This is pure politics. All you have to do is read the tea leaves. You have 6 State Attorney Generals involved in the lawsuit all with an agenda. Arizona doesn't want to lose their PHX hub. (which they won't) Pennsylvania is pissed that they lost their PIT hub. (because PHL was a better hub) Tennessee is pissed that they lost the MEM hub. (because DL doesn't need two southern hubs) Texas--I'll leave that one alone right now, but there is an agenda much deeper than most realize, DC because they aren't happy with airfares and bag fees, Virginia because of the proximity to DC.
DOJ wanted US/AMR to divest slots at Reagan to get below the 50% mark. US/AMR refused and now the DOJ shows up at the 11th hour to block an airline merger. The same type of airline merger that they have approved the last 5 times. (TWA/AA. AW/US, NW/DL, CO/UA, SW/AT).
Before the last five airline mergers were approved, the same DOJ turned down the US/UA merger in 2001. One would think that the DOJ has an agenda against US?
This pretty well stops the merger from happening in 2013 unless the DOJ backs off. If DOJ doesn't back off then it will be a 2-3 year court battle which US/AA would probably win in the end.
However, I'm not convinced that AA can flounder in bankruptcy court for the next 2-3 years while this is going on and stay in business. AA is getting killed with the loss of passenger feeds from the shift in business travel to UA and DL. AA really needs this merger more than most realize. It's simply a feed issue.
Has the DOJ considered what would happen if there were no AA to emerge from bankruptcy?
What would happen to airfares (and capacity) if AA were not in business?
Joe