![]() |
"All they need to prove is that this merger is anti-competitive. They have the 1000 1 stop connects via the hhi and dougs e-mails."
The government numbers are skewed and smells of funny math. Independent research has found these numbers to be much lower and government took advantage of a lot of gray area to get where they did. Your wanting of this merger to die is oozing everywhere. |
Everyone keeps saying the math is fuzzy but they never say how.
And I don't want it to die, I just dont feel like lying to myself to make me feel better. |
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1514606)
Everyone keeps saying the math is fuzzy but they never say how.
And I don't want it to die, I just dont feel like lying to myself to make me feel better. |
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1514591)
I take a realist approach to this and don't subscribe to the echo chamber here..
|
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1514606)
Everyone keeps saying the math is fuzzy but they never say how.
And I don't want it to die, I just dont feel like lying to myself to make me feel better. 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... |
Originally Posted by Bad-Andy
(Post 1514710)
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... |
Interesting that every person I have met that describes themself as a "realist" appear to be the most miserable people I have ever known.
I can't think of any situation where optimism hurts. What's the worst that can happen? You end up disappointed. So what. The late John Wooden (Basketball Coach) said: Things work out the best for those who make the best of the way things work out. CG |
Originally Posted by R57 relay
(Post 1514725)
Good post Andy.I don't know Canoe, but maybe he is a little like me. I straddle the fence between realist and pessimist, never accused of being an optimist.
|
Originally Posted by cubguy
(Post 1514734)
Interesting that every person I have met that describes themself as a "realist" appear to be the most miserable people I have ever known.
I can't think of any situation where optimism hurts. What's the worst that can happen? You end up disappointed. So what. The late John Wooden (Basketball Coach) said: Things work out the best for those who make the best of the way things work out. CG My post was meant to be slightly light hearted, maybe I should have added a smiley. We are all geared a certain way, with some room for change. Is the person miserable and that makes then realistic, or are they realistic and that makes them miserable? I hope for the best, plan for something less than the worst. Don't have massive weapons and food stores in the basement. I hope the merger works out, but if any big or long term plans are affected by it I have to assume it won't. I'm about 60-40 that it will, today. |
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
(Post 1514744)
I was pretty optimistic before August 13th.
I just don't think the DOJ suit passes the stink test. Of course it's the government, so we know how that goes, but Holder seemed to be changing the tune a little. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:25 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands