CAL still has them, although CAL may have frozen them - this year it must make $258 million in required minimum contributions - even more than AA's contributions.
NW/DL Merger "Real Possibility"
- Thread starter whaledriver
- Start date
CAL still has them, although CAL may have frozen them - this year it must make $258 million in required minimum contributions - even more than AA's contributions.
Not to rain on your "Rah Rah Delta" parade and all, but can a company that is BANKRUPT (as in, insolvent), really demonstrate "industry leading profitability" in any meaningful way?
I am sure the non-bankrupt, solvent carriers such as CO, AA, WN, and, yes, UA, would take issue if DL trumpets any type of "industry leading profitability" as an index of success during the next year or three they will still be wallowing along in the slog of banruptcy and insolvency.
As I am pretty sure you said about other carriers in BK at one time or another, it is easier to show a "profit" when you don't have to pay your bills.
The judge should just pull the plug already! Those bankrupt, insolvent carriers are just dragging down the rest of the industry! Their management failed! Doing irresponsible things like starting service to every third-world European country it can think of and destroying yields for the healthy airlines! It's an outrage! An abuse of the bankruptcy process!
Geez, this guy never stops! Now he has a bankrupt carrier acquiring another airline. Amazing.
US and HP were not healthy but together they worked things out it seems. The probable merger(s) will be put together in some board room and there will most likely be no 'acquiring' airline. But my Ouija board tells me that the United name will remain. (Ouija hasn't told me what happens to the Delta name yet, but when it does, I'll be the first to post it here)
US and HP were not healthy but together they worked things out it seems. The probable merger(s) will be put together in some board room and there will most likely be no 'acquiring' airline. But my Ouija board tells me that the United name will remain. (Ouija hasn't told me what happens to the Delta name yet, but when it does, I'll be the first to post it here)
The pilots were the only ones who froze their pensions. All the rest of the employees are covered under the same CARP.
Fly-
I agree with you an the concept of ANY mergers in this industry...that it would bring about a much needed consolidation...but DL/NW would not be a good match. Sure DL could get Asia and NW could get Europe but it's the little things that would kill such a deal. First, union (very unhappy at that) mixed with non-union. Forget integration of unions...you just have a mess there. Next...aging fleet (NW) plus one of the most diverse fleets in the industry if they merge. It would take too much to dump the airbuses and acquire boeings (or vice versa). Let's not forget a not-so-strong hub network. Sure, you have strong hubs in ATL, DTW, and MSP but these markets aren't the same as CHI, NYC, or L.A. And what are MEM and CVG? Mediocre and arguable unnecessary hubs that could even be trimmed to mere focus cities...even in the unmerged entities.
I agree with you on the idea of mergers period but DL and NW would be the last dance partners that I would pair together.
Guess that using your logic, you should be out of a job and not have had a chance to continue on since US was in BK.
And where are you coming up with this "destroying yields" crap? The new European markets are actually high yield.
You sound extremely bitter about something but wishing for a carrier's demise when you are in the same industry and have apparently been "rescued" yourself is pretty lame.
I don't understand your first paragraph. Plus, I am not in the airline industry, so there is nothing for me to be "bitter" about.
I'd love to see the yields on some of these tertiary European routes come the November through March time frame.
In any case, my point is to out WT's hypocrisy and nothing more. Sorry if you took offense. But I didn't see you protesting when WT was gleefully predicting the demise of other carriers.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #53
It is entirely possible to be bankrupt and very profitable. In fact, it is usually a good idea to attain consistent profitability before exiting bankruptcy, a step that one three year airline resident of bankruptcy managed to omit from its restructuring plan.
Given that 5 out of 6 airlines have been in bankruptcy in their lifetimes, AA is the only carrier that has any room to speak and they are probably dreaming up a plan now to get the cost savings that their other legacies have gained through bankruptcy.
All you have to do is look at DL’s revenue numbers reported on a monthly basis and compare them with their traffic statistics and you will see that DL is generating better revenue in bankruptcy than they have in a very long time. DL is not dumping capacity in any market and is in fact taking advantage of the huge growth in international travel to open markets to countries that other US airlines have to look up on the map.
As for the UA name, it will last only until DL can find enough white paint and enough ground time to cover it all up except to perhaps Asia where Delta might stick the United name behind its own (sort of like one of those new-fangled marriages) but only for a couple years. UA does have great brand equity in Asia but DL’s can be built off of the UA name fairly quickly. There is no other part of the world where DL’s name is not at least as well known or respected.
Don’t worry, Fly. You can still fly to London if you work for DL and you’ll actually get a pension from them, too, the clock will start counting again on your pension in just a couple more years.
Given that 5 out of 6 airlines have been in bankruptcy in their lifetimes, AA is the only carrier that has any room to speak and they are probably dreaming up a plan now to get the cost savings that their other legacies have gained through bankruptcy.
