Merger rumors continue...

[Kev3188]

Have there been serious discussions on that?

 

[700UW]

Airlines are considered part of National Security, thats why there are limits on foreign ownership, items like the CRAF fleet, etc...

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Instead of thinking inside your "this is how it has been forever box" maybe you should think about the potential for ownership caps to change, particularly between NAFTA zone companies.

 
I don't know about the situation in Mexico, but in Canada I would imagine that AC would lobby very hard at preventing a tie up of WS with WN - unless AC wanted a similar relationship with UA.
 
And speaking of B6 and WN and the incompatible Airbus / Boeing fleets:  DL and AA and CO were more-or-less all Boeing before their mergers, and found a way to make the mixed fleets work. Why would WN not find a way to make it work?  And, think of the additional leverage it would give the company in negotiating with Airbus and Boeing.

 

[eolesen]

Airlines are considered part of National Security, thats why there are limits on foreign ownership, items like the CRAF fleet, etc...

 
And railroads aren't?....
 

I don't know about the situation in Mexico, but in Canada I would imagine that AC would lobby very hard at preventing a tie up of WS with WN - unless AC wanted a similar relationship with UA.
 
And speaking of B6 and WN and the incompatible Airbus / Boeing fleets:  DL and AA and CO were more-or-less all Boeing before their mergers, and found a way to make the mixed fleets work. Why would WN not find a way to make it work?  And, think of the additional leverage it would give the company in negotiating with Airbus and Boeing.

Yes, AC would lobby hard, but they're not exactly loved right now.

The mixed fleet isn't a reason to discount something like WN-F9 or WN-B6. F9 brings nothing to the table, and B6 wants nothing to do with WN.

 

[robbedagain]

Does anyone think may be hawaiian and wn or any other lcc may hook up

 

[LD3]

If the governments on both sides of our borders as well as the US can allow that type of cross-border ownership, surely there's not much of a justification left to prevent cross-border ownership of an airline.

 

Could those changes put some US carriers at risk of being taken over by a foreign carrier?

 

[topDawg]

Why do you rule out the chance of a WN and Alaska merger and how legal is a "cross-border merger"?
How about an example of what you are thinking?

Why do you rule in the chance of a WN/AS merger? 737s would literally be the only reason. Other than that it would be just another WN/FL. SEA/PDX hubs would become shells of themselves, ANC would probably be gone completely. Delta would be very thankful as it would solve a lot of its issues.
 
At least B6 brings something to the table (slots) but even then a lot of it would probably be dismantled.   

 

[Kev3188]

Airlines are considered part of National Security, thats why there are limits on foreign ownership, items like the CRAF fleet, etc...

I know, but I'm still curious if there have been any sort of high level talks regarding raising ownership limits like E mentioned...

 

[WNMECH]

Why do you rule in the chance of a WN/AS merger? 737s would literally be the only reason. Other than that it would be just another WN/FL. SEA/PDX hubs would become shells of themselves, ANC would probably be gone completely. Delta would be very thankful as it would solve a lot of its issues.
 
At least B6 brings something to the table (slots) but even then a lot of it would probably be dismantled.   

WN needs aircraft. They have been buying up all the used -700 planes they can find.
WN plans on adding up to 50 international destinations in the next few years.
They are relying on Boeing to deliver the Max aircraft on time to transition to but deliveries on new aircraft types have historically been unreliable.

A merger or acquisition of Alaska would eliminate a competitor on the west coast and with a consolidation it would supply WN with the needed compatible aircraft they need for aggressive international expansion.
This would also give WN flexibility and breathing room in the event that the Max deliveries get pushed back.

Alaska is a profitable airline that would only be more profitable combined with WN.
There has been talk about adding Alaska as a destination for WN, if they buy Alaska Airlines WN won't have to compete with them.

Three birds with one stone:
Add aircraft
Expand routes
Remove competitor.

Plus:
Reduce available seats on duplicate routes to increase fares and yields.
Then dominate the west coast.

 

[USFlyer]

Mixed fleets really aren't an issue if there are sufficient numbers of each type.
 
