DAL MEC talks about Mergers
01-09-2008, 08:05 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 62
Lets just stick with facts instead of insults.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist. The belief is that their is over-capacity. Too many low fares out in the system to fill up all the seats, hence over-capacity. Draw down capacity and hope the LCC's do not backfill and raise prices; supply vs demand.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger. LUV has stated publicly that they are interested in divestitures post consolidation. The anti-trust dept may require some divestitures for their approval of the deal.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess). US Airways had already determined ATL would go and the HQ would be in PHX. ATL is a great hub and will continue to be for the new carrier, but it does not have to be protected the way it is now. Hence, new carriers will find a home in ATL.
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix. Also, as posted here on the forum, R. Anderson specifically stated in his town hall appearance that DAL would not take orders for the 787. The reason, loading up the balance sheet and being the lead on a new ac. He stated he has been in that situation before and wants to stay clear of being a launch customer for an unproven ac. It would seem logical that the 787 slots would be sold and traded for 777LR ac that are slated for delivery (according to the Boeing web-site) for Feb '08 and beyond.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist. The belief is that their is over-capacity. Too many low fares out in the system to fill up all the seats, hence over-capacity. Draw down capacity and hope the LCC's do not backfill and raise prices; supply vs demand.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger. LUV has stated publicly that they are interested in divestitures post consolidation. The anti-trust dept may require some divestitures for their approval of the deal.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess). US Airways had already determined ATL would go and the HQ would be in PHX. ATL is a great hub and will continue to be for the new carrier, but it does not have to be protected the way it is now. Hence, new carriers will find a home in ATL.
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix. Also, as posted here on the forum, R. Anderson specifically stated in his town hall appearance that DAL would not take orders for the 787. The reason, loading up the balance sheet and being the lead on a new ac. He stated he has been in that situation before and wants to stay clear of being a launch customer for an unproven ac. It would seem logical that the 787 slots would be sold and traded for 777LR ac that are slated for delivery (according to the Boeing web-site) for Feb '08 and beyond.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
01-09-2008, 08:06 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Capt. B737
Posts: 329
Mergers are terrible things for all employee groups to go through. There would be reductions. The only winners are the largest share holders and upper management with golden parachutes. The Delta MEC has fired a warning salvo to let management know the "deal" won't happen without their approval. While it sounds good, a merger with another solvent carrier will be contentious, lengthy, and will more than likely boil down to a judge and an arbitrator.........and the age old question........will the senior guys sell out the junior guys. (Those that have survived a merger or two will understand).
The comment about LUV and ATL is the implication that DAL would have to divest a little to satisfy the DOJ. A few gates in ATL would do it......and you know the rest of the story. Buckle up!
The comment about LUV and ATL is the implication that DAL would have to divest a little to satisfy the DOJ. A few gates in ATL would do it......and you know the rest of the story. Buckle up!
01-09-2008, 08:07 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 973
Ummmm..DAL and NWA are ALPA, not the same as an ALPA /APA merger
01-09-2008, 08:11 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 973
01-09-2008, 08:17 PM
#26
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Lets just stick with facts.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess).
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess).
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
2. Great - outsource more flying. Is that why Delta is trying to reduce Connection flying by 15% this year, even to the point of parking their own jets at their Comair operation?
3. Yeah, the World's busiest airport in Atlanta has nothing on MSP.
4. No, Delta has not hired a President. Ed Bastian was the CFO.
I agree the fleet makes no sense and the merger makes no sense. In about 60 days I hope the Board realizes this cash out plan has no legs.
01-09-2008, 08:19 PM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 62
I believe he is referring to load factor in relation to RSM. As an illustration, acme airlines with two CRJ-200's (50 seats) could have 100% load factors and would consider themselves to have the highest load "factor" in the industry; however, compare them with acme legacy with 50 767-300's and a load factor of 80%, who would you think is doing better financially?
