CNBC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (12 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1589 times:
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that federal and state regulators will soon be filing lawsuits in order to stop the merger. The lawsuit will try to at least force United and US Airways to make great sacrifces if they are to unite.
This comes after meetings with the Department of Justice went poorly.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1457 times:
Good for the federal and state regulators! This merger is highly anticompetitive, not only of itself but because of the massive tectonic restructuring it would set off in the US airline industry. A Big 3 could crush WN, et al, something the current Big 6 does not have the concentrated market power to do.
The regulators may be able to kill this monster with a thousand cuts, or with a huge amputation or two--say requiring United to divest PIT to a major competitor, as well as the US Shuttle. And awarding DCA to a major competitor or a coalition of established low-fare carriers.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 3, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
Consolidation may be a periodic event in most industries, but history shows that sometimes the gov't has to speak loudly and wield a big stick to protect consumers.
Teddy Roosevelt did it, breaking up Standard Oil to protect consumers from Rockefeller monopoly abuses, and Ronald Reagan of all people did not fight the court-ordered breakup of AT & T--which has led to far cheaper long distance service, (even allowing for inflation) for most Americans.
Sure, consolidations and mergers can be good--People Express was going bankrupt due to its stupid beyond-capitalization expansions, and better high-cost CO buy them and save something rather than have them simply go under. But US is nowhere near PE's 1987 situation.
Consolidation isn't just "part of the ride." It's a hazardous ride that has to be watched closely to make sure its captains don't wind up taking consumers for a ride. And the 1990s have demonstrated conclusively that Big Air's captains will shave consumers bald and close the skies to the non-wealthy when given half a chance.
UA and US want to merge? Justice should require that US be divvied up like a hog at the butcher shop, and distributed among the majors and low-fare carriers, rather than let market concentration happen. And today's reports suggest that Justice will demand that to some extent (though not enough if they're not demanding hub divestitures). Otherwise, US keeps flying and has to work out its problems. Or merge with TWA after 2003 and preserve the industry structure.
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2864 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1411 times:
This is not a socialist state. The act of dividing and distributing among everyone is itself socialist.
Also, check your history:
-The court-ordered breakup of AT&T wasn't due to merger activities... it was due to the fact that the entire country was served by one and only one carrier, considered a common carrier under the law.
- The court-ordered breakup of Standard Oil was much the same: that monopoly grew internally, and they were willfully breaking the law. Not due to merger activity.
Yes, United will be huge after the merger. Yes, more consolidation will occur. But, as I've said before, mergers that end up being huge companies open niches for new companies to start and grow. Look at all of the startups that have happened in the past 20 years -- all to fill niches that have opened up.
Airline regulation was ended because it was ineffective. Regulation has to be either complete or completely absent. As a society, we can't say "do your own thing" one time and then turn around and micromanage the next.
FlyMDW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
If anything, the case for government intervention is stronger in mergers than in simple internal expansion. For two companies that aren't on the brink of collapse (as UA and US aren't), mergers are a way of avoiding the bother of expanding by themselves and dealing with the competition along the way. (See MCI-Sprint, which was blocked, incidentally.)
Government, in a role as a representative of the people, has a right to scrutinize behavior that it believes will harm. In my opinion, the only people who can point to any tangible benefit from the merger are the airline execs and high-level UA frequent flyers; I think the rest of us deserve some consideration.
If someone could explain why reducing competition in hundreds of markets is good for us... maybe I'll change my mind.
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2864 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
There will be a reduction in competition for some markets, while an expansion of available destinations for others. You can't look at this market by market - you have to look at it from the top down.
This merger creates a true national airline - east-to-west, north-to-south. Competition in the central eastern seaboard is reduced, true, but in many many other markets, UA and US never really competed anyway.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 7, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1361 times:
FlyMDW is exactly right about the fact that there is no meaningful difference between monopoly or oligopoly practices that arise from internal growth or merger practices. My history is just fine, Flashmeister, you've introduced a meaningless distinction to distract discussion from the true issue.
Both the Standard Oil and AT & T monopolies were broken up for the same reason: they were dreadfully harmful to consumers. The good results of both--competition in the oil business (which is diminishing again, unfortunately) and in the long distance communication field--were due to government intervention to break up monopoly (effectively the same as oligopoly) situations.
The same goes for a UA-US merger: it is certain to be highly destructive to consumers. The idea that DOJ should somehow look at the merger "from the top down" only and not look at market pairs, is like saying that sociologists should ignore data for individual cities and simply look at nationwide statistics when studying crime. In other words, ignore hard facts and base macroeconomic policy decisions on airy-fairy abstractions alone.