That being said, I have a hard time seeing the DOJ approving any mergers that make the Big 4 (AA, DL, WN, UA) any bigger at this point in the contiguous 48 states markets.  As others have stated, transactions among the smaller players are far more likely as that could result in a 5th big competitor.

 

[USFlyer]

Reduce available seats on duplicate routes to increase fares and yields.
Then dominate the west coast.

 
And this is precisely why the DOJ would likely not approve it.

 

[WNMECH]

Mixed fleets really aren't an issue if there are sufficient numbers of each type.
 
That being said, I have a hard time seeing the DOJ approving any mergers that make the Big 4 (AA, DL, WN, UA) any bigger at this point in the contiguous 48 states markets.  As others have stated, transactions among the smaller players are far more likely as that could result in a 5th big competitor.

 
 

And this is precisely why the DOJ would likely not approve it.

That didn't stop the approval of:
UAL-CAL
DAL-NWA
AA-US

A merged ALK-WN would be smaller than AA and with a little fleet tweaking would be about the size of DAL.
The DOJ would have a hard time explaining why a larger WN would be bad for the country while those other mergers were approved.

The argument should be that a WN merger is in the best interest of the country so they can be a low cost counter weight to the other big three high fare carriers.
I can guarantee that argument would gain traction and support.
It has already been used successfully to get WN gates and slots at some airports.

 

[topDawg]

 
 

That didn't stop the approval of:
UAL-CAL
DAL-NWA
AA-US

A merged ALK-WN would be smaller than AA and with a little fleet tweaking would be about the size of DAL.
The DOJ would have a hard time explaining why a larger WN would be bad for the country while those other mergers were approved.

The argument should be that a WN merger is in the best interest of the country so they can be a low cost counter weight to the other big three high fare carriers.
I can guarantee that argument would gain traction and support.
It has already been used successfully to get WN gates and slots at some airports.

Very simple.......
 

Remove competitor.
 

 
Consolidation is done with the big 4 for a while. (and IMHO B6 and AS also) 
 
I know you guys are use to getting anything you want from the government but you haven't give a single reason why WN/AS (or WN/any body) would be good for the marketplace. "we need more 737s and want to be bigger than AA/DL/UA" isn't a solid reason to give a judge. 

 

[WNMECH]

but you haven't give a single reason why WN/AS (or WN/any body) would be good for the marketplace.

Yes I did.
 

WN merger is in the best interest of the country so they can be a low cost counter weight to the other big three high fare carriers.

WN has historically been the reason fares have remained reasonable in markets they enter. The legacies tend to lower airfares to compete with WN.
They even gave it a name if you don't recall.
The Southwest Effect

Before the last couple of years, WN has resisted most fare increase attempts by the legacies causing them to roll them back after a couple days.
Whether you want to admit it or not, WN has been the low fare counterweight that drove the other majors into bankruptcy and forced them to lower there costs because they couldn't charge fares so high to cover those costs.

I larger, stronger WN might not be good for the legacies, but it would be great for the traveling public, WN employees and stock holders.

You still cant explain why the other big mergers were good for the country and another WN merger is bad.
 

Very simple.......

Simple?
You don't think those other mergers removed competitors?
Really?



And consolidation is done just because you say so?
Where is the statement from the government saying no more mergers will be approved?


For the record, I don't think WN is looking to merger with anyone in the next year or so.
But I do think this one would be good and I think WN could get the support to pull it off if they wanted to.

 

[WNMECH]

And speaking of B6 and WN and the incompatible Airbus / Boeing fleets:  DL and AA and CO were more-or-less all Boeing before their mergers, and found a way to make the mixed fleets work. Why would WN not find a way to make it work?  And, think of the additional leverage it would give the company in negotiating with Airbus and Boeing.

 
 

The mixed fleet isn't a reason to discount something like WN-F9 or WN-B6. F9 brings nothing to the table, and B6 wants nothing to do with WN.

 
 

Mixed fleets really aren't an issue if there are sufficient numbers of each type.

I really think you guys are missing the huge cost savings WN enjoys by keeping to the single fleet strategy.
It is just one of the critical tools WN uses to control costs.