pretty much everything you wrote supports not allowing DL to get any of the slots AA will have to give up.
except whether its arrogance from DL or AA, there is a rule of law involved.
There is no magic formula that says how much AA should have been required to divest. I noted from my earliest post on the subject that it was huge.
Remember that there were people who were certain that AA wouldn't have to give up any slots at LGA.
With the settlement, AA had to give up 12 actual operating slot pairs to end up with about 33% of LGA slots. DL only had to give up 16 in order to get almost 50% of the slots.
I don't know of any merger case that has involved divestitures from the 2nd largest player in a market, do you?
But the size of the divestitures - which everyone seems to think are just fine as long as they exclude DL - are determined in some black box at the DOJ which AA tried to look into but was summarily slammed on the hand - and then immediately quick asking.
OTOH, there are very clear laws about regulation of prices of the domestic market. the DOJ's attempt to limit the participation of DL and UA (yes, UA is impacted as well) is picking and choosing of competitors for the purpose of determining pricing in the marketplace.
That is not legal and all of the charges of arrogance don't or won't make it right.
Again, my assertion remains that the settlement agreement will end up in court if it is not altered to remove the clauses about preferential and excluded bidding.
Those that are certain that it will not change are welcome to bet against me.
So far, no one has accepted the challenge - which says that perhaps they aren't as certain of their positions as they think.
BTW, E's little diatribe about arrogance doesn't seem to account for the fact that UA was excluded as well.
I guess it is their pathetic operation that knocked them out of the running, E? or was it the fact that UA made the mistake of moving their HDQ to CHI? And DL never had any real roots in Texas since they had no presence to the west, right?