Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Passengers Sue To Block UAL/CAL Merger  
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1504 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 1 month 4 days ago) and read 12799 times:

Taken from Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2915358320100629

It was inevitable I suppose, and will matter not a whit as it has almost zero chance of succeeding (although I am sure some will argue it has merit). Nice to get it out of the way I guess. I believe something similar was filed against DL/NW.

Seeing as it was equally inevitable that it would be posted here...have at it.  

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5930 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12769 times:

Quoting delimit (Thread starter):
I believe something similar was filed against DL/NW.

It was and it was tossed out by the same court that this one if going to be heard in if I remember correctly.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12734 times:

Bonus points for consistency I guess, but really...what possessed them to file in the same district?

User currently offlinexms3200 From Sweden, joined Apr 2005, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 12322 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe what they want is to save the CLE hub.

User currently offlineskyguyB727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11951 times:

The lawsuit seems pretty silly to me. Mergers like this happen all the time. Just look at the supermarket and department store industries. Macy's has bought many major department store chains in the United States, yet no one has sued them.

The plaintiffs claim that the UA/CO merger "may" lead to higher fares and less competition. Well, the opposite "may" happen as well.


User currently offlineBlueman87 From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10789 times:

didnt they try this at DL/NW


B6 T5 JFK DL T2/3 JFK
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2176 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10772 times:

Well, if you consider for instance the route IAH-IAD, offer will eventually go down from two airlines to one, except that most pax would not book it anyway because non-stop by nature is more expensive than connecting service, so they will end up flying through ATL, DTW, DFW, CLT instead because it will save them $$$ (again, just random examples, no way i took the time to check if the flights actually exist). So there is no point in the whole lawsuit.

Sounds like some people have too much money and too much time in this country...



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10543 times:

Are those passengers, private passengers or CO/UA minority stockholders?


I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8988 times:

What a complete waste of time, effort and money. I would love to know how much money it costs these guys to take this action in the first instance. Some Lawyer somewhere is laughing his head off over a glass of champers.

User currently offlineIndy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 4537 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8324 times:

Consolidation is really bad for the market. A lack of competition only drives up prices and drives down service levels. Who here can honestly say things for consumers have improved since the DL/NW merger? All it has done was take away choices for consumers. The UA/CO merger will just make things worse. We will have gone from 4 airlines to choose from a few years ago down to 2. In flight service won't improve. Prices won't improve. Nonstop options won't improve. The quality of service customers receive will likely go down. Having fewer competitors means you can treat your customers like dirt.


Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 1):
It was and it was tossed out by the same court that this one if going to be heard in if I remember correctly.

Sadly, the court did not toss the case and DL/NW ended up settling with the plaintiffs. It could very be the same set of plaintiffs in this case looking to make an easy buck.


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

Quoting michman (Reply 18):
Quoting United1 (Reply 1):
It was and it was tossed out by the same court that this one if going to be heard in if I remember correctly.

Sadly, the court did not toss the case and DL/NW ended up settling with the plaintiffs. It could very be the same set of plaintiffs in this case looking to make an easy buck.

It's just about always less expensive to settle than to defend, and is less expensive to settle early than to settle later. And always settling means that the plaintiffs attys always get paid something, which has spawned a whole legal industry based around these kinds of nuisance suits.


User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1861 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6267 times:

Do ordinary passengers even have legal standing to bring such a lawsuit?

I expect they can submit comments to the DOT or DOJ or whoever has oversight in each case, but can they actually bring a lawsuit themselves if they don't like a merger, in any industry?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22741 posts, RR: 20
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5732 times:

Quoting tharanga (Reply 14):
Do ordinary passengers even have legal standing to bring such a lawsuit?

In "traditional" competition law, they would. I don't know whether any of the airline-specific laws alter that.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2501 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

Quoting Indy (Reply 9):
Consolidation is really bad for the market. A lack of competition only drives up prices and drives down service levels. Who here can honestly say things for consumers have improved since the DL/NW merger? All it has done was take away choices for consumers. The UA/CO merger will just make things worse.

So if the DL/NW merger didn't happen or if the CO/UA one doesn't, would it have been better if NW or UA went chapter 7 and liquidated? How would that have helped the industry and the folks that work at those two carriers?


User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5655 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 11):
It's just about always less expensive to settle than to defend, and is less expensive to settle early than to settle later. And always settling means that the plaintiffs attys always get paid something, which has spawned a whole legal industry based around these kinds of nuisance suits.

Not true...sometimes....let it go to court let it get dismissed and have them pay your attorney fees...



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22741 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5591 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 15):
So if the DL/NW merger didn't happen or if the CO/UA one doesn't, would it have been better if NW or UA went chapter 7 and liquidated?

