NWA alliiance denied -- future of mergers

[GogglesPisano]

Does this signal reluctance on the part of the DOT to sign off on any future legacy mergers?


NWA alliance request denied, pilots unions squash small-plane plan
Friday December 23, 11:08 am ET

The U.S. Transportation Department yesterday denied an anti-trust exemption requested by Northwest Airlines to help the company dig itself out of bankruptcy.
The Eagan-based company wanted to collaborate with Delta Airlines and four other carriers on international flights through the SkyTeam international airline alliance.
The program would allow the airlines to sell tickets at one another's prices. The transportation department said that practice would not benefit the public.
The airlines are expected to ask the department to reconsider.
Northwest's pilots union also said its members will not agree to work for a small-jet flying subsidiary, because it would shift jobs for as many as 30 percent of Northwest's pilots. Under the plan, the smaller planes would service Northwest's domestic market by using new hires and pilots formerly on leave. Northwest said the move would help it recover from bankruptcy, and is a common strategy for a major airline.

 

[Flopgut]

Does this signal reluctance on the part of the DOT to sign off on any future legacy mergers?quote]

I don't think so. I think DOT will embrace a deal where US labor takes it in the shorts. They'll approve of foriegn ownership (under pressure, eventually), cabotage, or any deal that throws US workers under the bus. But a deal where NWA and DAL might be able to grow the existing brand via a very organic and smart affiliation strategy, no way! So you can't collaborate with a foriegn carrier, but if they want to buy you, thats OK? Unbelievable.

This is an example of how US legacy carriers have been denied the ability to advance our product and play to our strengths that differentiate us from LCCs. To be sure, if this were SWA appealing to the DOT for some sort of relief on an issue, they would get it.

 

[PHXFLYR]

Does this signal reluctance on the part of the DOT to sign off on any future legacy mergers?quote]

I don't think so. I think DOT will embrace a deal where US labor takes it in the shorts. They'll approve of foriegn ownership (under pressure, eventually), cabotage, or any deal that throws US workers under the bus. But a deal where NWA and DAL might be able to grow the existing brand via a very organic and smart affiliation strategy, no way!

This is an example of how US legacy carriers have been denied the ability to advance our product and play to our strengths that differentiate us from LCCs. To be sure, if this were SWA appealing to the DOT for some sort of relief on an issue, they would get it.

Of course they would . Both Bush and SWA hail from the same state. Always found it interesting that SWA,AA,and CO,all with corporate offices in TX,seems to have kept there respective companies above the waterline while others are floundering at best. Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

PHXFLYR

 

[Clyde]

Of course they would . Both Bush and SWA hail from the same state. Always found it interesting that SWA,AA,and CO,all with corporate offices in TX,seems to have kept there respective companies above the waterline while others are floundering at best. Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

PHXFLYR

Yeah, big conspiracy.

How do you explain Alaska, AirTran, UPS, FedEx, and JetBlue? Neither one of them have corporate offices and they are all doing relatively well.

 

[BoilerUP]

Of course they would . Both Bush and SWA hail from the same state. Always found it interesting that SWA,AA,and CO,all with corporate offices in TX,seems to have kept there respective companies above the waterline while others are floundering at best. Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

PHXFLYR

Is TINFOIL HAT.....ON a boxed memory item?

CO had the advantage of lower labor costs and good customer service, AA quickly took concessions after 9/11, and SWA pilots work harder and fly more than anybody else in the industry. THAT combined with them having better management teams than most is why they are above the waterline, not some Texas conspiracy theory.

And...I got the Longhorns by 3 in the Rose Bowl

 

[LearLove]

Does this signal reluctance on the part of the DOT to sign off on any future legacy mergers?


NWA alliance request denied, pilots unions squash small-plane plan
Friday December 23, 11:08 am ET


Northwest's pilots union also said its members will not agree to work for a small-jet flying subsidiary, because it would shift jobs for as many as 30 percent of Northwest's pilots. Under the plan, the smaller planes would service Northwest's domestic market by using new hires and pilots formerly on leave. Northwest said the move would help it recover from bankruptcy, and is a common strategy for a major airline.

Good, we don't need MidAtlantic #2. If NWA management wants 70 and 100 seaters (E-170/190) then they can put them at mainline as another fleet type.

