[ohashi]

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]

Because the customer loses. They're sentencing Spirit to bankruptcy. OTher airlines will buy the planes and get stronger...

[filleduchaos]

> So it's a bad ruling because previous administrations didn't try to enforce anti monopoly laws?

Alaska Airlines literally just bought Hawaiian. It hasn't even been two months.

Framing the block of an attempted merger between two airlines that combined are worth less than Alaska (which is itself far from an industry titan) as "anti-monopoly" is simply inane.

[nerdponx]

It's a good example of how judges are ultimately not that different from politicians.

[oceanplexian]

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.

[edgyquant]

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

[ohashi]

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.

[nerdponx]

Yes. The oligopoly already exists, so allowing players to fold by preventing their merger only entrenches the oligopoly further. Who do you think is pick up the excess demand when Spirit goes under? Who will acquire all their assets and employees? Hint: not a new market entrant.