Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
The out is number 6 in your post. The possibilty of rising ticket prices is "injurious" to the consumer.
Denny
Denny
Deleted....
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,552
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 309
There is the "possibility" of a lot of things.
If Southwest (or any other airline) moves in there isn't a route out there that they will operate that isn't already being served. Maybe the fares might go down, maybe not...either way the only requirement is that the deal not "hurt" the consumer like you've stated.
In that case you have to look at the deal as a whole and decide is it truly "hurtful"? Is is more or less "hurtful" than what is already in place.
Is their really a reason to think ticket prices will go up? Is that "guess" good enough to disregard all of the plusses and "harmless" things in this deal?
Not to mention the whole "pick in choose" game they are trying to play in approving the AirTran/CAL deal. That gave a LCC more market share in LGA, but made an already dominate carrier even more dominate in EWR. Sounds much like our deal...but I think ours actually smells better overall, so how is it denied?
I'd love to see our lawyers argue this one out. I think it'll be a good show.
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Denny
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,242
Going to ACC for the first time at the end of MAY. Anybody have any "need to know" stuff for me. Thanks
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
What he meant to say was that they need winglets and new satellite tvs.
Denny
I totally know what your saying. Hopefully it will be their burden to prove.
There is the "possibility" of a lot of things.
If Southwest (or any other airline) moves in there isn't a route out there that they will operate that isn't already being served. Maybe the fares might go down, maybe not...either way the only requirement is that the deal not "hurt" the consumer like you've stated.
In that case you have to look at the deal as a whole and decide is it truly "hurtful"? Is is more or less "hurtful" than what is already in place.
Is their really a reason to think ticket prices will go up? Is that "guess" good enough to disregard all of the plusses and "harmless" things in this deal?
Not to mention the whole "pick in choose" game they are trying to play in approving the AirTran/CAL deal. That gave a LCC more market share in LGA, but made an already dominate carrier even more dominate in EWR. Sounds much like our deal...but I think ours actually smells better overall, so how is it denied?
I'd love to see our lawyers argue this one out. I think it'll be a good show.
There is the "possibility" of a lot of things.
If Southwest (or any other airline) moves in there isn't a route out there that they will operate that isn't already being served. Maybe the fares might go down, maybe not...either way the only requirement is that the deal not "hurt" the consumer like you've stated.
In that case you have to look at the deal as a whole and decide is it truly "hurtful"? Is is more or less "hurtful" than what is already in place.
Is their really a reason to think ticket prices will go up? Is that "guess" good enough to disregard all of the plusses and "harmless" things in this deal?
Not to mention the whole "pick in choose" game they are trying to play in approving the AirTran/CAL deal. That gave a LCC more market share in LGA, but made an already dominate carrier even more dominate in EWR. Sounds much like our deal...but I think ours actually smells better overall, so how is it denied?
I'd love to see our lawyers argue this one out. I think it'll be a good show.
Denny
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post