United and Continental

UnitedChicago

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
756
0
www.usaviation.com
So I would imagine that United and Continental would be talking at this point? I mean it's pretty clear that NW is the preferred partner for Delta and there's a new article out tonight that Air France may put up some cash to help a DL/NW deal.

It would be silly for United to focus only on DL at this point and not start conversations with Continental. AND Lufthansa isn't going to sit on the sideline if a UA/DL deal started to bear fruit as i'm sure DL would want to stay in Sky Team.

Personally i'd prefer continential over delta.

Anywho - hope you're all well - havent posted in a long time. Yes - Tilton and gang suck so can we focus on who UA might end up with in these scenarios?
 
With a United Continental merger there might not have to be any hub's closed down. Uniteds hubs IAD ORD DEN LAX SFO Continentals hubs IAH CLE EWR almost a perfit match domestically. Right now the high yields are internationally and both airlines have a very good fit there also . 2 problems are continental says they dont want a merger and NWA golden shares in CAL .
 
With a United Continental merger there might not have to be any hub's closed down. Uniteds hubs IAD ORD DEN LAX SFO Continentals hubs IAH CLE EWR almost a perfit match domestically. Right now the high yields are internationally and both airlines have a very good fit there also . 2 problems are continental says they dont want a merger and NWA golden shares in CAL .

I'm guessing NWA is going to have to cough up those shares if they merge with Delta. Anyways UA and CO merging would bring back the CLE operation... Memories anyone?
 
With a United Continental merger there might not have to be any hub's closed down. Uniteds hubs IAD ORD DEN LAX SFO Continentals hubs IAH CLE EWR almost a perfit match domestically. Right now the high yields are internationally and both airlines have a very good fit there also . 2 problems are continental says they dont want a merger and NWA golden shares in CAL .



i've read that continental "wont be left on the sidelines" if consolidation starts to happen...so i think they'll reluctantly get in the game. it's my understanding that the golden shares held by NW are voided if NW enters into a transaction. would be tricky as i'm sure DL/NW will structure any deal to keep the golden shares in effect or drag it out long enought that UA/CO would need to pay them off in some fashion...
 
They could try but the rules look pretty clear cut.

From CO's annual report:

The Series B preferred stock is redeemable by us at a nominal price under the following circumstances:

* Northwest Airlines, Inc. or certain of its affiliates transfers or encumbers the Series B preferred stock;
* Northwest Airlines Corporation or certain of its affiliates experiences, or enters into a definitive
agreement that will result in, a “change of controlâ€￾ as defined by the certificate of designations
establishing the Series B preferred stock;
* Our alliance with Northwest Airlines Corporation terminates or expires (other than as a result of a
breach by us); or
* Northwest Airlines Corporation or certain of its affiliates materially breaches its standstill obligations
to us or triggers our rights agreement.

And "change of control" was defined as selling or acquiring 25%+ ownership .

I guess the question to ask is how do they define "nominal".
 
They could try but the rules look pretty clear cut.

From CO's annual report:

The Series B preferred stock is redeemable by us at a nominal price under the following circumstances:

* Northwest Airlines, Inc. or certain of its affiliates transfers or encumbers the Series B preferred stock;
* Northwest Airlines Corporation or certain of its affiliates experiences, or enters into a definitive
agreement that will result in, a “change of controlâ€￾ as defined by the certificate of designations
establishing the Series B preferred stock;
* Our alliance with Northwest Airlines Corporation terminates or expires (other than as a result of a
breach by us); or
* Northwest Airlines Corporation or certain of its affiliates materially breaches its standstill obligations
to us or triggers our rights agreement.

And "change of control" was defined as selling or acquiring 25%+ ownership .

I guess the question to ask is how do they define "nominal".




thanks for posting. seems like a lot of different ways to interpret. either way looks like ua/co would need to fork over cash or assets to settle. when i say assets, i doubt highly it would be an entire division - maybe route authorities here or there, maybe some planes...?
 
Jan. 17, 2008, 10:48PM
With merger talk rife, Continental listens closely
As carrier reports a pretax profit, its chief says independence first choice
ALL THIS TALK ABOUT DELTA>>> MY BET WILL BE CO-UAL AND LF GERMANY AIRLINE-JETBLUE

By BILL HENSEL JR.
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

TOOLS
Email Get section feed
Print Subscribe NOW
Comments Recommend
After announcing a quarterly pretax profit Thursday, Continental Airlines said it wants to remain independent but will take action on the merger front if necessary.

"We believe our competitive position continues to improve," said Larry Kellner, Continental's chairman and chief executive.

Houston-based Continental also reported it isn't seeing a slowdown in travel in 2008.

Regarding mergers, the company acknowledged it is closely monitoring the industry landscape as Delta Air Lines is exploring a deal with Northwest Airlines or United Airlines. It emphasized that it will do what's in the best interest of its stakeholders.

In response to a question during a conference call about its size compared to competitors if there's a Delta merger, Kellner said he "would have some concern."

"If we see something or hear something, we won't hesitate to act aggressively," he said.

Size is important in a network business like airlines, Kellner added, and Continental has been focused on growing for the past decade.

UBS analyst Kevin Crissey said Thursday that he thinks it's likely Continental and United Airlines — which had merger talks in late 2006 — will wed.

"We believe this is the year the U.S. airlines finally announce the mergers that have so often been rumored and we see Continental as well-positioned," Crissey wrote in a note to investors.

In discussing continued independence, Kellner cited Continental's international growth, including routes to China, India and access to London's signature Heathrow Airport. Additionally, Continental has the most fuel-efficient fleet of any of the major carriers and the best position of new aircraft on order, he said.

