The US Justice Department is unlikely to bring an antitrust action against US airlines after finding little evidence the carriers coordinated to raise fares by curbing the supply of seats, a person familiar with the matter said.
The US has been investigating major US carriers at least since the summer of 2015, when some airlines confirmed getting letters from the Justice Department requesting documents about their actions on seating capacity. The availability of seats is closely tied to air fares, because airlines find it difficult to raise prices when capacity exceeds demand.
Investigators didn’t uncover sufficient evidence of collusion among airlines to restrain seats, and it is unlikely the department will pursue any formal action, said the person, who asked not to be named because the probe is confidential. The Justice Department, which rarely confirms a decision to close an investigation, declined to comment.
Analysts were critical of the probe when it became publicly known in 2015, saying that airlines had added more seating capacity than many investors wanted, rather than cutting capacity. Several plaintiffs also filed private lawsuits against the airlines alleging collusion in the wake of the investigation.
“We have always determined our capacity independently, and therefore we don’t expect DOJ to take any action,” Delta Air Lines spokesman Trebor Banstetter said. Representatives of Southwest Airlines and United Continental Holdings declined to comment.
“It is something we have cooperated in,” said Matt Miller, a spokesman for American Airlines Group “We are confident DOJ will reach the same conclusion we have: that American has done nothing to violate the law.”
Full Content: Bloomberg
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Veteran Lawyers Launch Boutique Antitrust Firm in NY and DC
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
EU’s Top Court Upholds Antitrust Veto on Thyssenkrupp-Tata Steel Deal
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Brazil’s Court Delays X’s Return Over Fine Payment Dispute
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Tencent and Guillemot Family Consider Potential Buyout of Ubisoft
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Second Price-Fixing Case Against Hotel-Casinos Dismissed by Federal Judge
Oct 6, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh