Originally Posted by
kokonutz
You don't need to make any excuses nor apologies for posting here! @:-)^
It's not that 'there was no scenario where ff's would benefit from the merger.' The UA/CO merger and the AA/US merger were anti-competitive, anti-consumer and especially anti-frequent flyer. Miles and points hoarders needed to be not just worried about them but taking proactive action in light of them.
It seems to me that you wrote about this sort of thing not from OUR (yours, mine, and other frequent flyer/points hoarder) point of view but rather as an outside observer with an anti-government intervention perspective. I think THAT's what rankles your readers.
If the DOJ did/does not have the ability to stop this oligopoly from happening and getting worse, they should.
DOJ did not have absolute power to stop this from happening, but they had a decision to make about the strength of their case. Given that few airline mergers are likely to occur anymore with the impact of US/AA, I think Eric Holder folded when there was a reasonable argument that despite earlier merger approvals, this particular merger had the potential to create limited competition.
When I saw DOJ was moving to delay the trial in this matter, I knew DOJ was operating from a position of weakness. In trial practice, the party bearing the burden of proof generally should wait to file until all their ducks are in a row. DOJ appeared initially reluctant to move against this merger and apparently got into the battle late and ill prepared. US/AA should have been the party seeking to delay things instead of the DOJ. When it became apparent DOJ wasn't ready, it was just a matter of time before settlement occurred with the new entity giving up slots at several airports--hardly a major concession as they were already well represented in those markets by one or the other.