Originally Posted by
sluggoaafa
However, with acquisition, one firm (airline) takes over another and establishes its power as the single owner. Generally, the firm which takes over is the bigger and stronger one. The relatively less powerful, smaller firm loses its existence, and the firm taking over, runs the whole business with its own identity. Unlike the merger, stocks of the acquired firm are not surrendered, but bought by the public prior to the acquisition, and continue to be traded in the stock market.
That is your interpretation, not the ruling of the CAB or the current state of the law.
The CAB holding is quite clear that a merger is the combination of facilities, operations or services which were previously separate. It does not matter how that combination is brought about.
Since then, Congress has enacted and the President has signed the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 (in part amending the Railway Labor Act) that defines mergers as transactions which transfer the ownership or control of at least 50% of the stock or assets of one air carrier to another and result in the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier.