Originally Posted by
satpak77
Canoe, you nailed it. THEY (not AA), THEY, the DOJ, needs, as in have an obligation, to PROVE (not speculate, opine, but PROVE to the court) that this is ANTI-COMPETITIVE.
Yes, you nailed it. That is "all" they have to do.
Merger approval is very likely to occur.
I don't think the DOJ has a rock solid case otherwise I would give this merge a 0% chance. The amended filing of the HHI does include SWA in their analysis but I still think it's 50/50 if it goes to trial.
We don't know what the DOJ found out in their discovery. Discovery generally doesn't help the defendant is these cases.
Originally Posted by
450knotOffice
In my 49 years, EVERY Debbie Downer I've encountered - every one - has used this EXACT type of comeback: "I'm not negative. I'm just a realist."
Right. Says every Debbie Downer, glass is half empty person.
Having spoken to a few Anti-trust attorneys I tend to try and look at both sides of this case. Some on here choose to post every article that is sent out by any journalist as proof that the doj will lose this case. I think some people aren't clear about how anti-trust law works. There is no "reasonable doubt" or "past precedents" in mergers. They let ua/cal, dal/nw and airtran/swa merge. But that has no bearing what so ever on this case. Yet people still bring that up as their solid proof that the doj doesn't have a case.
Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
The math is fuzzy in several ways. First, the government chose to use one-stop routes. Never been done that way before. Past consistency would have to been to compare non-stop routes only. "Okay" you say. "Times they are a changin'..." The government is changing how they look at these things. Well then, the DoJ failed to use all possible one-stop combinations when using our one-stops. They compared our one-stop monopolies against the rest of the industry's non-stops. Hardly seems fair to me...
The second way is their use of the term "markets." In previous mergers, the DoJ looked at nearby airports when comparing markets. For example, the New York market encompasses EWR, JFK, LGA, and even HPN. Or the MIA market includes FLL. Not this time. They are airport specific, for the first time. So, all of Spirit and JetBlue's FLL-Caribbean flying does not offset the HHI score for AA in MIA. That is idiotic, as they are direct, head-to-head competitors in those markets.
Finally, they are using the 1000 monopolistic markets (based on an HHI score) to demonstrate the need to block the merger. However, they excluded (by their own admission) certain competitors (Spirit, Allegient) from the analysis. Thus, their score is meaningless. They are basing decisions on a flawed score. I would say that is strike three...
Now, you keep saying that you're looking at this from a "realist"perspective. I question that. A realist would say that we have a rock-solid case, the government's actions are incompetent at best (criminal, at worst), and the math the DoJ used to justify their position is flawed. That is the reality of where we are. Does that mean we'll win? Who knows... It certainly appears that often the more convincing lawyer wins, not necessarily the party with the strongest case. Common sense says we will win. But, as we all know, common sense does not always prevail, particularly when dealing with the government. If I "knew" how it would go, I would either buy a ton of the stock, or short it -- and get rich. However, no one knows how it will go until the morning the verdict (decision) is read... I prefer to look at it as "not getting my hopes up again" until the cash is in the bank. But, the evidence certainly does seem to be pointin more towards the gov't bowing out...
You've made some good points but the amended suit did include SWA in the analysis.