There's nothing the least bit socialist about my argument that the AIR-21 law's intention to redistribute LGA traffic to better include underserved markets should be continued. Even if a most of the additonal slots must be rescinded to reduce congestion. IF I weren't such a strong Republican I would think that such a poorly-informed reading of my argument were for political reasons.
Apparently I have to repeat what wasn't read the first time. Airports are NOT private facilities. Whether airlines or municipalities ultimately pay for most of their cost, they are public entities and their bond ratings are publicly backed. The public owns and operates airports and there is nothing the least bit socialist about demanding that severe imbalances in their use be just a little corrected.
The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was also unquestionably intended to foster greater competition, with lower fares and more city pairs. Protecting a level playing field for free competition, real free-market capitalism, is not the least bit socialist. Any charges that it is such are very poorly informed and clearly ignore the history of capitalism in the United States, which is that freedom stops where harm to others begins.
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2864 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
Airports may be public, but airlines are far from that. Fine, regulate the airports all you want, but to extend that to carving up a private entity at the government's whim is socialist any way you cut it.
You cannot extend governmental oversight to individual, private airlines based on the fact that they use public facilities. If you do, then what's the difference between that and trying to extend governmental oversight to musical groups using a public venue? (Can you say First Amendment??) What about taking a public park and saying that each citizen gets exactly their slice of time in it, and no more, since we're concerned about misuse?
Look at the name of the law that was passed: The Airline Deregulation Act. It was passed because government realized (correctly) that it shouldn't be in the role of approving/denying service, setting prices, and the like, in an industry that is perfectly capable of being a free marketplace.
Once you deregulate something, you have two choices to be most successful: stay out of the way and let the market be truly free, or reregulate it entirely. Don't go halfway. (There are many cases where we have gone halfway with miserable results: energy deregulation in CA, cable deregulation, telephone deregulation, etc etc etc.)
Also, one other point: The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few or the One. This merger creates a true national network for the first time, with a very appealing route structure and new opportunities for millions of passengers. Yes, it will harm service in other areas. I think, though, that the number of people who will benefit will be far greater than the number harmed.
You can't judge this on counting city-pairs with competition changes. This is progress for the majority, which is the way that this country has always worked. It sounds harsh, but there are two sides to every action, and unfortunately this will hurt some people. Too bad, that's life. No one situation will make everyone happy.
If there's a city-pair that was really that impacted -- and there's a market there -- you can bet that another carrier will begin service. That's like ignoring money dropped on the ground.
And, finally, if this is going to be such an awful thing, then people will leave the big airlines in droves and go to the new carriers that will inevitably spring up from the shadows. It happens all the time, and there's no reason to suggest that this is any different.
The Wall Street Journal reported in its electronic edition Wednesday that DOJ officials are expected to demand divestitures that go far beyond what the companies offered when they announced the merger in May.
A person close to the talks said the companies are preparing concessions more substantial than anything put on the table or discussed with the DOJ previously, the newspaper said.
The concessions would involve a wider sale of assets, but wouldn't include any of the companies' eight hubs, the paper reported the person as saying.
So... they lose the shuttle... maybe MetroJet... big whoop...
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2829 posts, RR: 40 Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1333 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
I doubt the USAirways Shuttle will go
United Shuttle... oh yeah i can see that going, maybe being merged with MJ and spun off...
I can also see the forced termination of contracts with some of the commuter airlines in the east (ACA or Piedmont or Mesa)
i can also see United being forced to swap some gates at ORD with other airlines, maybe DEN and SFO too.
Keep those wings level and Never look back!!!
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1334 times:
Your arguments are well thought and well put Flashmeister--and with the last two detailed posts I get a clearer picture of your overall view of the US-UA buyout and airport capacity regulation.
The admittedly risky semi-regulation approach has emerged as desirable, I think, because neither full regulation before 1978 nor the almost laissez-faire approach practiced after, have produced good results for the majority of American communities. A system that caters to the most wealthy travelers in the densest markets at the open and unapologetic expense of medium and small markets seems to me an antitrust and outright social justice problem.
Air travel is not a luxury and it seems to me that the laissez- faire approach has left too many communities underserved and/ or overcharged for airline service. The virtually unrestrained market has had its chance to bring more flights, more city-pairs, and lower fares--which were also an explicit intention of the deregulators--to more communities. I would say the airline industry has failed badly in that regard, and my own home region, Upstate New York, has fared terribly.