UA is not particularly close to liquidation today, and neither DL nor US was at the time of their merger.

Quoting ER757 (Reply 15):
How would that have helped the industry and the folks that work at those two carriers?

Competition law isn't designed to protect "the industry" or employees. It's designed to protect customers through lower prices.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinedlphoenix From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 16):
es, I understand economies of scale. But how do I really benefit when a dozen airlines become 5, and the massive momentum therein squashes the ability of newcomers?
Quoting Indy (Reply 17):
Consolidation is really bad for the market.

Consolidation is the means by which the market adjusts. This merger would not be possible if UA could not shed of significant liabilities in Ch11 this decade (and CO doing the same twice in the 90's).
This decade we saw one successful new entrant (B6), a continued growth of the veteran LCCs (WN, FL etc.) and the legacies losing money faster than a broken oil-rig without going under.
For the airline shareholders and executives consolidation has a clear upside. As a consumer I would have preferred tougher bankruptcy laws (That would eliminated the worst airlines from the market rather than allowed them to eliminate debt). Either way, I don;t think we can avoid an industry adjustment.

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 15):
What a complete waste of time, effort and money. I would love to know how much money it costs these guys to take this action in the first instance. Some Lawyer somewhere is laughing his head off over a glass of champers.

This suit is not a waste of time and resources, nor does it have anything to do with airlines or consumer rights. This is part of doing business in the US (not much different than having to "grease some palms" in other countries). Read the posts I quoted below for details.

Quoting michman (Reply 18):
Sadly, the court did not toss the case and DL/NW ended up settling with the plaintiffs. It could very be the same set of plaintiffs in this case looking to make an easy buck.
Quoting dfambro (Reply 21):
It's just about always less expensive to settle than to defend, and is less expensive to settle early than to settle later. And always settling means that the plaintiffs attys always get paid something, which has spawned a whole legal industry based around these kinds of nuisance suits.

Have Fun
DLP


User currently offlineMidex461 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 17):
and neither DL nor US was at the time of their merger.

DL - probably not
US on the other hand, was close to Chapter 7 at the time of the HP merger. They were in their second bankruptcy in 2 years - they had NO HOPE of securing financing; in fact, they were in the process of liquidating. HP was their white knight



Opinions and views expressed are MINE and do NOT represent the views of US Airways
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22741 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting Midex461 (Reply 20):
DL - probably not
US on the other hand, was close to Chapter 7 at the time of the HP merger. They were in their second bankruptcy in 2 years - they had NO HOPE of securing financing; in fact, they were in the process of liquidating. HP was their white knight

You are correct. I was thinking NW - no idea why I typed US.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 18):
This is part of doing business in the US (not much different than having to "grease some palms" in other countries). Read the posts I quoted below for details.

It is part of doing business, but having to comply with the law is a heck of a lot different from bribery.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21480 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 18):
Uh actually I was an assitant producer on 2 reality shows this year. Don't believe me? That's fine, but it's true. Way to talk personal smack on this forum buddy. Really, going after users professions? That's low. I've never done that on this forum and I'm not going to start doing that today. I'll take the high road out and suggest your post for deletion. Hows that for being 46?

I agree that talking smack about people's jobs is stupid, but from someone else in your field, you should list your profession as ASSISTANT PRODUCER and not PRODUCER. The reason people questioned your PRODUCER status is due to your age, and you basically admitted you embellished your profile by omitting the ASSISTANT part. They aren't the same thing, after all...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21480 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

As a CO and UA customer, can I sue these plaintiffs for trying to block the merger?

I mean, not only do they not speak for me, but I would benefit from a combined UA and CO here in Los Angeles.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 20):

I agree that talking smack about people's jobs is stupid, but from someone else in your field, you should list your profession as ASSISTANT PRODUCER and not PRODUCER. The reason people questioned your PRODUCER status is due to your age, and you basically admitted you embellished your profile by omitting the ASSISTANT part. They aren't the same thing, after all..

I checked and i actually had segment producer written. Many segment producers are in their early/mid 20s in reality TV. I never had PRODUCER ever labeled in the profile. Apparently that particular user couldn't read very well.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 21):
I mean, not only do they not speak for me, but I would benefit from a combined UA and CO here in Los Angeles.

It will be beneficiary mainly on the EWR/IAH/CLE flight integration. UA is dominant already in LA.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21480 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4995 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 22):
It will be beneficiary mainly on the EWR/IAH/CLE flight integration. UA is dominant already in LA.

It will also be beneficial as it's more likely to open up smaller markets to west coast one stop connections, including ones CO recently shut down like SRQ. There is also likely to be Y+ added to CO aircraft, which benefits me as a tall person when I fly those routes. And it means I can more easily fly LAX-EWR/JFK-LAX, a trip I do once a year and have done on AA in the past, or on CO with a connection before they left JFK...

