DOJ defends American Airlines-US Airways merger settlement
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly received 14 comments ahead of her decision of whether the settlement is in the publics best interest.
March 12, 2014 at 08:03 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Department of Justice (DOJ) agreed to a settlement that allowed the American Airlines-US Airways merger to proceed as planned in November 2013, but still, four months later, the department is defending the deal to courts and consumers.
In a submission to U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the government called the agreement a “major victory for American consumers.” Particularly, the government pointed to the low-cost carriers who received takeoff and landing slots at major airports, which the submission deemed beneficial to the American public.
It will be up to Kollar-Kotelly to determine whether the deal is indeed in the American public's best interest. In doing so, the judge received comments about the settlement from 14 different interested parties before making her decision, including the DOJ's 51-page report.
Among the other comments were consumer advocates who felt the settlement didn't go far enough and lawmakers who felt the agreement would hurt small communities. One particularly noteworthy comment came from Delta Air Lines Inc., which claimed that the DOJ's lawsuit was faulty in the first place because the department did not truly understand the industry. Delta also claimed that the DOJ was mistaken in directing the merged company to sell assets to low-cost carriers.
The DOJ originally filed an antitrust suit against the American Airlines-US Airways merger in August 2013, claiming the combined company would reduce competition and result in higher fares for travelers. “By challenging this merger, the Department of Justice is saying that the American people deserve better,” said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in a statement at the time. “This transaction would result in consumers paying the price—in higher airfares, higher fees and fewer choices.”
However, in November, the DOJ and the merged airline came to a deal. Through the terms of the deal, the company would agree to divest facilities at major airports around the company to keep those airports competitive. That total included 104 takeoff and landing slots at Washington D.C.'s Ronald Reagan National Airport, where the company would hold a near monopoly.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the company has received $425 million in total divestitures by selling off slots in New York City and Washington D.C., as well as through a subleasing deal with the airline JetBlue.
InsideCounsel has been on this story from the beginning. For the full timeline, check out these articles:
DOJ clears American Airlines-US Airways merger for takeoff
DOJ, US Airways and AMR Corp. in settlement discussions over airline merger
DOJ asks judges to delay civil cases over budget issues
US Airways defends American Airlines merger
Michigan the latest to join American Airlines-U.S. Airways antitrust suit
American Airlines and US Airways seek early trial in antitrust suit
DOJ files antitrust suit against U.S. Airways-American Airlines merger
Attorneys general join DOJ probe into US Airways-American Airlines merger
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 All
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
- 2Products Liability: The Absence of Other Similar Claims—a Defense or a Misleading Effort to Sway a Jury?
- 3529 Accounts Are Not Your Divorce Piggybank
- 4Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 5Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
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