Since about 1992, the major airlines have adopted a strategy of seeking not simply profits but fat profits from every route, and cutting those routes that can't produce the high yields that shuttle routes or transcon routes routinely produce. Is it really just--and consistent with the Deregulation act--that airline execs should expect Des Moines, Rochester, or Syracuse to produce high margins like New York LaGuardia? It seems to me not.
The market has responded unevenly and haltingly to this unjust business strategy. Southwest can't get everywhere at once, and it seems to me that DSM, ROC, and SYR shouldn't have to wait ten years or more for WN before they get reasonable, if not always low, airfares. ROC at least has JetBlue, and a 90-minute drive to BUF for WN, so we're making progress. (IT'll be even better when WN comes to ROC, but for now BUF offers a practicable option for many).
I would love to share your confidence that the unrestrained laissez-faire approach to the airline industry can produce a justly structured airline system that neither stifles growth and innovation, nor exerts undue government influence in private companies' business decisions. But so far it's failed miserably.
Those of us from once-healthy airline markets that can't produce fat enough margins for Big Air on every route are tired of being gouged. We've had enough. And if Big Air doesn't start listening, they might find the worse option--complete reregulation--imposed upon them. There has to be a better way.
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
I must agree with Jim and take issue with Fleshmeister's assertion that the federal government's protection of the public, a collective set of rational actors themselves acting in a capitalist mode, can be considered socialist in the matter at hand.
I subscribe to the conservative notion that a free market system will achieve its points of maximum economic and technical efficiency if it is able to deploy resources freely of government intervention and regulation. I remain optimistic that our economy leads us in that direction.
But I also have concerns for the consumer in this context. If we accept that the mega-carrier resulting from the UA-US merger will seek to carve for itself a network of economically efficient proportions, then we must ask ourselves whether or not that economically efficient situation is truly beneficial to consumers.
The answer is no.
Monopolistic pricing in markets which lose service will cause the cost of air travel to rise, and could have some serious inflationary consequences 5 or more years down the road. That effect, coupled with consistently rising oil prices and the volatile Mideast political climate, could be potentially crippling to individuals, private firms, and businesses.
The reason? I think Jim implied that air travel is more or less a public service - not a mass-consumptive machine or market in which individuals throw away their disposable income. Rather, it has evolved to become an indispensible component of the worldwide economic existence - it's a tool for business and the machine driving the movement of people around the globe.
With the currently technical efficient system of air travel in the United States has come an increase in the velocity of our money supply, due in large part to the ability it has afforded large masses of people and firms to migrate, relocate themselves, and make transactions they wouldn't normally be able to make.
The government's primary role is not to bow out of regulating corporate malfeasance, but rather to uphold the laws of the land, laws which specifically PROSCRIBE monopolistic firms. As a constituent of that government, I have a right - as do you - to be sure that my interests are being looked after. And my interests - as are yours, I'm sure - include the availability of affordable air travel offering a wide range of connections.
So, in short, the assumption that the federal government's protection of consumers with regard to the merger is socialist has no foundation. Rather, there are three separate issues here to examine.
Will the merger be economically efficient for UA/US? I contend that the answer is yes, and I don't think anyone would disagree.
Will the merger benefit consumers? Absolutely not, and if you disagree, I suggest a re-evaluation of our entire free market system.
Should the federal government intervene if the answer to the above question is "no"? It absolutely should, because it is obligated to protect consumers from monopolistic, noncompetitive, and inherently non-capitalist forces. The law requires it to intervene. In fact, NOT intervening would be illegal and unjust.
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2864 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1323 times:
If air travel is, as you say, a public service, then what's the next step? Let's look at it from the perspective of a business owner, OK?
You have a business where you're currently successful at making money. That's why you go into business, anyway, right? Few of us are volunteer entrepreneurs.
Your business relies on a large revenue stream, as it's capital intensive, and your variable costs are fairly unpredictable. Even still, you are making money by pretty much serving customers that are profitable ones to serve.
Nothing wrong with that, right?
Now, the government says that you are not serving your customers correctly. They start to tell you which customers you may serve and what prices you may charge. This new mix is now completlely out of whack with the business you've built, and you're now losing money.
Are we talking about an airline here? Or maybe an ISP? How about a pizza delivery business? or a salon?
The point here is that in any case, the government is going in and out of management of a private enterprise.
