Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane
The out is number 6 in your post. The possibilty of rising ticket prices is "injurious" to the consumer.
Denny
I totally know what your saying. Hopefully it will be their burden to prove.
There is the "possibility" of a lot of things.
If Southwest (or any other airline) moves in there isn't a route out there that they will operate that isn't already being served. Maybe the fares might go down, maybe not...either way the only requirement is that the deal not "hurt" the consumer like you've stated.
In that case you have to look at the deal as a whole and decide is it truly "hurtful"? Is is more or less "hurtful" than what is already in place.
Is their really a reason to think ticket prices will go up? Is that "guess" good enough to disregard all of the plusses and "harmless" things in this deal?
Not to mention the whole "pick in choose" game they are trying to play in approving the AirTran/CAL deal. That gave a LCC more market share in LGA, but made an already dominate carrier even more dominate in EWR. Sounds much like our deal...but I think ours actually smells better overall, so how is it denied?
I'd love to see our lawyers argue this one out. I think it'll be a good show.