Part II as this stupid software said my last post was too long:
Al Capone was responsible for many Murders but it was the IRS that basically put him in prison. Citing the $20 million payoff to Horton probably would not stand up in court as a reason to squash the merger thats why they didnt cite it, but the arguements that would stand up are the ones they are using, yes they could have used them before against UA and DL but they did not. Whats your explanation?
You're essentially saying that the DOJ is blocking a merger that otherwise does not violate the Clayton Act because the government is blinded by emotion surrounding the UCC's desire to pay Horton $20 million to go away? I could see the APFA leadership acting that way, but not the Department of Justice and several state Attorneys General.
Sure another factor could be that the Obama administration is more serious about protecting the Consumers than the Bush Administration . . .
Ya think? My whole life I've heard that Republicans think even less of antitrust enforcement than the Japanese and that the Democrats believe that big mergers must be blocked. Now, the DOJ under a Democratic administration blocks a merger and you think it's because the creditors committee wants to pay severance to the outgoing CEO? Wow.
but I stand by what I said, if they had pulled the $20 million they would not be facing the lawsuit. The Govt would have raised objections, pushed for some divestment to try and give some smaller carriers access to prime markets etc but not just block it outright.
Well, neither of us have any evidence on that belief, but I disagree. I doubt that Baer cares about Horton's $20 million. Yes, the US Trustee in the AA bankruptcy is objecting to it, as she believes that it violates the 2005 changes to the Bankruptcy Code. It probably does. The UCC shouldn't try to violate the law, but that's what they're trying to do.
Anyway, if the $20 million did cause the DOJ to file the suit, then I'm happy. AA doesn't need to tie itself to a boat anchor like US; AA is able to survive fine without Parker's dysfunctional airline.
Then why wait till the last minute to file? Nobody from the DOJ said they were in favor of the TWA deal, or the DL-NWA deal or the UA -CO deal or the WN-FL deal.
Have you read the DOJ complaint or the press conference that Baer gave? It's clear that Baer thinks the prior mergers should not have been approved, but the mistakes of the past do not prevent the government from challenging this merger. I expect Parker to argue that "You didn't object to those prior mergers so you have to let us merge" but that ain't the law, and Parker will lose if that's his argument.
Like I said AA approached the govt the same way they approach their employees, that they are going to do whatever they feel like doing and the $20 million payout was the straw that broke the camels back. How much of the domestic interstate passenger rail does AMTRAK have? Why didn't the govt stop that? For the same reason they didn't stop AA from buying TWA, UA and CO merging and Delta and NWA from merging, because the industry could not remain profitable with too many contenders and having a transportation industry thats failing is not in the public interest. The 5% advantage (?) that the new AA would have may have been a factor as it probably was when Delta bought NWA and surpassed AA by 4%, which has been addressed in the past without a flat out lawsuit but from what I've read the DOJ isn't looking at that option, they are looking to stop the merger completely even though the most likely result is one of the carriers will eventually end up disappearing anyway. When DL jumped 4% above AA that was nearly as much of a spread as what you are saying AA would now have over them.
AA management didn't want this merger. Parker and the AA unions and the AA creditors want the merger, so I'm confused - you blame AA and AA management for not treating the DOJ properly, when your ire should be directed at Parker and the UCC.
AA screwed up, going into BK with $5billion and 500 new airplanes on the way at a time when the rest of the industry is seeing revenues and profits soar is not the best time to announce a merger on top of all that, they should have went BK back in 2003 -05 like everyone else, but I believe its the arrogance that they displayed in regards to Hortons payout that brought the govt over the top.
So the UCC and the AA unions and the AA creditors (the ones pushing for the merger and the Horton payout are arrogant? I agree with you. How did AA screw up? The cash on hand meant that there was zero risk of running out of cash and facing liquidation. AA didn't have to beg any DIP lenders for cash to continue operating.
How are the orders for new planes a screw-up? AA has lease financing in place for many of them and the creditors didn't object to the orders. Neither did the judge. Neither did the US Trustee. The only people harping on the cash and new plane orders are the disgruntled, low-paid employees. Everyone else at the party thinks that AA did a fine job.
Had AA dropped the payout, displayed a little deference to the govt, instead of making the government look weak and incompetant by saying that they were going to give Horton the money anyway, they could have worked out a deal to satisfy any concerns as far as too much consolidation, just like with other mergers. None of the issues you brought up are recent developments, the Govt voiced their second complaint against Hortons payout two weeks ago and AAs response was that they were not going to even consider the governments objections.
Again, the payout was the idea of the UCC, not Horton. Not AA and not "management."
In sum, you're alleging that the government is attempting to block a merger over a mere $20 million severance payment. A payout that is the idea of the people who are pushing for the merger, the creditors.
Throughout the posts I quoted, you incorrectly used the words "AA," "management" and "Horton" when the facts point to Parker, the UCC and the AA unions. You know, the people pushing for the merger. Horton doesn't want the merger - I suspect that he's happier this week than he's been in a long time.