Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:07 am

Sure it's easy to romanticise about the days when flying was a high class affair and you weren't herded into cramped seats like cattle, but you have to remember that in those days, flying was only for the privileged few. Nowadays, with economy, more people have access to more of the world than ever before and are able to travel more often. The more people from all over the world can travel, the more the wealth is spread and the more people from different societies meet. No longer will those people in that country be some strange breed stereotyped by the media. Segregation of different cultures will stop and we will all get to know each other better. Segregation leads to ignorance of other cultures, which leads to fear, which leads to hate, which leads to war. The truth the squashy green one speaks. Staying in our own regions sucks. You know what happens then. We all get horribly in bred, grow funny noses and ask everyone, "Are you local?" Sure it's not as glamourous as it used to be, but it is more important. The growth in air travel is important for world peace.
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:29 pm

Well no wonder the world is so much more peaceful and loving than in the '50s. I can now travel anywhere and never have to fear (and in such comfort).

Sorry, but I liked it better before.
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
wunala
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:17 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:38 pm

Bring back the romance, thats what I say. Sure, have economy, but please put the romanace into flying again, even if it is up the front.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:42 pm

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The growth in air travel is important for world peace.

Move whole Armys is days, instead of months.  Big grin

Spread terrorism and crime ( like the 9/11 hyjackers).  Angry

Don't forget making a regional epidemic (SARS, Bird Flu), a global epidemic.  Sad
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:59 pm

The view on the world expressed by M404 and KC135 is typical for the cynical "Rumsfeld doctrine" seeing everything outside the US as a threat full of potential terrorists.
If you see the bigger picture, you see major parts of the world -like Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe, China, South Africa, Asia, Latin America- which were an oppressing and -except for the few rich- depressing place to live in the 1950s, developing and becoming free and/or democratic, that happened in the slipstream of travelling and media more commonly available.
Well, back to Aviation now.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:11 pm

Bring back romance? Sounds more like "bring back higher fares so that those frightful oiks go back to 'their' lower-class cramped holiday-charter aircraft and let the snobs stay on their legacy carriers without being bothered about sitting next to the common rabble".  Wink
 
neednewairport
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:41 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:33 pm

flying can still have glamour if everyone was raised with the proper morals, ethics, values, etc. A simple smile and please and thank you to your fellow pax and flight crew would be a drastic improvement.
 
N77014
Posts: 812
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:16 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:01 am

Flying, like manners and dinner attire, have sadly devolved into a mass market experience where the charm, elegance, and luxury of bygone days seem destined never to return.

While no one doubts the positives of more people able to fly and the effects it has in creating economies of scale, the fact that we now consider flying a product, and not a service, speaks volumes about how much has changed.

It may be up to MH and EK to carry where TW and PA left off.
A new life awaits you in the Off-World Colonies...
 
User avatar
EGTESkyGod
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:27 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:13 am

Loss of Glamour may be a good thing, but the loss of Concorde isn't. Not glamour, but class.
I came, I saw, I Concorde! RIP Michael Jackson
 
Jet-lagged
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:58 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:16 am

Surely this is a thread that should be deleted!

More seriously, there is good truth in what you say, and in a commercial world these trends wills continue. But realize too this is with more stratification between those with lots of money - First, BBJs, private A380s - and the masses (me included).

I really don't enjoy flying in the States much anymore - it's a bus in the air. I still enjoy flying in Asia - the romance and glamour are still there. Maybe they can somehow be preservered forever? Oh, silly me.
 
Guest

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:24 am

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

But the loss of manners, respect for one's self and others, and hygene is not.

B
 
Glom
Topic Author
Posts: 2051
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:27 am

Quoting Jet-lagged:
Surely this is a thread that should be deleted!

Why? A little positive view on things is a nice change.

Quoting Jet-lagged:
But realize too this is with more stratification between those with lots of money -

But this isn't new. There has always been those with lots of money and the unwashed masses.
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:33 am

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
The view on the world expressed by M404 and KC135 is typical for the cynical "Rumsfeld doctrine" seeing everything outside the US as a threat full of potential terrorists.

You beat me to it! The world goes beyond just the US!

Making air travel exclusive to just certain people is not going to stop someone from getting an aircraft out of the sky if they want to. And who ever said that the elite are not capable of spreading global epidemics?? How arrogant   

Air travel has just become another means of getting from A to B regardless of it being a car, bus, train, or ship! By all means, keep First Class for the nitwits that are prepared to pay thousands for their flights, but don't complain about how air travel is not glamourous enough anymore because of the people who sit in the back of the aircraft  sarcastic 

[Edited 2005-06-06 17:36:02]
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
Piedmontbrat
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:14 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:47 am

Bringing back romance to air travel doesn't necessarily mean making higher fares. Back in the good old days, so to speak...people took some degree of pride in the way they dressed, the way they smelled (or didn't) and the manners with which they treated their fellow passengers.