01-09-2008, 08:20 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 757/767
Posts: 890
Lets just stick with facts instead of insults.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist. The belief is that their is over-capacity. Too many low fares out in the system to fill up all the seats, hence over-capacity. Draw down capacity and hope the LCC's do not backfill and raise prices; supply vs demand.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger. LUV has stated publicly that they are interested in divestitures post consolidation. The anti-trust dept may require some divestitures for their approval of the deal.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess). US Airways had already determined ATL would go and the HQ would be in PHX. ATL is a great hub and will continue to be for the new carrier, but it does not have to be protected the way it is now. Hence, new carriers will find a home in ATL.
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix. Also, as posted here on the forum, R. Anderson specifically stated in his town hall appearance that DAL would not take orders for the 787. The reason, loading up the balance sheet and being the lead on a new ac. He stated he has been in that situation before and wants to stay clear of being a launch customer for an unproven ac. It would seem logical that the 787 slots would be sold and traded for 777LR ac that are slated for delivery (according to the Boeing web-site) for Feb '08 and beyond.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
1. The reason you merge (notice I did not say takeover, this will be a merger of equals) is to create synergies that do not already exist. The belief is that their is over-capacity. Too many low fares out in the system to fill up all the seats, hence over-capacity. Draw down capacity and hope the LCC's do not backfill and raise prices; supply vs demand.
2. To accomplish above, right-size and rationalize fleet. 115 old DC 9's flying around does not make sense with regard to above. Besides, Compass and DCI can fill in the DC 9's if needed when the industry cycle changes.
3. ATL will be right-sized. No need for a fortress hub when MSP is very lucrative and provides the int'l reach DAL has been looking for pre-merger. LUV has stated publicly that they are interested in divestitures post consolidation. The anti-trust dept may require some divestitures for their approval of the deal.
4. DAL has not hired a CFO. Isn't the president E. Bastian pulling double duty? The new Flt. Ops. guy at DAL is former NWA. Has R. Anderson actually relocated to ATL? The point is, this has been in the making, these guys are going back to MSP to run the show. ATL will be the ops center, HQ will be in MSP (just a guess). US Airways had already determined ATL would go and the HQ would be in PHX. ATL is a great hub and will continue to be for the new carrier, but it does not have to be protected the way it is now. Hence, new carriers will find a home in ATL.
Maybe you could offer an educated point-of-view before dismissing statements the way you do. Or do you not have an opinion? Check out the fleet composition of the two airlines and you will see that in order to maximize the synergy of the deal, the fleet will have to be rationalized to a more common mix. Also, as posted here on the forum, R. Anderson specifically stated in his town hall appearance that DAL would not take orders for the 787. The reason, loading up the balance sheet and being the lead on a new ac. He stated he has been in that situation before and wants to stay clear of being a launch customer for an unproven ac. It would seem logical that the 787 slots would be sold and traded for 777LR ac that are slated for delivery (according to the Boeing web-site) for Feb '08 and beyond.
Just trying to connect the dots, nothing is hidden, all this info is available publicly and has been discussed publicly.
"OVERRULED!"
First to get the reference won't be furloughed.
You make for fine reading but no way is ATL right sized to move international ops to MSP! Are you from there and wishfully thinking? I think it was your "bye bye ATL" comment that engendered the dismissive responses. Anywho, I think CVG and MEM would be in more jeopardy.
01-09-2008, 08:23 PM
#29
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,049
Here's my reasoning:
As opposed to
Northwest's traffic fell 1.7 percent last month to 6.27 billion revenue passenger miles from 6.38 billion a year earlier. Its results were weighed down by a 6.1 percent drop in domestic traffic, partially offset by a 1 percent increase in overseas traffic.
Northwest posted similar trends over the full fourth-quarter. During that period, its traffic dropped 0.7 percent to 18.87 billion revenue passenger miles from 19 billion. It trimmed capacity 1.5 percent to 22.88 billion available seat miles from 23.24 billion. Occupancy rose to 82.5 percent from 81.8 percent.
