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.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 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 AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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