Today, our society has become one in which "it's all about me". They don't want to assume any responsibility for themselves but feel that it's everyone else's responsibility to watch out for them.

Working in the public sector over the past 30 years, it is truly amazing at just how stupid people have become. People either can't read or choose not to read simple information but rather complain because they "don't understand".

People can choose to be common if they want to or they can choose to present themselves in a clean, mannerly way. The price of an airline ticket has nothing to do with personal hygene, grooming and manners.
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:05 am

The loss of glamour has not been accompanied by equivalent reductions in airfare. It has been assumed that deregulation brought vastly lower airfares. But the decrease has only been incremental if you compare fares from the end of the regulation era to the last years before 2001, I recall that the average reduction was less than 20%, adjusting for inflation. This is coupled with the fact that 1970s planes were less fuel efficient and many required three or more in the cockpit. Regulated fares were based on costs and operational expenses have declined over time.

Current fares are not comparable because they are not sustainable for any airline, even LCCs. Allowing airlines to merge and some re-regulation could rationalize fares, improve service and reduce delays. If you do not like the fares, take WN or B6.
 
NYCAAer
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:22 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:15 am

As a flight attendant for 17 years, I miss the old days. I miss the days when passengers actually wore clothes and shoes and took a shower before they traveled. I miss the days when people were appreciative and actually said hello back to you when you greeted them at the door instead of just hitting your shins with their carry-ons.

I don't expect passengers to wear suits and ties, but at least have some decorum. Tank tops, rubber flip-flops, short shorts, etc. I've seen more clothes on the beach than in the cabin of a 777 from JFK to LHR.

Maybe the major airlines should merge with Greyhound!

[Edited 2005-06-06 18:16:56]
 
Trolley Dolley
Posts: 548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2000 1:57 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 4:46 am

Glamour? I've made a few flights on DC-3's and I can assure you the main reason you wore suits and coats was to help keep warm! My aunt used to make a 4 day flight from London to Southern Africa, give me 12 hours any day. The glamour came from visting the new and exotic, from escaping the hum-drum. Like other posters in this forum, I miss the days of more civility, when 747 lounges were used to socialise, instead of having people sit in stoney silence watching a PTV. Don't get me started on manners! Thankfully I fly a lot in the Asia-Pacific region where airlines still treat you like a guest and make the flights more comfortable. Not all change is good, but nostaligia can overlook the less appealing aspects of the past.
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:01 am

Hey you're supposed to feel comfortable with what you're wearing when you travel. Although I do not wear flip-flops and shorts, I have no problem with it if that's what people need to do when they go on vacation, or travel.

A person wearing a suit is not less smelly, better behaved, or more hygienic. I've seen enough people dressing up and travelling first class that fall into the above categories more than some economy class passengers do! I don't see what this has to do with glamour. An expensive suit or fancy bottle of eau de toilette will not cover up any of the ugly bits. It's not a show for god's sake, these people are just flying.
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:09 am

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
If you see the bigger picture, you see major parts of the world -like Russia, Ukraine and eastern Europe, China, South Africa, Asia, Latin America- which were an oppressing and -except for the few rich- depressing place to live in the 1950s, developing and becoming free and/or democratic, that happened in the slipstream of travelling and media more commonly available.

??? Hello? Here's a reality check for you. Access to all of those places had nothing to do with air travel. All were accessable well before the Wright Brothers flew in Dec. 1903. The airplane just made access faster.  boggled 

Additionally, Russia and Ukraine (formerly called the USSR) and Eastern Europe opened up because the United States won the Cold War and forced the collapsed of the USSR (even Charic acknowledged that). China opened because of President Nixon's visit in the 1970s. South Africa, Latin America, and Asia were always open (Asia since the end of WWII). Learning a little recent history, and remembering it will help you. Give credit where credit is due.  banghead 

Quoting NYCAAer (Reply 15):
As a flight attendant for 17 years, I miss the old days. I miss the days when passengers actually wore clothes and shoes and took a shower before they traveled. I miss the days when people were appreciative and actually said hello back to you when you greeted them at the door instead of just hitting your shins with their carry-ons.

I don't expect passengers to wear suits and ties, but at least have some decorum. Tank tops, rubber flip-flops, short shorts, etc. I've seen more clothes on the beach than in the cabin of a 777 from JFK to LHR.

Maybe the major airlines should merge with Greyhound!

I fully agree. I've seen better dressed people in a locker room.  bigthumbsup 
 
fbgdavidson
Posts: 3563
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:25 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:16 am

Having just watched a programme about the Flying Boat era it looked like a magnificent way to travel.