This contract out flying, you go here, maybe another certificate over there, J4J for your same job crapola is getting outtahand. I'm right smack in the middle of it now and can tell you guys that you don't want anything to do with it. Even if NWA mainline guys have to accept the lowest rate like we voted on this past fall for the 190 I say do it. Atleast you keep the flying inhouse. Going thru what I'm going thru now I'd rather suffer the lower pay (then work down the road to bring the pay up) than give the aircraft away because once you give that flying away your never gonna get it back.

 

[pedropcola]

I for one am extremely glad that the President is looking out for my little old airline, it helps me sleep at night. I've read some dumb stuff here before, but there is always some comment that seems to set a new baseline for stupid.

 

[SWA/FO]

To be sure, if this were SWA appealing to the DOT for some sort of relief on an issue, they would get it.

Yeah we would!!

 

[Flopgut]

I for one am extremely glad that the President is looking out for my little old airline, it helps me sleep at night. I've read some dumb stuff here before, but there is always some comment that seems to set a new baseline for stupid.

How appropriate, you comment on stupid posts and walla: SWA/FO shows up!

Hi guys. To borrow a little of your gripe with me--what are you doing on a legacy oriented thread? Your always giving me crap about stalking the SWA threads, so, what's the deal? I really don't care, but you are always p!ssed at me for this same behavior.

 

[koko nw]

And...I got the Longhorns by 3 in the Rose Bowl [/quote]

Are you kidding me!!! Did you watch USC schwack UCLA like they where a JV team? Had to keep reminding my self that UCLA was a 9-1 team going into the game. Should be an awesome game no doubt.

Cheers

 

[pedropcola]

Dude, take your meds. I ain't pissed at you, I just said your little conspiracy comment was stupid.

 

[General Lee]

Mergers with Foreign airlines may be a problem. But, mergers with other legacies may not be. Look at USAir and AWA. They didn't have overlapping hubs, and complimented each other route wise---AWA with a large West Coast presence, and USAir with an East Coast one. That will have to be the criteria for any future mergers. DL and NWA fit that model. So do CAL and UAL.

I have stated in the past that I hoped we could have some deal with Air France (49% ownership maybe) which could give us access to their deep pockets. The DOT denying NW and DL with larger deals with Skyteam and Anti-trust immunity may force us to do more International on our own, if we want those higher INTL yeilds. Interesting indeed. Foreign airlines can still own 25%, and that may help down the line.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Flopgut]

Dude, take your meds. I ain't pissed at you, I just said your little conspiracy comment was stupid.

Maybe there is some kind of computer glich going on here, or you just aren't looking closely enough, I didn't come up with the conspiracy theory. My thesis is the very real and terribly misplaced status SWA holds as our governments' most favored airline.

But the real issue is the pathological determination DOT holds against a US legacy partnering with another international airline in search of revenue. It is bullsh1t! There is no reason to stand against two bankrupt carriers partnering in any manner with anyone. Especially when we stand on the verge of seeing all these carriers sold off to foriegn interests. We are about to dissolve a majority of our international presence for good just to make sure no US legacy can make some money. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face!

I really thought something like this would pass muster this time.

 

[Flopgut]

Mergers with Foreign airlines may be a problem. But, mergers with other legacies may not be. Look at USAir and AWA. They didn't have overlapping hubs, and complimented each other route wise---AWA with a large West Coast presence, and USAir with an East Coast one. That will have to be the criteria for any future mergers. DL and NWA fit that model. So do CAL and UAL.

Bye Bye--General Lee

Good point, that may be correct. I say bring it on, I'm ready to merge. It will be painful in the short term but the sooner we get down to about 3 legacy airlines the quicker we can take the LCCs to the woodshed! If we could just get treated by regulators half as favorably as SWA its a lock.

Our time is coming General. We have a better product (by far) and we almost have a cheaper price. Their costs are going up, ours are coming down

 

[Ty Webb]

the sooner we get down to about 3 legacy airlines the quicker we can take the LCCs to the woodshed!

This is funny . . . kind of like a time warp. . . . . Let me break out my IBM Selectric typewriter and make some notes . . . you sound kind of feisty, like that Ross Perot fella everyone's talking about . . . . you might be on to something there, Adm Stockdale. Good luck!