Originally Posted by
imverge
So you would have us believe that as long as there is another carrier operating the same route it's not considered a monopoly? That might fall within the definition of the word. But, when the smaller company is fairly new with barely enough planes to fly the same schedule... there is a period where the larger one enjoys a huge advantage and exploits it by gouging the consumer, that to me is a MONOPOLY. Everything else is Smoke & Mirrors
I respectfully disagree. Even with a whopping 70% market share, there was enough competition from one or more carriers that the term 'monopoly' can not be used within Canada. On certain domestic routes there may have been a monopoly, granted, but even now I can't think of many where somebody else doesn't provide air service. The definition clearly states 'exclusive' control over something, so for the sake of this argument, we'll have to come up with a different word when describing AC immediately post-merger.
Did AC enjoy a huge advantge? Yes. Did it gouge customers? Well, that's something else altogether and despite repeated well-publicised allegations, nobody managed to find credible evidence of such.