From the flying boat to Ryanair. What a difference 70years makes!
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:30 am

Quote:
KC135TopBoom "South Africa, Latin America, and Asia were always open (Asia since the end of WWII)"


I know my history. I guess I have a different concept of what a democracy is then you. Of course the elite could always fly to "open" South Africa or or Chile or the Philippines but I think these are now better places with democracies then some decades ago, when for instance the first mentioned country had an "apartheid" regime. Even China, while not having a democratic chosen government, can't be the hard oppressing dictatorship when their citizens can meet foreigners and travel around the world and learn things on internet. Of course the end of the cold war isn't about airlines, but they sure did help in development.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
railmatt
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 1999 12:48 pm

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:32 am

Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch
hot meals
pillows and blankets
and a little attention (similar to coach a la 1979)

???

That would restore some of the glamor. But more important give the non-rich/non-frequent traveler a quality value-added option.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:43 am

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch
hot meals
pillows and blankets
and a little attention (similar to coach a la 1979)

Believe me, if the airlines thought they could make it profitable, they'd do it. My guess is that most of those seats would remain un-sold and just be filled by those flying standby or non-rev (hey, I'd be all for that  Wink )
 
flyAUA
Posts: 4287
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:12 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:50 am

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
Why can't the airlines offer a premium coach product priced $30-100 each way above the applicable lowest economy fare that offers:

34-36" pitch

Because less seats=less money... but add a few inches and you've got a Business-class pitch!

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
hot meals

Because after conducting surveys, passengers were of the opinion that they preferred to not pay for meals on flights shorter than 90 mins and only purchase something when they so wished.

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
pillows and blankets

If you ask nicely you can get them  Wink

Quoting Railmatt (Reply 21):
and a little attention

If you are flying the right airlines, you will get this too  Smile
Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:50 pm

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
but you have to remember that in those days, flying was only for the privileged few. Nowadays, with economy, more people have access to more of the world than ever before and are able to travel more often.

What people forget is that flying is a privilege -- NOT a right. Airlines are not utilities. Not everyone has the right to fly like they have the right to electricity, heat, gas or water. But that is how airlines are treated and that is wrong. Airlines are for-profit entities. No body seems to care anymore if an airline makes a profit. They only want their cheap fares -- fares that are now cheaper than driving or taking the bus or train.

Meanwhile, airline employees are the ones who suffer for the sake of low fares. While other Americans enjoy a growing standard of living and quality of life (which includes flying any where, any time) airline employees' quality of life continues to go down.

My parents couldn't afford to fly all of their kids to Disneyland. So they packed up the stationwagon and drove. Heaven forbid any family possibly have to drive these days. Afterall, everyone is entitled to fly cheap -- NOT.
 
exFATboy
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:15 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:27 pm

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 24):
What people forget is that flying is a privilege -- NOT a right.

No, flying is not a "privilege" - it's just purchasing a service. Nothing more, nothing less. Oh, and you don't have a "right" to electricity, heat, gas, or water. Nothing in the Constitution about those, either.

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 24):
Nobody seems to care anymore if an airline makes a profit.

Nope. I sure don't. Don't care if Target, Stop & Shop, the corner deli, or any other business I patronize turns a profit, either. As the consumer, profitability isn't really my problem, except when I'm buying flights for future travel and I have to worry about whether or not they'll be around.

Consumers react to price signals, perceived value for money. LCCs have been able to offer an equal (or, in many cases, superior) product for less.

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 24):
Meanwhile, airline employees are the ones who suffer for the sake of low fares. While other Americans enjoy a growing standard of living and quality of life (which includes flying any where, any time) airline employees' quality of life continues to go down.

Well, it might not be that simple. Perhaps airline employees were paid an artificially high salary in the past and this correction is just bringing their "skill set" into line with what those skills pay in the overall economy?

Or perhaps airline management grew fat and complacent for too long, milking business flyers for ridiculous walk-up fares, and now the market has changed (LCCs, alternatives to travel such as teleconferencing, etc.) and they can't come up with any to cope other than to look for the "quick fix" of cutting wages?

The airline industry is not the only one which has gone through adjustments like this recently - in my industry (financial services), waves of mergers and downward pressure on yields (for example, spreads on stocks) have lead to layoffs and stagnant wages. I've gotten one raise on my base pay in four years, my bonus has dropped slightly two years running, and I'm better off than 90% of my firm's staff. Admittedly, you don't see actual base pay cuts in the financial sector, but you see more layoffs.

Going back on the original topic, maybe I'm a little blase, but I don't see what was so "glamourous" about flying in the past. So people wore suits. Big deal. You see pictures of people wearing suits and dresses to go to a movie in the 30s...we don't do that now, but no one bemoans the loss of "glamour" in the theatre industry. It's just a general trend toward more casual dress in our society.

