DL Reorganization Plan

[757inthebarrel]

Yep, there's nothing like having a bunch of stock, in volatile times, in a voliatile industry, especially with an unknown future managment team, with unknown energy prices per barrel, to sway one away from, a 1/2 or better cash offer...
Sorry Folks,

1.

2.

3.

4.

frag

men

ta

tion...

Good luck to all concerned.

Thanks for throwing that last part in so I know I can completely disregard you from now on.

 

[Bulscu]

Thanks for throwing that last part in so I know I can completely disregard you from now on.

I know you don't like to hear this, however it's inevitable. The surviving companies have to be 'rightsized' to get pass the dot/doj, unfortunately dal will never be the same, neither will the rest in the industry though, Good luck.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Not to mention the fact that if it does go through, others probably will too, and we'll be the weakest of all the majors. Just doesn't make sense.
And, enough already with the fragmentation. Anyone who knows anything about the airline industry knows this is not EASTERN, with all their union problems, and we're not Pan Am, who had no domestic feed for their passenger-hungry 747's. If USAir and CO can pull off 2 BK's, then I'm sure we'll make it through one.

I don't think that Parker would necessarily stop reconfiguring the markets of the new Delta and may continue acquiring other assets. Also, he may be happy to create ameniable circumstances in Delta's recovery even if LCC and Delta do not combine; while LCC looks to combine with others or go it alone. Considering the other possible combos, if DL/LCC goes forward, those combos will result in other redundencies. We'll see.

My instincts still tell me that the proposed LCC/DAL deal will not be consummated at anticipated.

 

[eolesen]

Who was the very first person to yell out a question and try to tell the expert (who had decades of experience in the DOJ) that he didn’t know what he was talking about? None other than Gary Chase.

The "expert with decades of experience" is being paid by DL to paint the worst case possible.

I've known Gary for several years. First, I've never heard him raise his voice. He's about as even keeled as analysts go, to the point that he's almost seen as un-emotional.

So I find your characterization of him to be misleading and totally off base. But, I'll listen to the webcast if it's ever published on the website.

I'll even ask him personally, since it's such a ludicrous statement on your part.

Second, when it comes to evaluating corporate mergers, people pay him to be neutral and unbiased in his research and opinions. I'll gladly believe Gary over a hired gun.

 

[abe]

Second, when it comes to evaluating corporate mergers, people pay him to be neutral and unbiased in his research and opinions. I'll gladly believe Gary over a hired gun.

Now this is good stuff!

Are you telling us that analyst's are paid to provide unbiased opinions??

Where you from, boy? You ain't from around here are ya (Wall Street, that is)?

Abe

 

[ClueByFour]

Second, when it comes to evaluating corporate mergers, people pay him to be neutral and unbiased in his research and opinions. I'll gladly believe Gary over a hired gun.

He works for a party holding DL debt and actively trying to cram the merger. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[eolesen]

Since we're calling a spade a spade, I'm actually neutral on the merger. My company stands to lose DL's business if the merger goes thru since US already uses a competitor for the services we provide.

Are you telling us that analyst's are paid to provide unbiased opinions??

Yep, especially since they are paid to offer opinions which look out for the interests of their customers:

> I, Gary Chase, hereby certify (1) that the views expressed in this
> research email accurately reflect my personal views about any or all
> of the subject securities or issuers referred to in this email and (2)
> no part of my compensation was, is or will be directly or indirectly
> related to the specific recommendations or views expressed in this
> email.

If you don't believe that, then read the full policy on conflict of interest available at Lehman's website

 

[ClueByFour]

Since we're calling a spade a spade, I'm actually neutral on the merger. My company stands to lose DL's business if the merger goes thru since US already uses a competitor for the services we provide.
Yep, especially since they are paid to offer opinions which look out for the interests of their customers:
If you don't believe that, then read the full policy on conflict of interest available at Lehman's website

I don't care what he says, as long his paycheck is coming from the party in interest.

 

[eolesen]

Unles you're using Lehman as your stock advisor, why do you all care so much about what he's saying?...

 

[eolesen]

Who was the very first person to yell out a question and try to tell the expert (who had decades of experience in the DOJ) that he didn’t know what he was talking about? None other than Gary Chase.

As promised, I asked Gary about this, and your account above is a lot different from his account of it...

In his words, he asked "given the transparency and ubiquity of the data on revenue (the basis of the DL presentation), why do other experts disagree (i.e., it can't be a dispute over the facts). What other factors play into the decision and how might we think of those?"

That's a far cry from telling the expert he didn't know what he was talking about, WT.

So, Gary's question remains.... If all the facts are facts, then why do the anti-trust experts working for DL have a diametrically opposed view of the merger than the anti-trust experts working for US?

And the bigger question... How will the DOJ anti-trust experts view it? If you take the approach that the answer is somewhere in the middle of what DL and US are spinning it, then the anti-trust argument starts to lose a lot of steam.


And for the record, WT, if you'd like to debate Gary personally on this, PM me your email address and I'll forward it to him. He's quite approachable.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Assuming a question that starts with a comment about the "transparency and ubiquity of the data on revenue" and doesn't even mention the words "anti-trust" or "DOJ" really was about anti-trust issues, the answer is somewhat simple. A Stand-alone DL will have no anit-trust issues and won't even need a review by the DOJ. A merger will have anti-trust issues and need a DOJ review - Parker has said as much.

You see - what get's me about all analysts is they want everything handed to them on a silver platter. They take the info put out by companies, massage it slightly, and call it "analysis". When there's different views on what the truth is, they want someone to tell them which view is the "real" truth.

The info needed to get an idea of anti-trust issues is out there - our tax dollars pay for the DOT division that collects it and makes it available. Anyone can analyze that data to tell which side is spinning the most. Isn't the job of "analysts" to analyze? Or is it just to report what others say and call it analysis?

Jim

 

[RowUnderDCA]

In any case, I think it'll be interesting what DOJ and DOT do. One of my theories supporting the transaction I call 'leapfrog.'

Mind you, I'm not for the merger.... being mildly against it for personal reasons.

Anyway, some of you, including Boeing Boy, have continually complained about the old US not being more like WN, with a p2p system. I'd argued that transforming the old, or current, US into a p2p was an extremely disruptive situation and would lead to an untenable competitive position, unless the old US could leapfrog into markets that WN was not already serving.

So, if the DOJ would not have problems with WN heavily serving BWI and PHL, why would they have problems with LCC heavily serving ATL and CLT? Is the character of the operations so different?

Merging DL and LCC could create the opportunity to much more easily transform into a major market p2p with very significant connectivity across a more homogenously distributed network.

Maybe this is what legacies will look like in the future, domestically.

 

[MMB]

Thanks for throwing that last part in so I know I can completely disregard you from now on.

You didn't like "Good luck to all concerned."? You do have issues.