Previously, the government ruled that a combined UA/U would be anti-competitive. The government would have required slot divestures & reduced route overlap. But now that the government will most likely have a stake in both companies, there is no problem with an alliance?
(Sarcasm on)
Hey, the government would get an even better return if it forced AWA to join the alliance. What the heck, maybe AA should file for BK, get an ATSB loan, so they too can be one of the government’s chosen few.
Actually, shouldn't the DOT require AA/BA to give up slots at LHR before UA/U is allowed to form an alliance?[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif']
(Sarcasm off)
I don't know that it's anything to celebrate over. If it delivers the revenue that was forecasted, than I'll celebrate. However, it's nice to get some good news for a change.
[P]It will be interesting to see what this does to UAL's stock in tomorrow's trading. One would think it would cause a healthy spike. We'll see. [/P]
[P]Marky[/P]
[P] [/P]
An alliance and a codeshare are not necessarily the same thing. UA and US are not doing any joing pricing and joint scheduling whatsoever. In other words, they cannot collaborate on pricing or scheduling. So there really are no anti-competitive issues except on markets that are only served by UA and US, which I believe will be carve-outs anyhow.
The merger was a completely different animal. And even those anti-competitive concerns (DC Air) could have been worked out. That was not the show-stopper. UA no longer wanted the merger.
