4 ms·

Besides that it's a bad ruling because the US spent years allowing mergers between large players that were clearly anti-competitive, and now in the environment

Besides that it's a bad ruling because the US spent years allowing mergers between large players that were clearly anti-competitive, and now in the environment of dominant airlines, it's applying the rules that it should have to the big players, but to smaller airlines who are now at a disadvantage due to their size. It's an utterly feckless uneven application of the rules to everyone's detriment. You couldn't have designed a worse airline industry if you tried.

rezonant 3y ago
Yes this is terrible. All it does is ensure Spirit will continue to be terrible until it goes under and prevent a major competitor from arising for the big 3 airlines. The doublespeak required to say that keeping Spirit as it is pushes air ticket prices down is baffling, unless we are to assume that the quality that you get with Spirit is in any way comparable to the large airlines (it's not). It's almost like saying we need to keep this bike company around so that it can drive car prices down.
- dtnewman 3y ago
  1) The “quality” of spirit is just fine. They explicitly market themselves as a budget airline and that’s what you get. A lot of people just want the cheapest ticket to go from A to B and they provide it. Personally, I have enough disposable income to pay more for another airline, but sometimes the difference is so dramatic that I will take spirit. When I’m traveling with my two young kids, having a reclining seat and better flight attendants makes a marginal difference to an already difficult situation. 2) Their ticket prices are often a fraction of the others. Even if service quality is lower, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t pushing down overall prices.
- luuurker 3y ago
  Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone requires the same level of quality as you do. Some people just want to go from A to B as cheap as possible. Want more quality? Pick a different option.
ohashi 3y ago
So it's a bad ruling because previous administrations didn't try to enforce anti monopoly laws? Why not view it as, this is a good start and hoping it continues to prevent even more consolidation and monopoly in airlines and other industries? The notion that there has to be more consolidation to compete is only good for the companies monopolizing - not the consumer. Why should we be helping them make more profit by abusing market power versus delivering better products and competing?
- iclosem 3y ago
  Because the customer loses. They're sentencing Spirit to bankruptcy. OTher airlines will buy the planes and get stronger...
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  It’s bad because the government is artificially manipulating market forces and prevents price discovery. Imagine you’re thinking of starting a small airline, like a Jetblue or Spirit, but investors know that if the business ever plans to exit through an acquisition, the government will intervene. Well, as an investor I’d be a lot less likely to invest. As a result, you stifle the free market and prevent the emergence of competition. The knock on effect is less choice for the consumer and a less efficient market.
  - ohashi 3y ago
    Yet you completely ignore the non competition in monopolistic markets? Markets aren't pure and price discovery is stifled in a lot of ways. Arguing consolidation will help make a fairer market is ignorant if not disingenuous. Won't someone think of the poor investors? Again, that's not who public policy should serve.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    This is not a bad thing. Businesses should plan to make a money themselves and not count on being acquired. I’d say that mindset is the source of a lot of our current economic woes
- 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rezonant 3y ago

Yes this is terrible. All it does is ensure Spirit will continue to be terrible until it goes under and prevent a major competitor from arising for the big 3 airlines. The doublespeak required to say that keeping Spirit as it is pushes air ticket prices down is baffling, unless we are to assume that the quality that you get with Spirit is in any way comparable to the large airlines (it's not). It's almost like saying we need to keep this bike company around so that it can drive car prices down.

dtnewman 3y ago
1) The “quality” of spirit is just fine. They explicitly market themselves as a budget airline and that’s what you get. A lot of people just want the cheapest ticket to go from A to B and they provide it. Personally, I have enough disposable income to pay more for another airline, but sometimes the difference is so dramatic that I will take spirit. When I’m traveling with my two young kids, having a reclining seat and better flight attendants makes a marginal difference to an already difficult situation. 2) Their ticket prices are often a fraction of the others. Even if service quality is lower, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t pushing down overall prices.
luuurker 3y ago
Don't make the mistake of assuming everyone requires the same level of quality as you do. Some people just want to go from A to B as cheap as possible. Want more quality? Pick a different option.

ohashi 3y ago

So it's a bad ruling because previous administrations didn't try to enforce anti monopoly laws? Why not view it as, this is a good start and hoping it continues to prevent even more consolidation and monopoly in airlines and other industries? The notion that there has to be more consolidation to compete is only good for the companies monopolizing - not the consumer. Why should we be helping them make more profit by abusing market power versus delivering better products and competing?

iclosem 3y ago
Because the customer loses. They're sentencing Spirit to bankruptcy. OTher airlines will buy the planes and get stronger...
oceanplexian 3y ago
It’s bad because the government is artificially manipulating market forces and prevents price discovery. Imagine you’re thinking of starting a small airline, like a Jetblue or Spirit, but investors know that if the business ever plans to exit through an acquisition, the government will intervene. Well, as an investor I’d be a lot less likely to invest. As a result, you stifle the free market and prevent the emergence of competition. The knock on effect is less choice for the consumer and a less efficient market.
- ohashi 3y ago
  Yet you completely ignore the non competition in monopolistic markets? Markets aren't pure and price discovery is stifled in a lot of ways. Arguing consolidation will help make a fairer market is ignorant if not disingenuous. Won't someone think of the poor investors? Again, that's not who public policy should serve.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  This is not a bad thing. Businesses should plan to make a money themselves and not count on being acquired. I’d say that mindset is the source of a lot of our current economic woes
3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]