Originally Posted by
spin88
lots of truly weird thoughts here.
first, UA/US is not going to happen. UA unions will piss a fit (they want a CO merger to get rid of Tilton, etc), and US ads very little to UA at this point, little or no international heft, different aircraft types, a different business model, etc. US is their shuttle and thats about it, and the Anti-trust overlap in DC and PHX would create major problems. Plus, Parker has his hands full and has failed to integrate HP and US. the markets would dump both stocks. its a deversion folks, everyone has to talk to everyone else.
"Not going to happen"? Sounds like a factual declaration
How about we wait and see - because if it 'was not going to happen', then the two companies wouldn't be talking about it. US/UA have many of the same aircraft, the anti-trust issue will be directed at NW/DL first, and the result of that soon-to-be-called Congressional investigation might be the cancellation of all airline mergers. Parker is the odd man out, and he would be removed in favor of Tilton - although no gem himself, he is better than Parker. Or perhaps, the board of the newly combined company would include a 'new- CEO' search to the deal. Gordon Bethune, anyone?
AA and AS make far more since. AA covers California AS north, you combine them and you have a network that rivals UA. AS/AA already do this with codeshares.
AA hardly makes a better partner than CO for AS. AA covers SoCal with Eagle - but so does CO, through the Eagle codeshare. AA and AS codeshare - so what - CO and AS share flights, award seats and FF benefits already.
CO and AA? Way to big, too much market power US to Europe, a near lock on Texas region, too high of a concentration in NYC.
I never proposed CO/AA, nor do I recall anyone on this forum proposing that would be a good idea.
AS and CO? only gets them a partial West Coast coverage, coverage that is not linked to anywhere CO flies. Houston to SEA/Portland is not a huge route. Little synergy, and CO needs heft in the pacific, its not going to build it up out of SEA...
I strongly disagree here, as your conclusion makes no sense. AS covers the west coast and mountain region, from Vancouver BC to Mexico and east to Montana. Their operation at SEA is huge, and would become a new CO hub. The Seattle region is home to many large companies - like Microsoft, Boeing, etc., and a large clutch of military facilities and their suppliers. The catchment might be somewhat smaller than the Bay Area, but the large Asian population and Seattle's large port and growing reputation as a gateway to Asia just screams 'growth opportunity'.
No one is going to give them planes and CO is worth 2.13 Billion last time I looked, thats about 8 772 last time I looked. Get real.... I doubt that CO even has the cash to Buy AS, and I have never heard they are interested in a stock swap, which is what is being done with DL/NW and discussed with UA/CO.
Really? The book value of CAL is just 2.13 billion? Please cite...
More serious, SEA is a logical hub geographically, but not realistically. the meto area is 2 million, but worse you have YVR of similar size, but no messed up customs/immigration, etc, and about 10 times the international traffic. You guys ever been up there? Huge international airport, all because Canada does not flip the bird to the rest of the world. Given the YVR competition and the small population of SEA, it can support a SEA-NRT flight, and a few to other hubs, but thats about it. Not going to be a major point to point hub, too little business traffic, and folks would rather connect in SFO (or in canada at YVR) or ORD, etc.
1. Seattle would make a huge air freight hub. Shippers do not move merchandise through Canada. What else does YVR have? AC, CX (a stopping point from JFK) and SQ? Is that really "10 times the international traffic"? Does SQ fly everyday? No they don't. Did you compare the YVR and SEA catchments side by side? Do you have specific analysis of their relation to each other beyond who 'flips the bird'?
If CO offered flights to NRT, HKG and SIN, I highly doubt people are going to drive from the SEA catchment, wait an hour to cross the border, drive to YVR and then fly AC. On the way back, they can wait another hour at the border to drive home - total roundtrip could be 8 hours of driving. Hardly anyone is going to do that.
They may *want* to fly CX or SQ for specific product or FFP reasons, but are more likely to fly AS(CO) from SEA to YVR and connect there.
Finally, CO has to merge into an allance. They are not going to get into *A absent UA, Skyteam has cut them out, and no way BA/AA let them into one world. This is the hardest thing for them, they have lost their alliance, and a go it alone stratagy in Skyteam is not going to work.
CO is in a really big bind now, and UA is the only logical candidate.
What CO should have done was bid for NW, but having failed to do so, its UA or a slow slide into oblivion.....
Firstly, Skyteam hasn't cut anyone out - it's CO who made the declaration they are looking at how to proceed with NW and ST. Secondly, there is no requirement for CO to leave ST if they merge with AS - assuming they can get their hands on the operating authority from SEA to NRT (and to HKG and SIN as well). I wrote yesterday about pushing DL up against the wall to get aircraft as a concession, but CO has the option to remain in ST and work with Boeing to get aircraft to build-out the SEA operation, although part of the deal to remain in ST should result in NW handing over the route to NRT.
So, UA is not the only logical candidate. It is *one* logical candidate, but there are other options. CO management has always favored 'going it alone'. To jump into a major merger just because the industry climate is changing may not be their strategy - they may prefer to acquire a complimentary asset, like AS, which allows for organic growth, from which they can continue 'going it alone', but from a better competitive position.