Well said. If this were to come about I think ALCO was right in sighting the AF/KLM merger as a good idea to bring the two companies together.

IMHO, as an elite on both carriers, CO's philosophy is better business one (despite my laments about lack up BF upgrades) and I think they should be the ones in charge of the new entity.

Likewise, UA for all it's problems, does bring a tremendously strong route network to the table with 5th freedoms from Japan and LHR access (although even if CO were to acquire LHR rights today they're still restrictions of what cities can have service to LHR... IAH cannot but EWR could for example... but that is a whole different thread right there) It's a shame UA did not build more on their network when they had their chance... perhapses they would have avoided the current quagmire they find themselves in.

MP, like OnePass, does offer distinctive core benefits which I, among others, enjoy. I would be sad to see either of programs go. If a merger were to occur, perhapses they could offer an "International" version (e.g. MP/SWU's) and a "Domestic" version (e.g. OnePass/EUA's). <shrug> Either way, I suspect the FF programs are the least of potential merger issues.

Alliance wise SkyTeam and *Alliance both offer respective benefits. Again as a flyer on both UA and CO I enjoy having access to the two different networks for rewards. But despite my personal preference I do think CO is better off in *A than an already Europe heavy SkyTeam.

Product wise if CO was in charge I do not think they'd keep F suites - rather they'd be swapped out for a two class configuration similar to what they currently operate. Should the demand exist they may keep a "true" F product open on some routes... but I doubt it. Also bear in mind that with the 787's CO will (purportedly) re-launch BF and if CO's re-launched BF is anything like DL's new product it will be LIGHTYEARS ahead of UA's C (both in hard and soft product aspects) and slightly behind UA's F, IMHO. This is from someone who has spent his fair share of time in both carriers premium class but as always, YMMV.

E+... that's my favorite feature of UA :)

...but I think if CO was running the show it would be a hard case to sell. BUT on some routes (e.g. longhaul) if a revenue premium could be commanded than perhapses it would stay. On the domestic front I see it being phased out.

I have no clue about fleet configurations. Just that the 747's are becoming old and having more MX issues... or perhapses that's just my luck... I do think the A's and older B's would be retired in favor an all B fleet and I have no clue what will be done about the engines.

As for the employees... wow, that's going to be an interesting dance to watch.

It's almost like each company lacks what the other has in order to be a true powerhouse: CO has the management and the philosophy while UA has the network and the expanse.

<shrug>

Perhapses they could partner up to do something great.

and as always, hope springs eternal.

Continental just cannot hand over the Connie Mike routes and walk away. Those routes were mortgaged as part of a debt issue some time ago before things started to turn around. I remember the announcement of the debt placement specifically mentioning those routes being collateralized.

Either CO or NW would have to pay off that specific debt or NW would have to obtain court permission to do so in its bankruptcy if this were a term of paying off the golden share.

Personally, I don't want a CO/UA merger. Blending two such different fleets, workforces and management styles is a prescription for disaster.

Which used to be Northwest Orient until marketing decided it wasn't going to work long term as a "worldwide" carrier.

I dunno, but I just can't see the deal happening. Against all hopes and wishes and best intentions...

From a logical standpoint, if US/DL goes thru, and CO/UA persue talks, that'll leave AA and NW at the end of the mix. It leaves NW as a takeover target for AA or it leaves NW as a significantly smaller legacy than the newly merged carriers. NW won't like the thought of going with AA since it would likely require their departure from ST and a massive invenstment with KL. Either way, NW won't like it. They'll have no choice but to balk at the merger.

The only way CO goes with UA is if DL/NW becomes reality or if AA simply steps in now and buys NW rendering the golden share useless.

UA is, by far, the bigger airline. UA generates more revenue, has a larger fleet, a more extensive route network, offers more ASMs, and has a bigger market cap. The deal may be structured in a legal way to make it techincally a CO takeover of UA in order to avoid NW's "poison pill," but from a de facto perspective UA is likely to be in the driver's seat. It may be sold as a "marriage of equals" (like the Exxon-Mobil "merger" a few years ago which was a de facto takeover of Mobil by Exxon) but one last to look past the spin at the real deal. UA figures to take over CO, not the other way around.

Poison Pill?
 

Does *CO* really make sense?
 

Would their position as highest cost producer, their extremley sensitive leverage to consumer demand and rather crap (compared to the rest of the industry) performance of the express bit really make them a good consolidation partner?

I'm no contract lawyer, but that langauge looks tough to get out of, and it would seem to suggest that a a CO/UA deal might have to involve a pretty big check being written to NW in order to relese CO from the "poison pill."

Times change. People change. Governments change. Money Talks.

- HF

The way I see it, just because they are talking does not mean that CO wants to or will merge. I would bet that UA approached CO about this. CO has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to examine any and all serious offers. That is what it is doing.

I think the better example is the "merger of equals" of BP and Amoco. During the initial phase of the "merger" they tossed around the name BPAmoco. The Chairman of BP who retained his job was once asked by the newsmedia, "How do you pronouce 'BPAmoco'". The chairman replied, "The 'Amoco' is silent".

- HF

You are mis-interpreting the matter.

If CO acquires UA, then CO becomes "United's corporate successor" and therefore entitled to the Japan rights held by UA. The "transfer" of rights to the "corporate successor" is allowed and not precluded per the bi-lateral.

Captain Obvious says if UA acquires CO, then nothing happens (with respect to this topic)

A bit inconsequential as to which way it happens.

When UA purchased the Japan rights/assets from PA, UA was not the "corporate successor" to PA as PA continued to exist after the purchase. The purchase was a rights/asset transfer (from one "soverign" airline to another)

Ditto UA's purchase of LHR rights from PA: PA continued to exist after the purchase. The LHR purchase was a rights/asset transfer.

You are, of course, correct..and I hope it doesn't happen after this offer is considered, but allow me to rant a bit...

SAY IT AIN'T SO, LARRY!! CO would become all of the things many of us fly CO to avoid! We'd wind up wiht the same thign sthat United has...surly employees who complain about how unfair their jobs are, no more meals at mealtimes, dirty disgusting airplanes, having to talk to Punjab and Fatima at an offshore call center and God only knows what would happen to onepass and its wunderful enhancements to very frequent flyers.

Other than the fact that we'd hopefully get channel 9 on the IFE (after waitig years for all of the planes to cycle throuh maintenance) they would screw up what is not an awesome domestic product!

Continental. This is MY airline, and I will fight to save it.

--PP

I agree here. Where do you think the WHQ would be? Houston or Chicago. I can't imagine the offices not remaining in Chicago. Board of Director members live all over the world and Chicago has more international clout. Plus, I just read that UA signed a lease for a trophy tower on the Chicago River...just two blocks from Boeing!

So, David and Goliath and this time Goliath wins? Go have another cup of egg nog! :rolleyes: