luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Merger with LCC in the spring
- Thread starter phasersonstun2
- Start date
- Status
767jetz
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,286
- Reaction score
- 2,779
Oh my! How little you know. The UAL ALPA MEC Chairman, (Steve Wallach) sits on the board of directors. He is bound by confidentiality agreements, but he certainly knows everything that is going on in the board room. To say the Chairman doesn't know squat and neither does the union simply demonstrates ignorance.
Here is the news report on the SEC form 8K: link
I knew this thread had at least one last dying breath left. From the WSJ:
Quote:
People familiar with the matter said there is no merger deal already drawn up between United and Continental. But the two were expected to resume talks, said one person, following up on informal discussions in the recent months about governance, with the idea that Mr. Kellner would be CEO of the combined entity if they got together.
Other people with knowledge of the situation suggested that the two could reach an agreement on a deal in the next few weeks. That would put their proposed transaction on the same timeline for regulatory scrutiny as the Delta-Northwest deal, with an eye toward receiving clearance from the Justice Department before the White House changes hands in January. The thinking is that the government wouldn't approve one deal and block a second.
To broaden its options, though, United also is looking at a more remote possibility of buying US Airways, said one person familiar with the matter. It wouldn't be the first time. United tried to acquire US Airways in 2000 but the plan was dropped in the face of regulatory resistance.
Another person familiar with the matter said United and US Airways have been in talks about a potential merger for over a month. The companies have done "a lot of work together" on what the synergies could be and are floating around a number that could be at least as attractive as synergies in a United-Continental linkup, this person said. Those synergies would be driven by the strength of US Airways' route network in the East, this person said, adding that the synergies would also be "meaningfully higher" than the $1 billion-plus in annual revenue and cost savings number that Northwest and Delta have said they expect to generate in a merger
Quote:
People familiar with the matter said there is no merger deal already drawn up between United and Continental. But the two were expected to resume talks, said one person, following up on informal discussions in the recent months about governance, with the idea that Mr. Kellner would be CEO of the combined entity if they got together.
Other people with knowledge of the situation suggested that the two could reach an agreement on a deal in the next few weeks. That would put their proposed transaction on the same timeline for regulatory scrutiny as the Delta-Northwest deal, with an eye toward receiving clearance from the Justice Department before the White House changes hands in January. The thinking is that the government wouldn't approve one deal and block a second.
To broaden its options, though, United also is looking at a more remote possibility of buying US Airways, said one person familiar with the matter. It wouldn't be the first time. United tried to acquire US Airways in 2000 but the plan was dropped in the face of regulatory resistance.
Another person familiar with the matter said United and US Airways have been in talks about a potential merger for over a month. The companies have done "a lot of work together" on what the synergies could be and are floating around a number that could be at least as attractive as synergies in a United-Continental linkup, this person said. Those synergies would be driven by the strength of US Airways' route network in the East, this person said, adding that the synergies would also be "meaningfully higher" than the $1 billion-plus in annual revenue and cost savings number that Northwest and Delta have said they expect to generate in a merger
BobbyBuckInAtlanta
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
Who ever said we were gung ho ? We had great hope's with the HP merger and the prospect of getting our company back in the black. Until we realized what awful management HP had and how they were destroying what product we had left. Not to mention their horrendous contempt for their employee's. I could go on but i think the what the US employee's would like to see is a stand alone US with a capable management team capable of finishing this disaster of a merger and capatlizing on our strength's. This is the third merger i've been through in 20 year's with US..Trust me when i tell you i'm not GUNG HO for anything but a decent and safe work place and a wage that i can live on.
BobbyBuckInAtlanta
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2007
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
No one likes to change, it's human nature. But, everyone has got to bend to get your company where it needs to be, and probably now more than ever. You all were dealt these cards and now you need to stop whining and go forward. The other airlines are eventually going to go through exactly what you are, starting with DL/NW
Here is a much better idea......
Let UA have US-East and CO have US-West. That would leave American with having to either buy Alaska, AirTran or Frontier. Therefore you would have the best outcome and would shrink from the big seven to the big five and you aren't left with just three mega carriers.
UA and US East would have a truly national coverage.
DL and NW would have the only truly global network
AA and __ would then be to counter the remaining.
CO and US West would have a truly national coverage
WN would be the other, but with limited states, (MN,HI,KS,GA,MA,WI,IA,SD,ND,WY,MT,NC)
If AA were not to go to the ball, maybe Midwest Airlines, AirTran, JetBlue and Frontier could all come together to form one final airline.
By the time all the chairs settled, you would be left with five or six, long term stable carriers. Yes airfares may go up but why should the airlines be around for public transportation? Airfares should go up, didn't your gas for your car go up by 33% in the last year, and yet airfares didn't follow the same amount. If they did, I couldn't get a ticket to MCO for around $200 round trip before taxes for Christmas.
Also, in 1978 didn't we only have four trunk carriers? TW, UA, AA and EA with the other carriers being just labled as regional?
JMO
Let UA have US-East and CO have US-West. That would leave American with having to either buy Alaska, AirTran or Frontier. Therefore you would have the best outcome and would shrink from the big seven to the big five and you aren't left with just three mega carriers.
UA and US East would have a truly national coverage.
DL and NW would have the only truly global network
AA and __ would then be to counter the remaining.
CO and US West would have a truly national coverage
WN would be the other, but with limited states, (MN,HI,KS,GA,MA,WI,IA,SD,ND,WY,MT,NC)
If AA were not to go to the ball, maybe Midwest Airlines, AirTran, JetBlue and Frontier could all come together to form one final airline.
By the time all the chairs settled, you would be left with five or six, long term stable carriers. Yes airfares may go up but why should the airlines be around for public transportation? Airfares should go up, didn't your gas for your car go up by 33% in the last year, and yet airfares didn't follow the same amount. If they did, I couldn't get a ticket to MCO for around $200 round trip before taxes for Christmas.
Also, in 1978 didn't we only have four trunk carriers? TW, UA, AA and EA with the other carriers being just labled as regional?
JMO
Cosmo
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 840
- Reaction score
- 0
Not really, IMHO. With the only "truly global network" (your words), it would give DL+NW a tremendous advantage over the other remaining U.S. carriers. To maintain strong competition in both the domestic and international arenas, the U.S. needs at least a second "truly global network" carrier (CO+UA) and probably a third (AA+??). This would also help keep competition among the three worldwide alliances somewhat balanced.
No. While those four carriers were considered, appropriately enough, the "Big Four", IIRC, there were a total of 11 trunk carriers at that time: AA, BN, CO, DL, EA, NA, NW, PA, TW, UA and WA. There were also eight "local service" carriers: AL, FL, NC, OZ, PI, RW, SO and TI. And remember, these are 1978 airline codes, not 2008 airline codes!
Who really cares? There's only a handful of them. Union or not they don't make a big dent in the grand scheme of thing.
One minor correction: Pan Am was not considered a trunk carrier in 1978, as they had no domestic routes except for service to Alaska(FAI) and Hawai'i (HNL and ITO). This was prior to their 1980 takeover of National.
They were in a category of their own as an international carrier.
featheroleather
Advanced
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2004
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
Nothing personal but why would CO want anything to do with US West? CO knows that international is where the money is to be made,not domestic.
- Status