Northwest posted similar trends over the full fourth-quarter. During that period, its traffic dropped 0.7 percent to 18.87 billion revenue passenger miles from 19 billion. It trimmed capacity 1.5 percent to 22.88 billion available seat miles from 23.24 billion. Occupancy rose to 82.5 percent from 81.8 percent.
ATLANTA (AP) -- Delta Air Lines Inc. said Friday its traffic rose 3 percent in December, with much of the growth coming from increased routes abroad.
December traffic rose to 9.72 billion revenue passenger miles, up from 9.44 billion during the same period of 2006. A revenue passenger mile is a measurement of airline performance that represents one paying passenger flown one mile.
The increase came amid as capacity increased 3.1 percent. Delta flew 12.5 billion available seat miles in December, compared with 12.12 billion during the same month a year earlier.
"In December, consolidated unit revenues showed solid year over year improvement," Glen Hauenstein, executive vice president for network planning and revenue management, said in a statement.
For the full year, Delta said total traffic rose 5.1 percent to 122.06 billion revenue passenger miles, from 116.13 billion a year earlier. Capacity increased 2.5 percent to 151.76 billion in 2007, from 147.99 billion the year before, while occupancy rose 1.9 percentage points to 80.4 percent.
December traffic rose to 9.72 billion revenue passenger miles, up from 9.44 billion during the same period of 2006. A revenue passenger mile is a measurement of airline performance that represents one paying passenger flown one mile.
The increase came amid as capacity increased 3.1 percent. Delta flew 12.5 billion available seat miles in December, compared with 12.12 billion during the same month a year earlier.
"In December, consolidated unit revenues showed solid year over year improvement," Glen Hauenstein, executive vice president for network planning and revenue management, said in a statement.
For the full year, Delta said total traffic rose 5.1 percent to 122.06 billion revenue passenger miles, from 116.13 billion a year earlier. Capacity increased 2.5 percent to 151.76 billion in 2007, from 147.99 billion the year before, while occupancy rose 1.9 percentage points to 80.4 percent.
01-09-2008, 08:33 PM
#30
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 62
1. The "synergies" between NWA and DL could be done through their current codeshare at arm's length.
2. Great - outsource more flying. Is that why Delta is trying to reduce Connection flying by 15% this year, even to the point of parking their own jets at their Comair operation?
3. Yeah, the World's busiest airport in Atlanta has nothing on MSP.
4. No, Delta has not hired a President. Ed Bastian was the CFO.
I agree the fleet makes no sense and the merger makes no sense. In about 60 days I hope the Board realizes this cash out plan has no legs.
2. Great - outsource more flying. Is that why Delta is trying to reduce Connection flying by 15% this year, even to the point of parking their own jets at their Comair operation?
3. Yeah, the World's busiest airport in Atlanta has nothing on MSP.
4. No, Delta has not hired a President. Ed Bastian was the CFO.
I agree the fleet makes no sense and the merger makes no sense. In about 60 days I hope the Board realizes this cash out plan has no legs.
2. Never said outsource, it already exists, the comment referred to the reduction in near 100 seat ac. Most likely any replacement for lost DC9 flying, if needed, would most likely go to the 76 seat operators.
3.Never said anything about ATL not being a viable hub. Only that DAL protects the fortress hub from other airlines infiltrating their bread and butter. ORD has two major players and is second on the list as the "World's" busiest. Don't you think two or more major players can and will exist at ATL in the near future. Why is DAL utilizing mainline gates for RJ's. My bet is, not enough utilization. ATL airport wants some gates back and DAL said nope we need them for our RJ's.
4. I believe from news sources that E. Bastian was promoted to President post BK and continues his role as CFO. No replacement was hired. Hence my statement, this is a chess match, the pieces have been moving all along and now we can see the reason s why. Checkmate
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
