Odd choice of word “merge” to describe an otherwise hostile takeover.
Since most mergers fail, wouldn’t it seem that anything deemed to be hostile might be a bad bet from the start?
On the surface it sounds good. Greater reach with more routes. It could be great. But if you play the odds, you’ll see that some seventy percent fail. In other words, the owners are worse off than before the merger.
I wrote an article a few years ago titled: Why Half of All Mergers End https://www.beyondresistance.com/htm/popups/half_mergers.html where I explain this in more detail.