If having 'affordable' air service was so important to us as a country, we'd have calls to at least partially socialize an airline to get service there. We've done it in most major cities with public transit, why not an airline? Or, Why not expand subsidies for affordable lifeline service to these communities? Somehow, I think that this scenario won't happen anytime soon.
Secondly, it's not illegal to make money, and it's not illegal to control individual area markets. If Wal-Mart was sued every time they go into a town and immediately controlled the retail scene in that area, they'd never leave court. Consumers adjust, though -- if they don't like Wal-Mart, they drive to the next city and go to another store.
Finally, I think that we're really overblowing the service issues in markets like DSM, ROC, and SYR. Do they have access to 'affordable' air travel? Yes. Is it at their home airports? No. Is there a reasonable expectation to have always-'low' airfares at every airport? Absolutely not!
Why? Maybe the loads aren't there. Maybe the costs to that station are higher. Maybe other airlines simply don't have the available equipment/crew to expand there. In other words, maybe the market is less attractive to capitalist businessmen. Maybe there's less money to be made there. That's life.
If there was a market in DSM, ROC, and SYR for additional service at what people consider 'affordable' rates, believe me, that market will be exploited. Otherwise it's like refusing free money. The only reason any of these markets were once-'healthy' was that the government was regulating (forcing) airlines to serve those cities.
Again, this sounds harsh, but it's simply the result of our choice of living in a very capitalist society... money talks. We have to get used to it.
Airwaysdc9 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 204 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1314 times:
Here is the press release from US Airways in response to the GAO report. Pay particular attention to the following line, in paragraph 3 of the release:
" Given that the report, on its own terms, failed to take into account US Airways’ financial position – and given that the status quo is not an option....."
If the status quo is not an option, then what ARE US Airways' options? If US Airways should cease to exist, Jim believes that other airlines will fly those routes and serve those city-pairs --- and he's partially correct. Over time those city-pairs WILL be served. After all, if people want to fly someone will come and fly them. But what happens in the interim? As a weakened US Airways pulls out of unprofitable markets one by one as it struggles to stay in business? By the time US goes to bankruptsy court there will have been thousands of employees laid off (not only at the airline but in cities that the airline serves...hotel employees, rental car employees, taxi drivers etc...), dozens of city-pairs left without vital links to the nations air transportation system. The exapansive east-coast route structure will collapse with a massive economic impact resulting....until such time that the remaining network air carriers can pick up the pieces and rebuild the east coast. How long will that take? Beats me....a year? 10 years? How long can Ithaca, Elmira, Morgantown, Johnstown, New Bern, and Hagerstown survive without air service? The biggest argument against this merger is that which proclaims there will be less competition and therefore higher prices. My question is, what difference does it make if this occurs due to a merger which upholds a strong east coast network, saves jobs, and sustains city economies, or the shut-down of the 5th largest airline in the country?
Jim will have you believe that cities like Pittsburgh will survive...but he doesnt understand. As long as he can fly from Rochester for low fares he simply doesnt care. Pittsburgh has open gates right now. Any airline in the country can serve Pittsburgh or Charlotte any time they want to. Jim will have you believe that it is necessary to divest of a hub which has plenty of room for adequate competition...that doesnt make sense. If he were to have said "Philly", I might have agreed that divesting some of Philly where there is no room for competition would be a requirement....but Pittsburgh? A hub by virtue of the fact that it was a hub for Allegheny and no other reason? A city that, in fact, does NOT have the O&D traffic to SUPPORT a hub? A city that, without US Airways loses its second largest employer....and a city whose own newspaper proclaimed that the loss of US Airways would have a greater economic impact on Pittsburgh than the closing of the steel mills did. Jim doesnt understand.
US Airways says that the status quo is not an option. The DOJ may sue to block this merger...if they are successful, then what IS the option? The remaining airlines simply do not have the manpower and resources to carve up the 6th largest airline in the country and continue serving every market instantaneously without disruption! Jim believes otherwise and apparantly hasnt taken the economic impact of the disruption of even 1/3rd of this route system for even two WEEKS into consideration. I've rambled enough...here's the press release. Status Quo is NOT an option:-----
ARLINGTON, Va., Dec. 20, 2000 -- US Airways issued the following statement in response to Rep. James Oberstar’s release today of a General Accounting Office report on the US Airways-United Airlines merger:
"Congressman Oberstar has stretched the GAO report to serve his own agenda. He has used it to make a statement that has no basis in that report – or in reality: that it would be better for
US Airways to close its doors than for this merger to be approved. This statement is an insult to US Airways’ 45,000 employees and their families, reflects a careless disregard for the 202 communities US Airways serves – and in no way is supported by the GAO’s report. His suggestion is as baseless as it is reckless. It may serve Mr. Oberstar’s parochial interests – but it does not take into account the jobs of tens of thousands of workers in other states, the communities they serve – or the actual findings of the GAO report itself.
