FlyinRabbit88 wrote:IADCA wrote:santi319 wrote:Jetblue will have to give up JFK slots for sure.
FLL BOS and MCO could see some gates divestures.
Slots at EWR and LGA almost certainly will be divested.
LAX could see maybe a gate loss but doubtful after B6’s drama with LGB.
And most importantly the NEA will have to be terminated.
Then, suddenly the DOJ will be like “fair enough” and the merger will be allowed.
If the DOJ were willing to take that deal, it'd already be done. Instead, most of that was already offered and DOJ saw it as laughable enough that instead of negotiating they just threw it into their complaint.
The biggest problem with including the NEA in any solution is that it teaches companies a lesson that DOJ can't afford: "Sign two agreements that might violate the antitrust laws, then sacrifice one to get the other one through." There's just no realistic possibility of DOJ signing onto that unless B6 and AA have already won the NEA trial when the offer is made. And if they win that trial, I doubt B6 would be in a settlement mood.
Which makes the continued delay in the ruling of the NEA very interesting. As with the DOJ wanting the same judge to oversee the B6/NK trial which was denied. There is a chance the DOJ avoids wanting to look like they messed this whole thing up and settles later in the trial process if they feel like they will lose both the NEA complaint and the B6/NK trial. At which point does the DOT still go with the threat to prevent transfer of NK operation certificate?
I think if B6/AA win the NEA trial, there's no settlement on the table from the B6 side. I don't see why there would be. From an antitrust lawyer perspective, the NEA case is a much easier one for DOJ. It's not a merger, as much as the DOJ messed up trying the case by using rhetoric as if it was.
It's a Sherman Act Section 1 case, and several aspects of the NEA lend themselves to per se treatment. That's a much easier legal standard, if you can get the judge to apply it. But decisions in cases where there's a reasonable argument over what the legal standard even should be take a long, long time because that's the classic issue for appeal and judges hate being overruled on appeal. I'd bet a lot of money that that is why the NEA case is taking so long. I also would not be shocked if the decision came today.
As for the judicial assignment, that's mostly administrative. I'm not sure either party would have been upset if they got the same judge, but judges have bulging dockets and two lengthy trials in a fairly short time span messes that up. Again, it's not anything nefarious; it's just how the federal court system works.
I also find it curious that people on here (not necessarily you) who are so clearly pro-parties in this case are salivating over the prospect of a settlement. Usually that causes me to think something about the relative strengths of the underlying cases.
I also can't see DOT taking this to the wall. That's an administrative law nightmare and a near-certain loss in court for multiple reasons. They simply don't have the jurisdiction to pull certificates over antitrust issues, much less if the case has already been adjudicated in court.
