akelkar

SJC's got a ton of open space and it's big enough for SJC-Japan flights (ANA does a daily 787 flight to Japan). OAK is also not too occupied. LAX and SFO are pretty full internationally and I would love it if US put SJC as an international connecting city (wishful thinking cause I'm based out of there when I'm home)

It's really a bummer that US Air doesn't have any flights to Asia, the AA merger would have definitely helped there

skitch23

This comes from the article on USA Today...

"In light of today's announcement, the companies no longer expect the merger to close during the third quarter of 2013," Parker says, "However, we are hopeful that the litigation will be successfully concluded and we will close the merger before year end."

dtremit

So, in reading the DOJ filing, one key part of their analysis is that the merger would decrease the competitiveness on almost 1,000 routes. I don't have the skills or background to question their number crunching in most cases, but it's interesting to look at some of the routes where they claim that there would be *no* competition on the route, including connecting flights.

For example, they cite Charlotte to Durango, CO (DRO) as one such example, with a post-merger HHI of 10,000. However, DRO is served by UA, with service to Denver.

UA and US don't duplicate a number of routes between their hubs -- DEN-CLT is one such example. But does anyone think that UA won't pick up a route like DEN-CLT if they don't have US in the picture?

Another route they cite with no competition is OGG-MKE. But UA does have a seasonal, single-connection option via ORD; it's hard for me to believe that no one has *ever* flown that. And ORD has been a major reason for fewer flight options in MKE.

So in short -- I find DOJ's calculations to be very suspect. Many of them seem to be based on unreasonable assumptions (UA not flying CLT-DEN), are generally implausible (the OGG-MKE example), or are on routes that can't have much real traffic demand (someone who must fly GSO-STX but won't double-connect).

The most convincing part of DOJ's argument is undoubtedly the case for concentration at DCA. If the two companies compromise on that, I doubt they would have much trouble poking holes in DOJ's arguments in the rest of the case; it just feels like a lot of grasping at straws.

McSam18

If the DOJ does stop the merger and if US doesn't OW, at least allow us to book LH F with miles. At this point, I'd rather pay the high surcharge for BA F.

tommyleo

That is much more likely LH's decision, not US's.

BoeingBoy

[QUOTE=dtremit;21266607]So, in reading the DOJ filing, one key part of their analysis is that the merger would decrease the competitiveness on almost 1,000 routes.[quote]

The criteria historically used is city-pairs - origin/destination - and not non-stop routes. The alleviating factor for monopoly city pairs is the ability and likelihood that another carrier will enter that market. DCA is a classic case given the slot requirement - no available slots no competitor. The same is true to a lesser degree with hubs - CLT has relatively little gate access for a competitor to begin relatively frequent service.

Jim

McSam18

I thought that it was US's decision to implement the blocking of LH F because they didn't want to pay the high fee.

stockmanjr

Unless they can work out a deal with the DOJ there's no way in hell this is going to work through the court system by the end of the year. I would hope at this point US/AA would have made it's best offer to the DOJ to avoid this but with Parker's attitude I wouldn't bank on that.
Cheers
Howie

IADCAflyer

HHI is the standard DOJ antitrust analysis that they do. Long, long ago, I did work on the MCI-WorldCom merger and a large part of my life for six months was an analysis of international markets controlled by the MCI, WorldCom, and other carriers, and whether this would cause two many monopoly and duopoly situations. Ugh...

In talking to some of the aviation types around my shop, there is a feeling that DOJ strongly believes that there have been too many mergers and the wedding chapel is full up on its capacity.

With WN/FL, UA/CO, and DL/NW, you had 7 major carriers dropping to 4. This marriage would make it three with tremendous market clout. And frankly, with the UA/CO and DL/NW mergers, there has been significant pain for passengers. Two entire hubs are dead (CVG and MEM) and one is withering on the vine - CLE. All the talk on this board and on other boards is if PHX or CLT or PHL get axed. That isn't very indicative of consumer benefits.

Honestly, I'm not surprised.

I wonder if groups of organized FFs (e.g., FFOCUS) would file an entry of appearance to in effect serve as an amicus on DOJ's behalf.

zkzkz

Everyone knew DCA would be the issue. But DCA is not a city, it's an airport. It's hard to make a serious argument that DC has a monopoly carrier and it's US with IAD down the road.

Fanjet

What would they say? "I don't want my free upgrade to F to go away." The fact that the DOJ dismisses WN/FL as not being significant is rediculous. They are just as much a big player in the domestic market as the Big Three. In fact, don't they carry more passengers than US does in the States?

IADCAflyer

Its a lot more than upgrades. Its reduced capacity, poor service, shuttering of hubs, etc.

I'd be willing to bet that 4 out of 5 FTers on the DL and UA boards are not pleased with the post-merger versions of the two airlines...

IADCAflyer

Case has been assigned to the Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (who handled US v. Microsoft)...

BoeingBoy

Note the historical criteria carefully. City-pairs, not airport pairs. Granted that for many/most medium/small airports the distiction doesn't exist - multiple airports don't serve the same city - but places like NYC, DC, Chicago are the exceptions.

Jim

jn in ca

WN flys more passengers than anybody else in the lower 48. Not the biggest by revenue, but the biggest by pax.