Who knows? maybe this will never make it to trial!
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airlines-feds-agree-mediator-merger-230100333.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airlines-feds-agree-mediator-merger-230100333.html
Let the mediation begin!
- Thread starter MetalMover
- Start date
BigMac
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
uh, if you had read what I have said, I have noted MULTIPLE times that it is almost unheard of for a civil case to not be solvable by some form of remedy.
And as you well know if the DOJ expected that mediation would be a possibility, that is all the more reason why they said from the beginning that there were no remedies that could be large enough.
And for AA/US, it says they will make concessions and they will likely be a lot larger than AA/US had originally offered - which likely means several dozen slot pairs at DCA alone.
And as you well know if the DOJ expected that mediation would be a possibility, that is all the more reason why they said from the beginning that there were no remedies that could be large enough.
And for AA/US, it says they will make concessions and they will likely be a lot larger than AA/US had originally offered - which likely means several dozen slot pairs at DCA alone.
Terry Maxon doesn't view the news about a mediator as noteworthy as some of you (check out the last sentence in the parentheses):
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/10/airlines-doj-agree-to-mediator-as-they-head-toward-trial.html/
In every federal court lawsuit, the judge orders the parties to pick a mediator to help with settlement.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/10/airlines-doj-agree-to-mediator-as-they-head-toward-trial.html/
In every federal court lawsuit, the judge orders the parties to pick a mediator to help with settlement.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
mediation is also a much easier process than for a judge to impose a settlement.
Even if the parties don't really like the mediation, they at least had some say in it vs. having an imposed settlement.
And it also avoids the risks on both sides of losing a lot more than what would be involved in mediation.
It also weighs much heavier on the case if a mediator can say that one side put forth reasonable efforts to resolve the case but the other side made no efforts to move on their positions.
Even if the parties don't really like the mediation, they at least had some say in it vs. having an imposed settlement.
And it also avoids the risks on both sides of losing a lot more than what would be involved in mediation.
It also weighs much heavier on the case if a mediator can say that one side put forth reasonable efforts to resolve the case but the other side made no efforts to move on their positions.
- Thread Starter
- #9
Speaking of experts.............MAXON SPEAKS....FWAAA said:
The importance of this development is that the DOJ agreed to a mediator...
They began with a flat out rejection of the merger via a lawsuit....Now we're at the mediation stage.
True it is customary in similar cases to hammer something out. They could have easily rejected mediation and proceed to trial.
"Sorry your honor, we respectfully reject the offer of mediation because we still believe this merger will lead to higher fares, less competition and reduction in routes at many airports."
Or, maybe the DoJ, unlike our current Congress or the AA/US executives, sees value in finding a solution that everyone can live with, or at least trying to do so. When a Federal judge suggests that the two sides of a case find a mediator they can both accept, it's generally not smart to tell the judge I ain't gonna do it.
This will most likely force the DOJ to show their hand. They either really beleive their own spin or all they want is some NYC & DC divestment. If the later we get a deal rather quicly. If they hold to the redicules claim that 1400+ routes will be less compative it goes to court, which US/AA will win.
AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,395
I didn't know that using a mediator (which both the airlines and DOJ have agreed to do) was needed to gainFWAAA said:
"nothing short of a full injunction against the merger" an outcome Assistant U.S Attorney General Bill Baer said would be needed to protect consumers.
Maybe it is a little more "noteworthy" than some want to admit!
- Thread Starter
- #14
Looks like the proposals have started.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-airways-american-drawing-proposed-205245420.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-airways-american-drawing-proposed-205245420.html
According to this:
http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/10/american-and-us-airways-preparing-settlement-offer/
"The head of the DOJ’s antitrust unit, Bill Baer, has previously indicated that the government would listen to settlement proposals but remains convinced that the “right solution” was to prevent the merger from taking place."
Ostensibly it seems the DOJ isn't interested in a settlement. Hopefully it goes to trial and the DOJ prevails.
http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com/2013/10/american-and-us-airways-preparing-settlement-offer/
"The head of the DOJ’s antitrust unit, Bill Baer, has previously indicated that the government would listen to settlement proposals but remains convinced that the “right solution” was to prevent the merger from taking place."
Ostensibly it seems the DOJ isn't interested in a settlement. Hopefully it goes to trial and the DOJ prevails.
Similar threads