Admittedly, some passengers take it too far, but I really don't think it's such a big deal. And as for hygeine? Worst smelling passenger I ever sat next to was in a suit. This idea of "casual dress = stinky" is just plain false. If I'm flying in the summer, I wear shorts...nice ones, the sort you'd play golf in, with a polo shirt or a t-shirt.
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:34 pm

Let me also add this: if the government and the American public feel that cheap and safe air transportation is a RIGHT -- then re-regulate the industry and subsidize it like they do with food, power plants, water and public transportation.

The events on 9/11 should have led to re-regulation. Just like nuclear power plants are a terrorist target so are airlines. Not just anyone can go and start a nuclear power plant so not just anyone so be able to start an airline. The more airlines we have the more security gaps are going too remain open.

Does anyone not think that screeners are under more pressure and more stress when the security lines stretch the entire length of airports? The more passengers we have flying, the incidents we are going to have of idiots who are late for their flight and leave their cars running outside terminals or dodging through security checkpoints, hence creating havoc when those terminals and airplanes have to be evacuated.

I say re-regulate the airline industry and let's go back to the days when flying was safer and, yes, glamorous.
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:43 pm

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 25):
The airline industry is not the only one which has gone through adjustments like this recently - in my industry (financial services), waves of mergers and downward pressure on yields (for example, spreads on stocks) have lead to layoffs and stagnant wages.

I'm sorry, but you can not compare the financial services industry to the airline industry. First of all, the financial services sector has been allowed adjust to the marketplace, ie. mergers. The airlines are not allowed the same benefits in the marketplace as banks, drug companies, healthcare, oil, etc. All are industries, by the way, that make huge profits.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:46 pm

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 27):
First of all, the financial services sector has been allowed adjust to the marketplace, ie. mergers. The airlines are not allowed the same benefits in the marketplace as banks, drug companies, healthcare, oil, etc.

And how do you figure that, precisely?
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:04 am

Um, for example, unless you live in Mayberry, the banking industry (esp. in major metropolitan areas) has gone through mega-merger after mega-merger. Hence, their profits skyrocketed and customer service plummeted. Not to mention oil mergers.

It seems that every industry in this country is allowed to take advantage of the marketplace, except the airlines. Mergers and prices are a perfect example. It is just about impossible to satisfy gov. regulators when it comes to airline mergers. That, however, is finally changing but is still very difficult.

Should I go on? Ok, let's talk about fees, customer service, prices. The airlines are under a constant microscope when it comes to the media and the government. Nobody seems to say a word about other industries.
 
Piedmontbrat
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:14 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:20 am

Air fares, company profits and the Constitution have nothing at all to do with whether a person is "fit" to fly. A person can be wearing the most expensive suit made but still smell like rotten garbage if he/she doesn't see fit to bathe before putting it on. By the same token, a person can be smelling like roses and dressed to the nines and still be a perfect jackass because they either have the lack of training in manners and interaction with people or they simply believe they are more important than the person sitting next to them.

It's a matter of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY people. Take responsibility for how you look, how you behave in public and how you smell. If you are offensive in any of the three categories mentioned, you probably should be prepared to get raked over the coals!
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:44 am

Quoting DCAflyboy (Reply 29):
Um, for example, unless you live in Mayberry, the banking industry (esp. in major metropolitan areas) has gone through mega-merger after mega-merger. Hence, their profits skyrocketed and customer service plummeted. Not to mention oil mergers.

It's an apples to oranges comparison, however. There are relatively few major airlines as compared to financial institutions, even after "mega-mergers." Thus merger of banks poses less of a threat to create a monopoly than merger of airlines. Despite that, there have been quite a few airline mergers throughout the course of civil aviation so I don't quite see your point here.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:48 am

Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 25):
Perhaps airline employees were paid an artificially high salary in the past and this correction is just bringing their "skill set" into line with what those skills pay in the overall economy?

That's not the point! The point is nobody should enjoy a better standard of living at the expense of others. Period!
 
DCAflyboy
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:50 am

RE: The Loss Of Glamour Is A Good Thing

Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:58 am

Quoting Garnetpalmetto (Reply 31):
Thus merger of banks poses less of a threat to create a monopoly than merger of airlines.

This is a cop out and has no merit. There is no real threat of monopolization in the airline industry. It is the most open and competetive industry in the nation. And if there is a threat, it comes from Southwest. Airlines are free to enter any market they want in the US. There is nothing keeping airlines out of markets except the market itself.

The UA/US merger had a 5 percent market overlap. Five percent! That's it. The gov. felt it was anti-consumer, not anti-competitive. There is a huge difference, esp. since the law states anit-competetive. US and UA probably could have won the merger in the government's lawsuite but they did not have the money for an expenisve, long court battle.