"That report, while raising questions about the United-US Airways merger in some respects, does acknowledge that the "merger would benefit consumers in three major ways," including expanding competition in numerous markets, improving service for many consumers, and enhancing opportunities for frequent flyers. Given that the report, on its own terms, failed to take into account US Airways’ financial position – and given that the status quo is not an option – the GAO’s mixed review of the merger, based on this partial data, is no surprise. Rep. Oberstar’s efforts to stretch these findings for his political benefit may also not be a surprise, but it is certainly disappointing."
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1304 times:
I understand your points about the right to make money, etc., etc. I understood them when you initially raised them 35 posts ago.
You present a sophisticated argument advocating a lack of government intervention.
But I respectfully submit that you're wrong.
You do raise a good point about the situation from the perspective of the embattled business owner, who must relinquish an economically efficient situation to satisfy government regulations. Of course it's less profitable for him. Of course it is.
But I contend that, in the global interest of a nation of consumers, that government regulation is necessary IF THE BUSINESS OWNER ENJOYS THE ABILITY TO CONTROL A PREPONDERANCE OF THE PRICES IN HIS/HER MARKET IN SEVERAL LOCALES. That is why we have antitrust laws.
Air travel IS a public service. It wasn't 30, even 20, years ago, but it certainly is today. That doesn't mean that I regard it as an industry that needs to be re-regulated; to the contrary, air travel is a private enterprise providing an indispensible service, in which there is significant opportunity for profit. You don't HAVE to buy Wal-Mart products; many people HAVE to fly. I refer back to my earlier post in an explanation of how dependent we are on air travel.
We cannot admit the merged UA/US machine as a full-fledged monopoly, simply on the technicality that other airlines exist, and that some route networks overlap. We can, however, examine the market-specific inflationary effects which this merger could carry, and we can examine the markets in which local monopolies will drive up fares. That is intolerable and meets the legal criteria for antitrust litigation.
Our government would intervene in this case because we as citizens of a democratic and capitalist institution elected representatives who drafted antitrust laws. We elected them to draft those laws because we trust them to act in our stead, to represent our interests, and to ensure our social, political, and financial security.
Should you, Flashmeister, be concerned about government intervention, look not to the "government" (capital-G) acting against the interests of the capitalist structure, but rather to the people - your peers and you - on whose behalf the laws were written. Those laws determine the Dept. of Justice's action. In this case, they both prescribe it and require it.
If you believe that potentially quasi-monopolies such as this one should not be challenged by the government - if you believe that a mega-carrier should be allowed to dominate the skies in more than a few markets simply because "this is capitalism" and it will make money - then you should reevaluate your electoral choices next time.
I'm a Republican and I believe that government regulations are a negative externality on our economic structure, one which hampers economic efficiency and productivity. But my interest for the public comes first, and since air travel remains such an important public service that should remain free of regulation, I believe that the government must do in this case what we've told it to do.
It's unsophisticated to decry the government's ability to protect you under the blanket whine that "this is capitalism."
Airwaysdc9 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 204 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1302 times:
Representative Oberstar remarks in response to US Airways press release:
(This guy cant seem to KEEP his foot out of his mouth...first he calls Johnson's DC-Air a "plantation" and now this!)
In a telephone interview later, Oberstar said, "I was not wishing them goodbye." He said he was asked a hypothetical question about the consequences of US Airways being forced out of business if the merger isn't approved.
"I said speculatively that the public might be better served in the case of a bankruptcy liquidation by the absence of US Airways and other airlines coming to pick up their service," Oberstar said.
US Airways accused Oberstar of trying to stretch the facts to serve his own agenda, which is to block the merger. It said in a prepared statement from its Arlington headquarters that nothing in the GAO report "would make it better for US Airways to close its doors than for the merger to be approved." The airline called Oberstar's remarks an insult to its 45,000 employees.
US Airways has maintained that it cannot survive long if the merger fails to go through.
Flashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2864 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1296 times:
Gnomon, I can see that we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I just don't see where you can call a market free and open, in the capitalist spirit, yet enlist government to regulate something every time you don't get the service you want at your front door.
