to file. And Delta emerged from bankruptcy in less time than United, USAir, or Northwest did. In fact, your beloved United was in bankruptcy the longest--more than 3 years.

But heck, don't let facts get in the way of your silly assumptions. I guess by your goofy logic, United, USAir, and Northwest shouldn't have been trying to be a national airline for 25 years either! :rofl:

Next time do some research first.

Sorry I didn't display the proper reverence for Delta when speaking with a Jaw-gin.

I have facts to back me up. You post without thinking. Thanks for playing! :hi:

Gee, I guess that makes United a "midwest regional carrier" and American a "southwest regional carrier" then. What an odd perspective you have.

He's saying that those are their profitable routes, and that is what their infrastructure is best set up to do. Whoever gets Delta gets an extremely profitable network in the Southeast. Along similar lines, Northwest--despite being a nationwide airline--is strongest in the midwest, interior west, and in trans-oceanic routes, and if they are swallowed by another airline, it is those routes that they'd be going after.

but by that reasoning, there's no such thing as a "national carrier" in the US out of ANY of the airlines. All of the big 6 have hub-and-spoke, and a single big hub.

Each have their own regions they're strongest in, and regions they're weaker in. Now, I wouldn't call Delta a regional airline, because they're not.

On the other hand, when we're talking about the value in acquiring a particular airline, things change around a bit. If someone were to attempt to acquire Delta, it would probably be to gain Delta's particularly strong southeastern network. Delta isn't a regional airline, but United here (and Northwest in most rumors) are interested in Delta's regional domination. Their interest in Delta is not in its service to Montana or Spokane, but rather its stranglehold on Atlanta and its presence in the southeast.

"All of the big 6 have hub-and-spoke, and a single big hub."

Really? I think that the folks at ORD that work for AA might have a bit to say about the "single big hub" comment. Same with the UA employees in SFO or DEN or IAD.

Oh, and one more thing - the biggest of the big six (measured by number of passengers carried) most assuredly does not have a hub-and-spoke network. I'll give you a little hint - their airplanes are blue, tan and orange.

You must remember, a (very) large number of those nice lines on those pretty maps are not flown by DL mainline - they are Mesa/Skywest/Comair/Atlantic Southeast/American Eagle/Trans States/et al.

Delta is an abomination on the US domestic airline industry. They should be swallowed up as soon as possible. Eastern and Allegheny in their worst days were orders of magnitude better than Delta is today.

AA's big hub is DFW, not ORD. Just like DL has hubs in CVG and SLC, but their big hub is ATL.

Big 6 are measured by revenue, not pax. See the article in the OP.

All the big 6 have many connection carriers. This is by no means unique to DL.

As for "abominations", I'll have to refer you to Untied.com (sic) Or USAir after AmericaWest started running the show. Flown either of them lately?

Its expansions to the west coast have no served it well. (Why doesn't your map show its routes out of SLC?)

Like the maps in the inflight magazines. Other than the Flash map I mentioned.

I just grabbed the first one I saw on Google images, and you're right, that's only the flights out of Atlanta.

Only other one I could find was the Flash interactive one on their website, which won't post here.

internationally.

They have complementary routes and similar fleets; NWA's MSP/DTW hubs mesh nicely with DAL's SLC/ATL hubs. Plus, since they're similar in size, neither would be swallowing the other, but rather it would be a true merger.

However, even in that case, thousands would be out of a job, either NW or DL.

some people are going to be out of a job in the airline industry soon anyway. There's too many airlines running too many inefficient routes. It would be bad to have to fire a bunch of Mesaba/Compass and ComAir pilots, ground crew, and mechanics. It would be worse for any of the legacy carriers to collapse.

Better to have 10-15% attrition among the six carriers (as they shed unprofitable routes) than to have 100% attrition (or darn near) at the HQ of only one. Especially if the 10-15% is over time, instead of all at once as this would be.

I wouldn't want that to happen to any airline (anybody know what happened to the people at USAir's Washington DC HQ? Because AmericaWest moved USAir's HQ to Tempe AZ. And wanted to do the same to Delta.)

This doesn't seem like a combination designed to complement two networks

As anyone that took 8th-grade Civics class could have predicted. Wasted over $50 million of both carriers' funds, with naught to show for it afterwards.

Not a whole lot, but some at least. Who knows what they'd do now.

http://news.delta.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=10909

"Delta Air Lines today denied published reports that it had engaged in merger talk with United Airlines. Delta Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson said: 'There have been no talks with United regarding any type of consolidation transaction and there are no such ongoing discussions.'"

n/t

Note that the stock of both airlines jumped.

However, the claim isn't *completely* baseless...the new Delta CEO has said that Delta is looking for partners.

that has stakes in both Delta and United, and is pressuring for a merger. I believe they were responsible for this "leak," simply to show both airlines that there would be a favorable market response to such an action.

and have only one company in the world and be done with it?

My guy has worked for Delta for almost 3 decades.