Airline Mergers

The mergers have reduced competition, but there might have been additional bankrupcies.

On net, the best evidence is, I think, for higher prices and worse service. But the evidence is not that clear-cut.
-see background information here

Without having studied this, it is very hard to think through what would have happened if the mergers had not taken place.

The airlines were losing money; service quality was declining. There were unused economies of scope and scale, which may be nearly gone now.

Concentration and price are positively correlated in airline markets and for the obvious reasons

Larger networks make for more efficiency and more market power both. Ease of entry (contestability) inclines me mildly toward disagree.

Acquisitions were mainly moribund airlines: 2001 Am-TWA, 2010/12 Cont.-United; 2008/10 NW-Delta. Continuity was achieved, less disruption.

There isn't a definitive paper on this although Severin Borenstein is working on one that should shed much light on this question.

So many things have changed over the same time, especially rising load factors, that I believe it is hard to resolve the issue.

I'd have to do more research into this topic. It's clear what the issues are in theory, so it's a matter of facts.

DoJ cliams to have evidence of higher fares, not clear that there are enough gains in routes to counter-act that.

The DOJ's economists presumably didn't think so.

-see background information here

Hard to judge the counter factual structure.

Hard call, but chronically low airline profits does not suggest market power being exercised as a general matter.

Hard to say whether the benefits from economies of scale have outweighed the increase in monopoly power.

There are some benefits to consumers to larger networks. Admit that service on US carriers is horrible.