Let the AS vs DL war continue

mikecweb said:
I have a theory, which with no skin in the game isn't based on what I want to happen. I guess if it happened there be a huge Delta SEA base but I'm pretty sure I have a better chance of hearing a gnat fart then getting on with Alaska or Delta.

What if Delta is trying to beat down Alaska to make them cheaper to buy out? You would think it would take more money that way in the long run but it is airline management.
Click to expand...
I've thought that quietly all along. How do you get around a monopoly merger? Beat a carrier into a shell of its former self(at least economically), back them into a wall, and then force them into a buyout. It could happen.

However, just yesterday, I remember glancing up at the terminal/airline map on an airport bus at SFO and thought back to 2007 when I started at the airport and how every terminal had a double sided list of airline names. Today if you omit US and FL for the mergers, its "Terminal 1: Alaska/Delta/Frontier/Southwest. Terminal 2: Virgin America/American. Terminal 3: United. International Terminal: Hawaiian/ JetBlue/Sun Country". Looking at that, and figuring some of the listed carriers have a future that is far from garunteed, it's hard to picture the court allowing a DL/AS merger.
 
Last edited:
ChasenSFO said:
I've thought that quietly all along. How do you get around a monopoly merger? Beat a carrier into a shell of its former self(at least economically), back them into a wall, and then force them into a buyout. It could happen.

Just yesterday, I remember glancing up at the terminal/airline map on an airport bus at SFO and thought back to 2007 when I started at the airport and how every terminal had a double sided list of airline names. Today if you omit US and FL for the mergers, its "Terminal 1: Alaska/Delta/Southwest. Terminal 2: Virgin America/American. Terminal 3: United. International Terminal: Hawaiian/ JetBlue/Sun Country". Looking at that, it's hard to picture the court allowing a DL/AS merger.
Click to expand...

How can the court make a case for that when the new service from Delta was all added recently? Is that anti-trust at that point or just a business move? I bet it could be argued either way.
 
Dan208B said:
How can the court make a case for that when the new service from Delta was all added recently? Is that anti-trust at that point or just a business move? I bet it could be argued either way.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, AA/US had the case that the other legacies(UA, CO, DL, NW) were allowed to double up, so why can't they do the same to stay strong. Delta's case is more like "Yeah, we were the first of the mega-mergers this decade, and yeah we were the biggest airline in the world for a few years and all...but...we want to be the biggest again". The Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska already have some of the highest(if not THE highest) fares. It will be a hard case to argue how this is good for the consumer when Delta is already doing very well for itself and doesn't really need Alaska.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top