Originally Posted by
nologic
Competitive fares are basically about slots. The may make it clear that they want the whole merger stopped but they don;t really have a leg to stand on. That's the government for you, throwing the whole book at you because they can...doesn't mean they will win. Just that they like to use their tax-payer resources and power to build their careers. But we all know it's about slots. IF there's competition, consumers will have a fair playing field. The government's role is to ensure there's a fair playing field.
I'm not sure you realize that very few airports in the US are slot-controlled (DCA, LGA, and maybe five or six others). The overwhelming majority of airports have no slot restrictions. The DOJ has objected to reduced competition in hundreds of city-pairs. This has absolutely nothing to do with slots.
Originally Posted by
ubernostrum
A comment expressed skepticism toward the idea that courts care about consistency from regulators and want reasons when regulators suddenly change their standards.
I posted a reply which began with a clear statement that antitrust isn't my area of expertise, and that I was going to give an example from a different area of law to demonstrate that this is indeed a principle that exists (and I'd be incredibly surprised if there were any area of law in which government officials can just without warning make major changes in how they regulate/police an industry without having to give an account of that to a court or face that court smacking them around for arbitrariness).
Sure it's a principle that exists, in an entirely different area of law.
Legal principles cannot be transferred to other areas of law like that. How administrative law works and how antitrust laws work are entirely different.
Originally Posted by
ubernostrum
Second, while I freely admit antitrust isn't my area of expertise, I would quite literally need to pick my jaw up off the floor if it is the case that there are no standards companies can look to for guidance on what they can and can't do, and if it is the case that the government can simply about-face on its standards whenever it likes without being called to account for such or challenged in court over it. Not because I'm an expert on antitrust, since I'm not, but simply because interaction with government enforcement just isn't supposed to work that way in this country.
The standards are clear, any merger that significantly reduces competition is illegal. The enforcement may vary depending on several factors. The government doesn't have the time or interest in prosecuting everyone. If the government had prosecuted UA/CO and lost, that would establish a legal precedent that AA/US could cite.