But industry structural changes may be coming nevertheless, whether because of consolidation or persistent high fuel prices.

Kellner said a sluggish economy doesn't seem to be having a significant effect on Continental right now. Short-term bookings look solid, and top corporate customers are not pulling back on international travel, he said.

Crissey, however, said Continental's positive commentary about near-term demand runs contrary to bearish economic expectations. He said he expects Continental and other carriers to start seeing weakness in bookings soon.

Continental might be a little different, though. Kellner noted that his planes serve many local companies that benefit from the same high oil prices that undercut profits in fuel-intensive industries like airlines.

The carrier is expected to fare better than most U.S. airlines issuing earnings currently. It reported a fourth-quarter pretax profit of $71 million Thursday, compared with a net loss of $26 million for the same period last year. Excluding one-time gains and losses, Continental reported earning $24 million in the fourth quarter, compared with a $4 million loss in 2006's October-December period.

Kellner lauded Continental's largest fourth-quarter operating income in more than five years, especially pleasing considering the high cost of jet fuel.

"The outstanding performance of our team has once again set us apart from the competition," Kellner said.

Continental also announced Thursday it will distribute $158 million in profit sharing, which is $47 million more than last year.

Shares of Continental rose Thursday 31 cents, closing at $24.56, despite a generally dismal day for stocks.

Answering wide-ranging questions from analysts and journalists, Kellner also said Continental wants to expand in Latin America, has plans to upgrade seating in some international aircraft but would not reveal details, and will seek additional slots at London's Heathrow Airport.

Continental did not release net results because it has not determined how much its noncash charge will be for increasing its tax-valuation allowance. That charge, which will be announced in mid-February, is expected to fall between $70 million and $140 million.

The uncertainty stems from a new law raising pilots' retirement age to 65 from 60, which will result in airlines changing underlying assumptions built into their pension programs.

Continental said that for the year it had a pretax profit of $566 million, a 53 percent increase compared with the $369 million reported in 2006.

Continental President Jeff Smisek said revenue growth significantly outpaced capacity growth, or its number of seats.

[email protected]
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that CO can buy back the "Golden Share" from NW for $100 with agreement from NW. If the DL/NW merger goes through then the "Golden Share" would automatically be given back to CO.
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that CO can buy back the "Golden Share" from NW for $100 with agreement from NW. If the DL/NW merger goes through then the "Golden Share" would automatically be given back to CO.

Essentially, yes. The Golden share is a trump card that NW can play to block mergers/acquistions involving CO but is redeemable by CO for $100 if NW engages in mergers/acquisitions, etc.
 
I honestly think that a CO/UA combination has been inevitable for a long time. Their networks complement each other perfectly. That being said, I don't see how CLE would fit into the combined company's plans, at least not as the hub it currently is today. ORD would render CLE pretty much unnecessary, save for maybe a focus city that mainly utilized long-range RJ's. So, to me, it would appear CLE would be tough to justify keeping intact as it's currently structured. Of course, political pressure will ultimately determine what the carve-outs are.
 
I honestly think that a CO/UA combination has been inevitable for a long time. Their networks complement each other perfectly. That being said, I don't see how CLE would fit into the combined company's plans, at least not as the hub it currently is today. ORD would render CLE pretty much unnecessary, save for maybe a focus city that mainly utilized long-range RJ's. So, to me, it would appear CLE would be tough to justify keeping intact as it's currently structured. Of course, political pressure will ultimately determine what the carve-outs are.

I think you are right that there would be no need for two "hubs" that close together, but an arrangement much as we (AA) have with ORD and STL might be preferable. You would be surprised how many passengers fly through STL to avoid having to go through ORD or DFW. CLE could be a mainline focus city, not just rjs.
 
Knowing United, they would probably keep the CLE hub and run a lot of traffic through it. So much that CLE center would shut down traffic between ORD and the East Coast. :unsure:
 
jimntx,

The difference being that ORD generates enough O & D traffic to be profitable, whereby STL has never done that. It's overwhelming dependence upon connecting traffic makes for extremely slim margins. That's why there is always so much flux with mainline vs. express flying, as well as service adds/deletions. It's because the margins are so slim that they seem to always flutter right on the bubble of being profitable. STL was a great hub for TWA. But given that it was the only true hub they had, it simply did not generate enough money. So if UA/CO combine, which I view as only a matter of when they announce it, a decision will have to be made about CLE and how it would fit into the combined company's plans. You'd essentially have three hubs in a row: EWR, CLE, ORD. CLE would certainly not be needed. And of course, how would EWR affect the IAD hub. Lots of redundancy there, as well. It will certainly be an interesting transaction to say the least.
 
jimntx,

The difference being that ORD generates enough O & D traffic to be profitable, whereby STL has never done that. It's overwhelming dependence upon connecting traffic makes for extremely slim margins. That's why there is always so much flux with mainline vs. express flying, as well as service adds/deletions. It's because the margins are so slim that they seem to always flutter right on the bubble of being profitable. STL was a great hub for TWA. But given that it was the only true hub they had, it simply did not generate enough money. So if UA/CO combine, which I view as only a matter of when they announce it, a decision will have to be made about CLE and how it would fit into the combined company's plans. You'd essentially have three hubs in a row: EWR, CLE, ORD. CLE would certainly not be needed. And of course, how would EWR affect the IAD hub. Lots of redundancy there, as well. It will certainly be an interesting transaction to say the least.

You also have to factor in the fact ORD and EWR are overcrowded and can't support any more flying. Both airports also have significant ground delay and weather delay problems and CLE would allow not just for a reliever airport but also as a point from which they can grow and expand service which isn't really an option out of ORD and EWR.