Update on DOJ case, they are being very vocal
11-06-2013, 12:00 PM
#21
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
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. I think if it goes to trial it's a 50/50 shot at best. Its not a slam dunk case for the doj but it's not pathetic and weak like everyone makes it out to be either.
Yes, you nailed it. That is "all" they have to do.
Merger approval is very likely to occur.
11-06-2013, 08:21 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
I take a realist approach to this and don't subscribe to the echo chamber here..
Right. Says every Debbie Downer, glass is half empty person.
11-07-2013, 02:43 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Position: A319/20/21 FO
Posts: 292
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.
Right. Says every Debbie Downer, glass is half empty person.
Life is too short to go around expecting the worst all the time. I'm quite optimistic the merger will happen, but if it doesn't, I still have a job I enjoy at a profitable airline, and more importantly, my wife and kids are still waiting when I walk in the door after every trip. I'll drink to that ...
11-07-2013, 03:42 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,166
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.
Yes, you nailed it. That is "all" they have to do.
Merger approval is very likely to occur.
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.
Right. Says every Debbie Downer, glass is half empty person.
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...
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...
11-07-2013, 05:07 PM
#25
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
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.
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 CanoePilot
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.
Put another way, the DOJ said Tom and Mary should not be married because DOJ thinks Tom is already married somewhere else. The perception is that DOJ is "against the marriage" which they are, BUT, the proof element, to the marriage court, the "because", needs to be proven by DOJ, to the court's satisfaction. DOJ needs to cough up a prior marriage certificate between Tom and another person, or bring some live bodies to the court who can say, gee, ole Tom is married to another woman. Absent DOJ proving this, Tom is getting married to Mary.
Apple Warns of 'Dangerous Precedent' If U.S. Wins Antitrust Case Over E-Books
Antitrust
Everyone has their own perspective on this but I feel the merger will be approved.
Last edited by satpak77; 11-07-2013 at 05:46 PM.
11-07-2013, 05:34 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 581
11-07-2013, 05:56 PM
#27
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Next major event is Thursday Nov 21 which is "pre-trial conference". This is typically the last chance for all parties to hug and be friends and agree on whatever issues before trial. Friday Nov 22 is admin matters etc. After that, it is game day on Monday Nov 25.
11-08-2013, 02:10 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Recalled....
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by CanoePilot
You've made some good points but the amended suit did include SWA in the analysis.
Anyways, I'm not saying that I think it's a done deal. Far from it. I have been sending out apps and resumes in the last month or so. I'm hopeful that it will happen (and am generally optimistic that it will), but that doesn't mean I'm not setting up a back-up plan in case it tanks... If the merger fails, my guess is that some people will stay and be quite happy at US and others will start to look elsewhere. One thing I do think is that if the merger fails, we will have trouble filling classes once Delta really picks up hiring, FedEx starts hiring again, and our contract stays so crappy with the internal squabbling going on... Maybe the company will have no choice but to intervene and settle this thing once and for all.
Or not. Let's just hope the merger happens soon.....
11-08-2013, 05:33 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Posts: 207
Originally Posted by AAirways
You're pessimistic about everything. I just hope i never have to meet or work with you in real life. It seems it's always raining and cloudy where you are. It would really suck to get rained on indoors! Suns shining where I am and merger or no merger, I'll survive...
Don't expect too many folks on the line with your attitude. I have been one of the lucky ones. Many have not faired as well. Just have a little bit of understanding for the less then enthusiastic. They deserve at least that much, IMO.
THANKS.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
