Two For One Bankruptcy Special
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #32
The reason why so many analysts thought NW would be the surviving company in BK was because they perceived NW was stronger. That all changed by 6 pm on Wed 9/15 when both DL and NW were in bankruptcy. Both are in the same position right now.
Also, no one has yet to show me any evidence that NW's Pacific routes/ Tokyo hub are exclusive to Northwest Airlines. International route authorities belong to the US government who negotiates for them and awards them to its own carriers. Route authorities have often been sold between US airlines and the US government has continually taken the position that is permissible; in fact, the DOT has often gone to bat for US airlines when foreign governments have tried to block the transfer of routes between US airlines.
If they merge in bankruptcy, the only determinant of who will be that the survivor is that airline that can come up with a viability plan that shows creditors are as well compensated in a merger as they would be if the airline emerges alone; conversely, the airline that cannot show that they can emerge as a viable standalone airline is the one that will be acquired. Outside of bankruptcy, the normal rules apply - the fattest bank account wins.
Also, no one has yet to show me any evidence that NW's Pacific routes/ Tokyo hub are exclusive to Northwest Airlines. International route authorities belong to the US government who negotiates for them and awards them to its own carriers. Route authorities have often been sold between US airlines and the US government has continually taken the position that is permissible; in fact, the DOT has often gone to bat for US airlines when foreign governments have tried to block the transfer of routes between US airlines.
If they merge in bankruptcy, the only determinant of who will be that the survivor is that airline that can come up with a viability plan that shows creditors are as well compensated in a merger as they would be if the airline emerges alone; conversely, the airline that cannot show that they can emerge as a viable standalone airline is the one that will be acquired. Outside of bankruptcy, the normal rules apply - the fattest bank account wins.
Ummm. Isn't the right answer that neither survives? All the equity will be wiped out of both airlines and the "survivor" will be the bondholders and any new equity investors.WorldTraveler said:
In the HP/US deal, one can argue that HP is the survivor as their stockholders still hold a signficant portion of the new entity. But in this case, neither will.
I may have to eat these words, but isn't UA a dramatically better fit for DL? UA would have a better fleet mix, LHR access, equal (to NW) Asia network, and west of the Mississippi presence. It would also solve the CVG and SLC problems. Now, UA might think that CO is better for them, but they may not have that choice.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
B.O.B. said:
Neeleman forgot to put sugar in the Koolaid and the employees stopped gulping it down by the tanker load.
9epnsrip
Member
robbedagain said:sure they would!
of course we all know that they are or took US Airways CLASS 102--HOW TO STEAL FROM THE EMPLOYEES and to REWARD THEMSELVES for a JOB NOT WELL DONE!!!!!
:bleh:
[post="300077"][/post]
Current NW EXECUTIVE Neal Cohen, was teaching the Class. Don't forget he is from US Air.
TechBoy said:
I agree. It makes more sense, IMO, for UA to finally combine with DL (it wanted to several years ago) and for AA to combine with NW. That gives the USA two roughly equal airlines with extensive LHR, NRT, China, Europe and S America coverage. Plenty of competition between UA and AA, right down to the ORD hub.