I, ironically enough, am a democrat, but I have strong feelings about government meddling in the marketplace. I disagree with a lot of these anti-trust holy wars(Microsoft, Worldcom-Sprint, etc.). I do believe strongly in the natural cycle of business, which only is clouded up with often-irrational intervention by underinformed bureaucrats.
I think this merger is a great thing, you do not. That's clear, and I think we should leave it at that.
I submit, as you did before, that you are wrong. Neither of us is going to be convinced of the others' view. So let's leave the condescending tone, boldface type, cap letters, and the like, and move on to something new to argue about.
Airwaysdc9 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 204 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
ARLINGTON, Va., Dec. 21 /PRNewswire/ -- US Airways Chairman Stephen
M. Wolf said today that the agreement between United Airlines and the
state of Pennsylvania and Allegheny County underscores the value that
the US Airways- United merger will bring to consumers, to the
Pennsylvania economy and to the futures of US Airways employees.
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge and United announced earlier today that
an agreement has been reached on the future of the US Airways
maintenance facilities in Pittsburgh. Under the agreement, United
will establish a $160 million maintenance unit in Pittsburgh,
preserving some 3,000 jobs in Southwest Pennsylvania. Gov. Ridge and
United said the agreement is subject to approval of the US Airways-
``Gov. Ridge is an ardent advocate of the interests of the people of
Pennsylvania. With the approval of this merger, US Airways' deep
roots in Pennsylvania will remain as part of the much larger,
stronger United system. Jobs and service will be protected and
enhanced,'' Wolf said.
Gov. Ridge, Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, Rep. Bud
Shuster, Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddy, Pittsburgh Mayor Tom
Murphy, and, especially, US Airways' labor leaders, are to be
congratulated on reaching this milestone agreement, Wolf said.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4402 posts, RR: 37 Reply 21, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1276 times:
Good to hear from you AirwaysDC9, happy holidays to you and your family. Although I agree with Rep. Oberstar's view of the merger (and his view that DC Air is a subsidiary sham), you're right on that he does have trouble keeping his feet on the floor and out of his mouth.
I have to submit too that I disagree with Flashmeister and share in detail Gnomon's view of the merger. Like Gnomon I am a Republican but recognize that the gov't is the steward of the common good. Neither Gnomon nor myself have demanded "just what we want at our front door." This view caricatures our arguments.
We have argued that air service is a public good and as such the private companies operating it are not free to do whatever they please to every community. Interestingly no one here seems to think that total re-regulation is a good thing--and we do not call for it. We have not called for airlines to be charities. We simply want them to recognize that not every route is going to have fat shuttle or transcon profit margins. That's life in a diverse country.
And if airlines choose to show contempt for the less lucrative medium-and-small markets, those airlines can't be surprised if these cities' Congressional reps are steaming mad about more consolidation. No one has said every city is entitled to "low" fares. We do expect "reasonable" fares, and history demonstrates conclusively that airlines can offer such fares if they care to do so. We reject the claim that economics demands "high" gouge fares in small and medium markets. And we reject the claim that further consolidation is going to help either airline employees or consumers. The memory, and costly effects, of the last round of consolidation are quite close at hand.
Airwaysdc9 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 204 posts, RR: 3 Reply 22, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
Happy Holidays to you and yours as well. I find it interesting that you change your tune somewhat on a public board. When you and I have spoken in private you've told me that it would be OK if US Airways ceased to operate. You asserted that other airlines would quickly "pick up the slack" and the northeast would suffer no impact from the loss of US. You even said that US Airways employees would likely find employment with these replacement carriers. (despite the fact that they would most likely lose all seniority that was earned during their tenure at US Airways)
You essentially echo Senator Oberstar and Senator Kerry's statements...do you not?
Is it not your opinion that a decrease in competition resulting from the complete shutdown of US Airways is preferable to a decrase in competition resulting from this merger?
What is your impression of the US Airways press release indicating that the "status quo" is not an option?
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
Very well spoken, gentlemen! I can't wait to see how the DoJ rules and what it shaves off next year.
If anything, I think Flashmeister and I would be banned from our respective political parties for our views in this forum! I know that at least for Republicans, advocating the position I've advocated can be hazardous...
It's going to be interesting to see our little debate here evolve in the face of future consolidation, if it indeed occurs. Maybe we'll revisit it then.
In the meantime, y'all have a great holiday season.