US Airways defends American Airlines merger
The proposed merger would also make them the largest airline in the world, which raised concerns about the monopolization of certain flight routes and a reduction of competition across the industry.
September 12, 2013 at 07:22 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In a filing which defended their proposed merger against a US antitrust lawsuit, American Airlines and US Airways Group claimed yesterday evening that their partnership would benefit consumers to the tune of $500 million a year. They also announced plans to extend the termination date of the merger if they could not secure regulatory approval by December 17th.
In Feb. 2013, the two groups announced plans to merge, after their research concluded that joining forces could net them over a billion dollars annually in revenue and shared operational costs. The proposed merger would also make them the largest airline in the world, which raised concerns about the monopolization of certain flight routes and a reduction of competition across the industry.
In August, the Department of Justice and a handful of attorneys general filed a lawsuit blocking the $11 billion merger. The case claims, among other things, that “This merger—by creating the world's largest airline— would, in the words of US Airways' management, 'finish industry evolution.' It would reduce the number of major domestic airlines from five to four, and the number of 'legacy' airlines—today, Delta, United, American, and US Airways—from four to three. In so doing, it threatens substantial harm to consumers.”
The DOJ's primary concern is that a reduction in flights to certain markets and therefore less competition will end up increasing ticket costs for consumers.
American Air and US Airways said in their filing, however, that it's the regulation seeking to stop the creation and development of newer fight services that really threatens consumer choice. They also claim that legacy carriers are not relevant to the argument because they were frequently the least financially successful amongst major airlines.
The antitrust case will go to court in November, where the future of the merger will be determined based on a judge's decision and without a jury.
In a filing which defended their proposed merger against a US antitrust lawsuit,
In Feb. 2013, the two groups announced plans to merge, after their research concluded that joining forces could net them over a billion dollars annually in revenue and shared operational costs. The proposed merger would also make them the largest airline in the world, which raised concerns about the monopolization of certain flight routes and a reduction of competition across the industry.
In August, the Department of Justice and a handful of attorneys general filed a lawsuit blocking the $11 billion merger. The case claims, among other things, that “This merger—by creating the world's largest airline— would, in the words of
The DOJ's primary concern is that a reduction in flights to certain markets and therefore less competition will end up increasing ticket costs for consumers.
American Air and
The antitrust case will go to court in November, where the future of the merger will be determined based on a judge's decision and without a jury.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
- 2Divided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
- 3From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 4‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 5LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250