All you have to do is look at DL’s revenue numbers reported on a monthly basis and compare them with their traffic statistics and you will see that DL is generating better revenue in bankruptcy than they have in a very long time. DL is not dumping capacity in any market and is in fact taking advantage of the huge growth in international travel to open markets to countries that other US airlines have to look up on the map.
As for the UA name, it will last only until DL can find enough white paint and enough ground time to cover it all up except to perhaps Asia where Delta might stick the United name behind its own (sort of like one of those new-fangled marriages) but only for a couple years. UA does have great brand equity in Asia but DL’s can be built off of the UA name fairly quickly. There is no other part of the world where DL’s name is not at least as well known or respected.
Don’t worry, Fly. You can still fly to London if you work for DL and you’ll actually get a pension from them, too, the clock will start counting again on your pension in just a couple more years.
I thought DL ditched their defined benefit pensions for F/As several years ago.
It doesn't seem to me like what's left of the DL pension arrangement is any better than UA's.
DL did dump defined benefit pensions a few years back for all but the pilots. They moved them to cash balance plans.
As for DL capacity changes, WT, they dropped capacity to Florida quite a bit actually. Instead of 287 seat 764's from ATL to FLL all day, they move those aircraft to the int'l ops. They've also moved some, if not all domestic 763ER's to Int'l. Thet's what's funding the int'l growth. Backfill is being made up by re-introducing the Song 757's to regular mainline fleet.
As for making money during bankrupcy, I don't know any carrier that showed consistent profits during bankruptcy...cost of legal services alone tends to eat through cash pretty quickly. As for "respected name". DL's name is respected like a little brother...sit in a focus group of customers..."Oh, Delta, yeah they're ok when we can't fly AA or UA or need to go to Florida." That's where Delta falls in the customer's eyes WT. They're a second tier carrier...
As for DL capacity changes, WT, they dropped capacity to Florida quite a bit actually. Instead of 287 seat 764's from ATL to FLL all day, they move those aircraft to the int'l ops. They've also moved some, if not all domestic 763ER's to Int'l. Thet's what's funding the int'l growth. Backfill is being made up by re-introducing the Song 757's to regular mainline fleet.
As for making money during bankrupcy, I don't know any carrier that showed consistent profits during bankruptcy...cost of legal services alone tends to eat through cash pretty quickly. As for "respected name". DL's name is respected like a little brother...sit in a focus group of customers..."Oh, Delta, yeah they're ok when we can't fly AA or UA or need to go to Florida." That's where Delta falls in the customer's eyes WT. They're a second tier carrier...
FlyUs
Veteran
- Jul 28, 2004
- 610
- 45
"second tier" carrier? what does that mean?
Delta is not a top of mind carrier for most of the country, let alone world. Now, the quick response is to quote traffic figures. That alone isn't an indicator of perception. A low enough price can get passengers to fly a beach chair with wings. Delta's strength is the Southeast & Florida. Even in NYC, where they've invested heavily, they're not at the forefront of the customer when it comes to who to fly. This is what I mean when I say second tier. Now, United has major hubs with real mainline service eclipsing RJ service in all but IAD (not sure about IAD). They have a strong presence in Asia and the top European destinations (UK & Germany). Their alliance is with a much stronger carrier set. Their corporate presence domestically is nearly as strong as American's.
If you speak with people at AA HQ...particularly Sales and planning, they care about United only. Yes, in Atlanta they think about DL...same as CO in Houston. But for the most part, they pretty much dismiss Delta as someone that can easily be overtaken...second tier.
If you speak with people at AA HQ...particularly Sales and planning, they care about United only. Yes, in Atlanta they think about DL...same as CO in Houston. But for the most part, they pretty much dismiss Delta as someone that can easily be overtaken...second tier.
luv2fly
Veteran
- Aug 21, 2002
- 1,187
- 0
So tell us... what indicator are you using to adequately measure perception? Seems to me perception is in the eye of the beholder and yours seems to be show bias towards United. That doesn't qualify as an accurate definition of "country wide" perception. It does, however, qualify as an accurate description of your opinion, and you know what the say about those don't you?
I'm basing what I say on industry research...surveys and focus groups as well as having worked with Delta's Sales group. It's pretty well accepted that UA/AA fight for the top tier of selective customers (typicly business travelers and uber-rich folks). CO has carved out a solid niche but lacks enough service options and doesn't venture much outside of hub flights. NW is good for Northern tier states like Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, etc. and Asia. Delta offers the Southeast.
OK...once again...what is your source. Sounds like a WMD argument to me.
The thing is, these are subjective measures and right now...the only "subject" is you. Working with a sales group does nothing to tell you how companies rate. And sure AA worries about DL...they both happen to have a mega hub at the same airport. Do NOT try to pass opinions as fact.
