LOL, best post in the thread, IMO. Now, back to getting bent out of shape over innuendo and rampant speculation ;)

Inevitable
 

Consolidation is inevitable. Get over the CO staying independent and growing organically. It is too small. With open skies, foreign carriers will soon have domestic routes and lines like Lufthansa, Aer Lingus, will go on from NYC into the heartland.
A handfull of domestics will survive. Any other place in the world with a dozen domestic carriers????
So premise out of the way, WHICH combination involving Continental is the one we like?
Let's discuss options and get off the yes/no discussion.
Options:
Cross team such as United, American.
Sky-Team such as NW, DL
I myself like the Delta option much better than United.

Open Skies was just rejected again, either last week or the week before. I wouldn't count on any Open Skies legislation being passed anytime soon.

I don't agree with the assertion that Continental is too small; it's not. In the grand, global scheme of things, it is a larger carrier.

Open skies now appears dead. The DOT has given up on the foreign ownership issue (for now); open skies seems to be a necessary condition for the EU to move on the open skies issue.

Yes. Take a look at Russia and the CIS. I have no idea how many there are but there are quite a few.

Wow, you digged deep into the history of this thread to pull out my old quote :)

Let me update it abit...

1) NWA is probably not going to be out of business...part of my posting that was my hostility towards NWA management after their latest anti-customer missile was fired, and I expected more disasters to come and drive away their key customers the same way Delta did. I still think they are in the weakest position of the majors both financially and product/service wise. Their management is more closely aligned with the "Mullin" way of doing business - so they are at a critical junction. If DL/US and CO/UA merge, they will need to either merge or die.

2) In the middle section, I described how the combined carrier will need to shrink dramatically - namely the throwing off of considerable UA resources (aircraft/staff), while keeping the 'cream' routes and equipment and retaining sufficient staff to keep the operation running smoothly. There is a considerable number of UA employees who would never be able to deliver service the "CO way", and would need to be terminated. The entire Airbus fleet would need to be grounded, along with excess 733s, some 747s, the older 767s (unless they can be refurbed) and some of the "Express" lift. I am not sure if there would be any plans to keep the PW powered 757s as-is to augment the 753s for domestic-only, or replace the engines with RR powerplants, certify ETOPS, and refurb them to the CO 752 standard with BF up front - or - make a subfleet of PS equipped jets for NY-LA/SF and some key high-yield TATL routes. Then again, Larry K does not like subfleets or taking out seats, so who knows.

3) In the last section I suggested a possible change to the FFPs. It's still a possibility, but another option is keeping the CO model while adding an extra tier - Silver, Gold, Platinum remain 25/50/75 and get unlimited domestic upgrades along with their current mileage bonuses and other benefits. The 1K tier would be renamed something like "Ambassador" or "Global Executive" and be awarded to those who fly over 125K miles per year with at least 25K miles flown on international segments above a minimum fare bucket (like "H"). Those customers would get domestic upgrades 7 days out, easier award redemption and receive a packet of SWUs for international travel as well as benefits like a special "Concierge Line" similar to SPG's Platinum Concierges.

Thank you for getting to this point...and it's correct. The FAA was very unhappy with having one of their airfields bulldozed overnight without prior notice, permission (which IS required), or discussion. The funds aside, the FAA didn't even have a chance to publish an emergency NOTAM to warn pilots that the field would no longer be available.

The action to bulldoze the airport without notifying the FAA well in advance was not only a violation of the law (FAA regs), but also potentially very dangerous. I can't recall the details, but I remember talk of regional ATC not even knowing the airport was gone until after the deed was done. Very dangerous.

To close this mini-thread on Meigs, I should add that there were aircraft stranded on the field. They needed special FAA permission to take off on the taxiway after the runway was no longer there.

That is one difference between UA and CO management: CO's team would build DEN into an international gateway vs. UA's team that seems content to let LH (FRA & MUC [2007]) and BA have that honor.

Technically yes, but I would not include it anyway since I was only using nonstops from the Lower 48. Only the really dedicated CO flyer or Mileage Runner would do EWR-HNL-GUM-NGO or IAH-HNL-GUM-NGO. The poster who I was replying would not have accepted these routes because of his snobbery about UA. So mentioning them would just cause him to go, SEE only Mickey Mouse Airlines claim flight so cities that require 2 stops or something to that effect.

But thanks for the correction anyway.

- HF

I doubt AS is going to merge with anyone anytime soon. They're quite happy in a niche market and partner with everybody. A hostile buyout is unlikely as it would be too expensive.

That is a flawed reasoning. By your logic, just because United couldn't make JFK work to their advantage, neither can any other airline.

Still not the most convenient...but HNL-NGO is a nonstop...no need to route through GUM.

UA has just been very, very conservative when it comes to new international routes in general--especially to Europe. Feeding into LH at LH hubs has worked for UA financially. Other than that, UA has built up a good sized hub there and has shown real commitment to DEN--at least domestically. To think that if CO were still in Den that they would have the same type of international flights today that they had before they pulled out--because it was loosing them money big time--would be a dream. Perhaps the situation would be different with a combined UA/CO.

That was then, this is now. Different Management, Fleet and attitude. My point is that UA should not be giving away international (since that is where revenue is greatest) flying out of its hub to their alliance partner.