Shareholder

While the prospect of such $s would certainly suggest a struggling carrier could last a few more years, it would also add to the risk of the offering. The new AC emerged from its bankruptcy protection in a considerably better situation all around: union contracts, fleet leases, unecumbered assets, cash in the bank, a several profitable divisions [maintenance and Aeroplan, as well as its regional carrier JAZZ]. It's share offering soared, and in a duopoly, fare stability was assured aside from gas prices.

This is certainly not the situation any of the American carriers would find themselves in. And a FF program, particularly as these are limited among US carriers to servicing the carriers needs and not being national consumer points programs [as Aeroplan was moved towards], these companies [were they to be spun off] would need to assure investors that those airlines would be around for the long haul. None of the legacy carriers can provide this guarantee in the way AC has been able to in the Canadian market. So if UA were to spin off MP, would investors feel confident that UA will be around in five years to provide the revenue base for MP? Or DL or CO or AA or NW or US? As long as there is competition rampant in the US market, none of these carriers' futures are assured, and thus the income stream that bouys the FF program cannot be assured in the way Aeroplan's can be.

And while I know the US investment community is a much more risk-taking place, how many pension funds would be willing to buy units or shares of a company that relies on a crippled company in a lame business sector for its surity? So I am not really questioning the valuation numbers per se, but just the assumption that the risk factor is the same as it was for Aeroplan.

That's another reason I cannot really see this working down there.