BA/IAG heard from:

[AAviator]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-25/british-airways-may-buy-stake-in-american-airlines-times-says.html


IAG May Purchase Stake in American Airlines, Sunday Times Says
By Mathew Carr - Mar 25, 2012 7:52 AM ET

LinkedIn
Google +1
Print
QUEUE
Q
International Consolidated Airlines Group SA (IAG), owner of British Airways, may buy a stake in American Airlines (AMR1) to pre-empt a similar move by a rival, the Sunday Times reported, without saying how it obtained the information.
IAG has been prompted to consider the step as US Airways Group Inc. (LCC) and Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) also may bid for U.S.-based American, according to the report. William Walsh, IAG’s chief executive officer, is weighing several options, the Times said.
Laura Goodes, a spokeswoman for IAG, declined to comment when reached today by phone.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mathew Carr in London at m.carr@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Lars Paulsson at lpaulsson@bloomberg.net

 

[TWU informer]

This really makes the C11 filing by AA look more like a strategy rather than a necessity.

The more time goes on and the more insider response that comes AA and it allies, the more this smells like a turd.

Does anyone think that a Corporation can conitnue to use lies, welfare, and laws to stomp on employees, share holders, cerditors, and judges and still survive?

There is still such a thing as reaping what you sow.

 

[Kellerguy]

This really makes the C11 filing by AA look more like a strategy rather than a necessity.

The more time goes on and the more insider response that comes AA and it allies, the more this smells like a turd.

Does anyone think that a Corporation can conitnue to use lies, welfare, and laws to stomp on employees, share holders, cerditors, and judges and still survive?

There is still such a thing as reaping what you sow.

I don't see why anyone would interpret this move in that way. If DL or some other carrier took control of AA, then the oneworld alliance IAG would be threatened. This is much like when AA & TPG offered JAL financing.

 

[wings396]

I'm sure that these others interested parties wouldn't object to having the US network in thier corner instead of Star. This may be some financial assistance for all we know.....

 

[TWU informer]

I don't see why anyone would interpret this move in that way. If DL or some other carrier took control of AA, then the oneworld alliance IAG would be threatened. This is much like when AA & TPG offered JAL financing.

It is all moves combined that I make my opinion on not this one alone.

And most management defenders will never agree with most of my opinions regardless.

You have your opinions and I have mine. It is not an opinion competition.

 

[Barfbag]

I'm sure that these others interested parties wouldn't object to having the US network in thier corner instead of Star. This may be some financial assistance for all we know.....

The big picture here is King Williem ( Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airlines , overseer of One World and Court Jester Horton's Boss ) may be in his limited, but influential manner attempting to keep the ball on his side of he court.

All the flag waving fools on Capital Hill who don't allow for foreign carrier ownership are the same guys who protect the Bankruptcy court, the creditors and lien holders and your dismal fate.

There should be but two carriers left, BA and LH world wide.

Everyone qualified would have great jobs and certainty would finally be back in the airline industry. Passengers would start paying for better service at fairer pricing, not fees ala carte. Airlines need to earn money $$$ to sustain themselves, not run into the courts for safe haven when they cant perform.

But as long as US law, prevents foreign ownership indirectly through the bankruptcy courts. Lawyers and consultants ( both company and unions ) will continue to rape and pillage the system.

 

[TWU informer]

The big picture here is King Williem ( Willie Walsh, CEO of British Airlines , overseer of One World and Court Jester Horton's Boss ) may be in his limited, but influential manner attempting to keep the ball on his side of he court.

All the flag waving fools on Capital Hill who don't allow for foreign carrier ownership are the same guys who protect the Bankruptcy court, the creditors and lien holders and your dismal fate.

There should be but two carriers left, BA and LH world wide.

Everyone qualified would have great jobs and certainty would finally be back in the airline industry. Passengers would start paying for better service at fairer pricing, not fees ala carte. Airlines need to earn money $$$ to sustain themselves, not run into the courts for safe haven when they cant perform.

But as long as US law, prevents foreign ownership indirectly through the bankruptcy courts. Lawyers and consultants ( both company and unions ) will continue to rape and pillage the system.

And all the bottom feeders with a cob stuck in them said..............................AMEN

 

[wings396]

Fwiw, BA had a pretty close relationship with US back in the 90's. Not sure what caused it to end, but we did a wet lease and a fair amount of code sharing at the time.

 

[Buck]

This really makes the C11 filing by AA look more like a strategy rather than a necessity.