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 22):
I checked and i actually had segment producer written. Many segment producers are in their early/mid 20s in reality TV. I never had PRODUCER ever labeled in the profile. Apparently that particular user couldn't read very well.

I stand corrected then. Assuming Segment and Assistant Producer are equivalent on your show. And yes, there are some youngsters doing that kind of work.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4950 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 23):
And it means I can more easily fly LAX-EWR/JFK-LAX, a trip I do once a year and have done on AA in the past, or on CO with a connection before they left JFK...

And (crossing my fingers) upgrades to 767/777 on LAX-EWR which is long overdue.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
25 ikramerica : I doubt it. But p.s. aircraft would be nice. I was just on LAX-JFK-LAX last, and p.s. is a good product, better than the AA Flagship Service. I flew
26 TOMMY767 : UA currently has 767/777 on LAX-IAD why wouldn't LAX-EWR get them? Certainly there is demand since CO is currently flying the route 7 times a day on
27 seabosdca : Passengers being passengers, CO/UA will make more money by flying 737s or 757s more often than by adding widebodies. Sad but true.
28 AADC10 : The persons filing the suit are probably going to try to settle for cash or free tickets.
29 TOMMY767 : Ugh I hope not. No reason why UA does it currently and with the merger they can't show EWR some love on the transcons.
30 delimit : Because they figured out they could make more money flying PS configured 757s than 767s.
31 dlphoenix : It is similar in the sense that a person/entity that brings no added value can make a profit because they have the power to slow/stop a business proc
32 ikramerica : I see your point on that. CO is less focused on connecting pax from the west to EWR for connections (though they still obviously do so), but one wond
33 Cubsrule : But as a society, we have made the judgment that those who file antitrust suits DO bring added value. The fact that you and I may disagree with that
34 dlphoenix : FYI - I am a big fan of the US judicial system. But like any other system in can be misused. IMHO this is the case here. DLP
35 Cubsrule : But how is it being misused? These people will suffer an antitrust injury if the merger is allowed. How is suing to correct that injury abuse?
36 ikramerica : Well, the forum for this is public comment during the process, not lawsuit, isn't it? This is like failing to object during a zoning board meeting ab
37 Cubsrule : I'm not aware of any exhaustion requirement in competition law, but I'd be happy to be corrected. The weird thing about competition law is that the b
38 dfambro : I think the issue here is motive, not the existence of the process that's being used. Granted, we don't actually know the motive, but given that the
39 Post contains links DAL767400ER : Indeed. 2 years and 10 days before. Couldn't find the original AP release, only this old story from the AJC: http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlan.../
40 Cubsrule : Their motives may well be impure, but we don't know that at this point. I just feel like we're jumping to conclusions without any supporting informat
41 dlphoenix : - As stated earlier "This is IMHO". I will happily rephrase to "In my humble opinionated speculation...". I couldn't have said it better myself. ====
42 Cubsrule : That doesn't follow. In general, there are three types of suits 1) Those that are completely without merit 2) Those that are arguably meritorious 3)
43 thegreatRDU : Clearly this is frivolous as determined by precedent...the airlines can demand they pay for their attorney fees right?
44 Indy : I don't know if I'd call this frivolous. The courts and really the whole process under the Bush administration was very business friendly. This I thin
45 Cubsrule : What precedent?
46 thegreatRDU : The other guys before unsuccessfully trying to sue mergers/acquisitions...
47 delimit : Apparently that ended in a settlement, which I was unaware of when I posted the topic, as I thought the suit had simply been defeated. There is no pr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
U.S. House Votes To Block UAL Pension Default posted Fri Jun 24 2005 19:30:49 by Trvlr
Vail, CO Threatens To Block UAL Flts. posted Fri Jan 17 2003 04:14:38 by TzMSP
Passengers Threaten To Sue CO posted Wed Aug 15 2007 03:53:12 by Logos
US To Block 40 LGA Slots Flying 94 Mile Route posted Fri Nov 27 2009 07:18:36 by Enilria
New Aircraft Design Puts Passengers Face-to-face posted Tue Sep 22 2009 08:57:15 by ManuCH
Effect Of Possible UAL-Continental Merger On IAD posted Fri Jun 12 2009 15:48:29 by RJpieces
LHR Protestors Buy Land To Block Expansion posted Tue Jan 13 2009 01:34:19 by Hypersonic
Branson To Spend Millions To Block AA/BA Deal posted Fri Sep 12 2008 03:08:16 by UAL777UK
Passengers Taken To Hospital At YYZ posted Fri Aug 8 2008 20:34:02 by AF340
F9 Teamsters Seek To Block DIP Agreement posted Fri Aug 1 2008 16:53:16 by Enilria