flyingcat
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 658
- Reaction score
- 0
Isnt such an airline still missing MIA which is now solid AA country.
And so it begins..
- Thread starter EMBFA
- Start date
Isnt such an airline still missing MIA which is now solid AA country.
JAMAKE1
Veteran
No. United purchased Pan Am's assets at three different times. The Pacific Division was purchased in 1986, when Richard Ferris was CEO. The London Heathrow route purchase was announced in the Fall of 1990 and concluded in early 1991. Pan Am ceased operations in December 1991. The Latin America routes were purchased in Pan Am's liquidation proceedings in early 1992. Stephen Wolf was CEO when the LHR route authorities and the Latin America route authorities were purchased.
BTW, a bit of trivia: The UNITED name was formed when Boeing Air Transport changed its name to United Aircraft and Transport Company. A few months later UATC acquired National Air Transport (NAT) and Varney Airlines and officially became UNITED AIR LINES...
United Airlines was formed as a holding company for Boeing Air Transport, Pacific Air Transport, National Air Lines, and Varney Airlines in 1931. It became a single airline company in 1934. The current U/lazy tulip logo introduced in the 70s is made up of four lines that are meant to represent the four carriers.
I love old airline trivia, but not quite sure about this one. Was it National Air Transport?
D
delta777
Guest
Truer words have never been spoken,
"Delta wants to move quickly while the regulatory climate in Washington D.C. is favorable to big business getting even bigger. That window might shut come January 2009, when a new administration moves into the White House."
That doesn't mean that there aren't a host of regulatory issues that could still scuttle a deal. Critics will point to overlapping routes, major hubs in close proximity, and the pricing power which a deal would hand to what would become the nation's biggest airline.
But the Bush administration has done little to convince consumers it's looking out for the little guy. That view was fortified by the Federal Communications Commission's ruling last month to relax longstanding cross-ownership restrictions in overlapping broadcast and newspaper markets.
How sad...
"Delta wants to move quickly while the regulatory climate in Washington D.C. is favorable to big business getting even bigger. That window might shut come January 2009, when a new administration moves into the White House."
That doesn't mean that there aren't a host of regulatory issues that could still scuttle a deal. Critics will point to overlapping routes, major hubs in close proximity, and the pricing power which a deal would hand to what would become the nation's biggest airline.
But the Bush administration has done little to convince consumers it's looking out for the little guy. That view was fortified by the Federal Communications Commission's ruling last month to relax longstanding cross-ownership restrictions in overlapping broadcast and newspaper markets.
How sad...
N965VJ
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 3,255
- Reaction score
- 149
We tend to think of ideals when mergers are contemplated, route structure, aircraft compatibility, etc. That all make sense. Payola comes first to the deal makers and dealing with reality ( joint operations ) comes later. If Delta pulls the trigger and it looks like they will, all bets are off. An unlikely free for all could ensue with some totally unexpected results. One thing for sure, the easiest political solutions to our ATC systems short term problems is a reduction in capacity. I don't see much interference from DOJ except a few expressions of concern on the Hill and then of course - Holy pictures.
Kev3188
Veteran
EMBFA nailed it....Here's a little more info:
Boeing Air Transport and Pacific Air transport were combined (along with Boeing Airplane co., Pratt & Whitney, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard, Skikorsky, Stearman Aircraft, and Northrup to form United Aircraft & Transport Corporation. The two airlines were obviously the "airline" part of the group.
Then they added Stout Air services.
In 1930, they added National Air transport and Varney to the mix.
Due to an act of congress, it became illegal to have both Airlines and manufacturers under one roof, so they divested the "builders," and, in 1934 renamed themselves Untied Airlines Transport Corporation.
Boeing Air Transport and Pacific Air transport were combined (along with Boeing Airplane co., Pratt & Whitney, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard, Skikorsky, Stearman Aircraft, and Northrup to form United Aircraft & Transport Corporation. The two airlines were obviously the "airline" part of the group.
Then they added Stout Air services.
In 1930, they added National Air transport and Varney to the mix.
Due to an act of congress, it became illegal to have both Airlines and manufacturers under one roof, so they divested the "builders," and, in 1934 renamed themselves Untied Airlines Transport Corporation.
signals
Veteran
Is the NW a done deal? Suddenly Northwest appears on Delta's partner board. Along with Air France and Alitalia? Did AF merge with AI?
signals
Veteran
hmmmm...now I am confused! :unsure:
What I was getting at is that on Delta's partner board was AF, AI and NW. It confuses me for example that the Star Alliance partner board is at US Airways and nothing at United even though they are part of the Alliance. At my hub, NW and UA outsource their jobs to the same privatizer. Maybe this means nothing.
Now let's see about AlItalia...in no particular order...
Read This,
this, heck just go here!
See, AI was in real bad shape. In such bad shape that Lufthansa wouldn't touch it...and we all know Lufthansa's magic touch(look it up). Anyway, I heard that AF was planning a merger a while back.
Airlines, much like any business, are run like corporations.
Twicebaked
Veteran
- Joined
- May 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,788
- Reaction score
- 18
N903AW,
No big deal, but I think you meant to quote FlyUs.
FlyUs, other than Capital Airlines in '61 I don't know of another UA merger. However when Pan Am went out of business, UA bought their Pacific operation. Pilots were integrated into the seniority list. Since it was before my time, there are certainly others who know more details than me.
Interestingly enough, Delta bought PA's European operation. So a UA/DL merger would actually be a resurrection of the old Pan Am. Maybe they could buy the rights to the name and rename the merged airline. Now there's some food for speculation.
I believe the rights are already taken. I am not sure.
If you go through CLT, there is a plane that has Pan Am on it by the corporate jet hangars. I was told that they bought the rights, but I am not sure.
Similar threads