The more time goes on and the more insider response that comes AA and it allies, the more this smells like a turd.

Does anyone think that a Corporation can conitnue to use lies, welfare, and laws to stomp on employees, share holders, cerditors, and judges and still survive?

There is still such a thing as reaping what you sow.

What has puzzled me all along is what seems to be a total disregard for the share holders. Asking them to wait out the strategy, if you are correct could be a windfall for those share holders.

 

[etops1]

AAviator is gonna love this one ..
What if BA is helping US with financing for an AA takeover?? It will bring US and it's network to oneWorld . Just sayin. You never know in this industry.

 

[tom barry]

I believe I opined......at an earlier date, that AA had friends with deep $$$ pockets.

US wont even get a "sniff" at AA's tender little Nest !

IMO I'll take a AA/BA/JL and Qantas allience over Star or Sky Team any day.

Anyone who thinks that after all the discriminatory HOOPS that AA and BA were made to jump through, that One World would be "upset" Now, is Smoking CRACK !!!!!!!!!

BK by design ??? You bet your ARSE it was !

 

[Kellerguy]

What has puzzled me all along is what seems to be a total disregard for the share holders. Asking them to wait out the strategy, if you are correct could be a windfall for those share holders.

I doubt there is any probable outcome where the shareholders get a thing. They lost whatever voice they had or might of had 11/29/11.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What has puzzled me all along is what seems to be a total disregard for the share holders. Asking them to wait out the strategy, if you are correct could be a windfall for those share holders.

You got two conflicting points. The shareholders usually end up with nothing after bankruptcy because they're the owners. Would you rather that the employees lose everything to keep the owners' losses to a minimum?

The current shareholders won't get any windfall - they lose whatever they invested in the current stock.

Now, you can certainly argue that if the owners are gonna lose everything, at least senior management should be in that boat too - why should the people who ran the company in to bankruptcy come out whole while their bosses (the shareholders) get nothing? To me, that's the absurdity of bankruptcy...

Jim

 

[WorldTraveler]

BA/IAG can choose to help AMR but it doesn't solve the real problems....

AA doesn't have a shortage of money right now... perhaps they will need a couple billion more to help fund their pensions longterm but that funding has to be backed up by a greater ability to generate revenues... and I have yet to have anyone explain to me how AA will generate more money being partially owned by BA than if it is simply in a joint venture - as it is now.
.
Part two of the issue is that foreign ownership restrictions still apply - and a bid entirely USA based bid would provide more control than one that is shared with a foreign entity.
.
And third part is that even if BA partnered with TPG or a US based investor, it wouldn't solve the increased mass issues which AA needs - and which could be provided by a merger with a US based airline.
Part of the problem facing AA is that their system needs to shrink to the current levels of fuel but they cannot do so without losing valuable mass.
US could help fix that problem - but then AA is faced with a merger and a foreign buyout, the combination of which has never been successfully done. And then there are all the reasons why US is not a good fit for AA, including US' financials, costs, and revenue performance.

 

[Kellerguy]

BA/IAG can choose to help AMR but it doesn't solve the real problems....

AA doesn't have a shortage of money right now... perhaps they will need a couple billion more to help fund their pensions longterm but that funding has to be backed up by a greater ability to generate revenues... and I have yet to have anyone explain to me how AA will generate more money being partially owned by BA than if it is simply in a joint venture - as it is now.
.
Part two of the issue is that foreign ownership restrictions still apply - and a bid entirely USA based bid would provide more control than one that is shared with a foreign entity.
.
And third part is that even if BA partnered with TPG or a US based investor, it wouldn't solve the increased mass issues which AA needs - and which could be provided by a merger with a US based airline.
Part of the problem facing AA is that their system needs to shrink to the current levels of fuel but they cannot do so without losing valuable mass.
US could help fix that problem - but then AA is faced with a merger and a foreign buyout, the combination of which has never been successfully done. And then there are all the reasons why US is not a good fit for AA, including US' financials, costs, and revenue performance.

#1 Would have nothing to do with increasing revenue...as you should know, it is a matter of capitalization of the carrier.

#2 Yes, but it is very likely they would support increasing the 25% to 49% ownership over loosing a flag carrier. IAG is likely to be just as favorable to invest at 25%, as it helps backstop their own investments.

#3 Increased mass can also be achieved with codeshare or merger later on of more desirable carriers to help fill in the network gaps. Mass is also overrated to so extent, skewed in importance to the less profitable carriers. AA would likely be quite profitable.