Originally Posted by
BlueScholar
Because Spirit’s CEO testified that they didn’t need the merger to survive, and Jet Blue testified that this would reduce competition and raise prices. That’s exactly what antitrust laws are designed to prevent.
If either executive testified differently it is very likely the outcome would have been different.
No it wouldn't have. I agree the Spirit CEO's testimony was dumb. B6 was probably *trying* to get out of the merger at that point.
Essentially any merger of any companies is going to reduce competition... the threshold should be long-term net-benefit (such as survival of a company in a specific niche).