CAL gets DOT's ok for Antitrust Immunity
07-10-2009, 12:45 PM
#12
Keep Calm Chive ON
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
That take of CAL being "Superfluous" to the STAR Alliance would not have anything to do with Delta's strong opposition against the original Antitrust filing back in November 2008??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/26/AR2008112604257.html
Please explain your take so we can understand what you ment.....
BTW....both US airlines pertaining (or soon to be) to the STAR - CAL & UA were up 6% & 2.5% at market's close....which one were you refering too that slid??
07-10-2009, 12:51 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
SoCalGuy,
Sorry if I was being cryptic. I was referring to the other US carrier in STAR: LCC. They were down 4.63% today, 1.94% after hours. Everyone else went up. Perhaps three US carriers in an alliance is a bit much?
Hence the term "superfluous". That's what I think the street is thinking, but I don't know. I'm open to any other theory that makes sense.
Sorry if I was being cryptic. I was referring to the other US carrier in STAR: LCC. They were down 4.63% today, 1.94% after hours. Everyone else went up. Perhaps three US carriers in an alliance is a bit much?
Hence the term "superfluous". That's what I think the street is thinking, but I don't know. I'm open to any other theory that makes sense.
07-10-2009, 01:01 PM
#14
Keep Calm Chive ON
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Boeing's Plastic Jet Button Pusher - 787
Posts: 2,086
SoCalGuy,
Sorry if I was being cryptic. I was referring to the other US carrier in STAR: LCC. They were down 4.63% today, 1.94% after hours. Everyone else went up. Perhaps three US carriers in an alliance is a bit much?
Hence the term "superfluous". That's what I think the street is thinking, but I don't know. I'm open to any other theory that makes sense.
Sorry if I was being cryptic. I was referring to the other US carrier in STAR: LCC. They were down 4.63% today, 1.94% after hours. Everyone else went up. Perhaps three US carriers in an alliance is a bit much?
Hence the term "superfluous". That's what I think the street is thinking, but I don't know. I'm open to any other theory that makes sense.
I'll revisit it in 12-18 months after it starts later this year in the 4th Q and we'll see how things are coming along then.
07-10-2009, 02:07 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
07-10-2009, 07:31 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: 737 CAPT
Posts: 1,901
If they had wanted to merge, the two companies wouldn't have needed to do this song and dance routine.
Remember, CAL already sat down and looked at UAL's books last year when a merger was contemplated. After seeing the mess over there, CAL went running and said not only NO but H**L NO! There was just too much to fix. An alliance? Yeah, we can do that!
If this had NOT been approved, there would have been a stronger likelihood of a merger in order to keep up to speed with the likes of Delthwest. The next step is to see if the revenue targets meet the desires of both companies. If not then I would expect, dinner, drinks and cigar meetings between the top execs about a merger again.
Remember, CAL already sat down and looked at UAL's books last year when a merger was contemplated. After seeing the mess over there, CAL went running and said not only NO but H**L NO! There was just too much to fix. An alliance? Yeah, we can do that!
If this had NOT been approved, there would have been a stronger likelihood of a merger in order to keep up to speed with the likes of Delthwest. The next step is to see if the revenue targets meet the desires of both companies. If not then I would expect, dinner, drinks and cigar meetings between the top execs about a merger again.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
