US posts another record profit!

[jimntx]

Well, we can go around in this circle forever, but let's not. You continue to insist all you want that poor LCC is being treated unfairly because DL/NW and UA/CO were allowed to merge. That argument is neither factual nor does it bear legal weight.

It has been pointed out to you time and time again that under Federal law one merger decision has no bearing on any other merger decision. Whether or not they should have allowed either of those mergers is moot. They allowed the mergers. They can not now disallow those mergers. Case closed.

But, if it makes you happy...

 

[CallawayGolf]

Well, we can go around in this circle forever, but let's not. You continue to insist all you want that poor LCC is being treated unfairly because DL/NW and UA/CO were allowed to merge. That argument is neither factual nor does it bear legal weight.

It has been pointed out to you time and time again that under Federal law one merger decision has no bearing on any other merger decision. Whether or not they should have allowed either of those mergers is moot. They allowed the mergers. They can not now disallow those mergers. Case closed.

But, if it makes you happy...

Well they can't disallow a merger; but the Feds do have some history in forcing a breakup of what they consider to be a monopoly. AT&T, Standard Oil, and they have tried hard but failed (thankfully) to break up Microsoft.

 

[wings396]

Well, we can go around in this circle forever, but let's not. You continue to insist all you want that poor LCC is being treated unfairly because DL/NW and UA/CO were allowed to merge. That argument is neither factual nor does it bear legal weight.

It has been pointed out to you time and time again that under Federal law one merger decision has no bearing on any other merger decision. Whether or not they should have allowed either of those mergers is moot. They allowed the mergers. They can not now disallow those mergers. Case closed.

But, if it makes you happy...

I'm happy either way, my only point is to show that a monopoly of a market isn't something new. Not saying that poor Lil ole US should be shown any pity over past mergers, just given the same treatment as others were given in review.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA and US r being treated the same. they questioned the DOJ's processes in previous mergers and asked to see DOJ docs. the request was denied. The notion that they r being treated differently is without factual basis and will remain that way based on decisions of the court.

 

[jimntx]

I'm happy either way, my only point is to show that a monopoly of a market isn't something new. Not saying that poor Lil ole US should be shown any pity over past mergers, just given the same treatment as others were given in review.

Not required under the law. Each case is considered separately.

 

[wings396]

Just because "they" have decided to go that route, doesn't make it right. Any other government BS that doesn't jive come to mind? I assume that's what the courts are designed to do.

 

[wings396]

AA and US r being treated the same. they questioned the DOJ's processes in previous mergers and asked to see DOJ docs. the request was denied. The notion that they r being treated differently is without factual basis and will remain that way based on decisions of the court.

Any ideas as to why they may have been denied? Could it be the DOJ is hiding something that they don't want AA/US to see? If everything is being done the same, no reason to hold any previous info back, right? Nah, none of our fine government agencies would ever do that.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I am hardly going to defend the US government without question but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that AA/US have to merge on the same basis as other companies in the US. Despite the efforts that they have made to portray themselves as persecuted and treated differently, the court decided that the data that AA/US requested to try to make that argument does not have to be released.
The request was denied because AA/US' request crosses the legal limit of what the DOJ is required to share - or for that matter any other participant in similar types of cases.

Go read the rulings if you want to know the details. Terry Maxon reproduced most of the key parts of the rulings.

It has nothing to do with a bias for or against AA/US. It has to do with the rule of law.

It is still anyone's guess how the trial will go. the DOJ lost valuable prep time because of the slimdown but they have the evidence of very strong profitability in the industry including at AA and US as well as a ruling that says that their analysis of other mergers is protected.

The chances remain strong that the court will require at least the same concessions that AA/US offered before but the DOJ rejected as insufficient. The likelihood of the merger going forward without significant concessions is very small.

 

[traderjake]

they have the evidence of very strong profitability in the industry including at AA and US

"No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

How is profitability proof of substantially less competition, or monopoly?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Profitability reinforces the DOJ's position that consolidation isn't necessary and will result in reduced competition and lower fares. Even though AA and US are desperately throwing capacity into the market to try to convince the DOJ that they are about growing, the evidence is overwhelming that the merger won't work if there aren't significant capacity cuts.

AA/US' own public comments and those non-public emails confirm that reduced availability of low fares and reduced schedules is an expected outcome of the merger.

 

[P. REZ]

Profitability reinforces the DOJ's position that consolidation isn't necessary and will result in reduced competition and lower fares. Even though AA and US are desperately throwing capacity into the market to try to convince the DOJ that they are about growing, the evidence is overwhelming that the merger won't work if there aren't significant capacity cuts.

AA/US' own public comments and those non-public emails confirm that reduced availability of low fares and reduced schedules is an expected outcome of the merger.

Your points are valid but in the end moot, there will be a settlement before the trial IMO.

 

[robbedagain]

Question is what settlement and at what cost

 

[mike33]

Question is what settlement and at what cost

At the cost of some faction of US employees. All the while waiting for a merger and proclaiming we need low cost? They are making millions and its own employees are on hold for 2 yrs ( by the time all is said and done) with probably no retro to equal their anxiety.

 

[robbedagain]

Mike sadly ur right bro esp w the way these donkeys are

 

[nycbusdriver]

How is profitability proof of substantially less competition, or monopoly?

It's definitely not going to create any monopoly, by definition. It tends toward an oligopoly controlled by four mega carriers. But the law says "monopoly," not oligopoly.

No city pairs will be monopolized since domestic markets are deregulated. Delta, United, Southwest, JetBlue, Virgin America, etc. are all welcome to join any city pairs they wish whether it be non-stop, direct, or connecting. Just because carriers utiize their assets as they see fit, and not as the government sees necessary to insure cheap tickets, is not American or US Airways problem.

The judge will kick the DOJ on their collective butts, unless they cave before the trial starts.