Teaching Horizontal Mergers to Undergraduates: The Case of American Airlines and US Airways.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
12 CHAPTER Monopoly.
Advertisements

12 MONOPOLY CHAPTER.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western What’s Important in Chapter 15 Sources of Monopolies (= Price Makers = Market.
Market Power: Monopoly
The Hub-and-Spoke Routing for Airlines Costs and Competitiveness
Kim and Singal (1993) Target shareholder wealth could increase due to value creation wealth transfer (from employees, customers, etc.). In either case,
Basic Oligopoly Models
CHAPTER 9 Basic Oligopoly Models Copyright © 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written.
Ch. 12: Monopoly Causes of monopoly
Chapter 9 Monopoly © 2009 South-Western/ Cengage Learning.
15 Monopoly.
Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered a monopoly if it is the sole seller of.
Ch. 12: Monopoly  Causes of monopoly  Monopoly pricing and output determination  Performance and efficiency of single-price monopoly and competition.
Monopoly CHAPTER 12. After studying this chapter you will be able to Explain how monopoly arises and distinguish between single-price monopoly and price-discriminating.
12 MONOPOLY CHAPTER.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. its.
© 2008 Prentice Hall Business Publishing Economics R. Glenn Hubbard, Anthony Patrick O’Brien, 2e. Fernando & Yvonn Quijano Prepared by: Chapter 14 Monopoly.
1 of 34 Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall · Economics · R. Glenn Hubbard, Anthony Patrick O’Brien, 3e. Chapter 14: Monopoly.
12 MONOPOLY CHAPTER.
M&A STRATEGY One of most fundamental motives for M&A is growth. Companies seeking to expand are faced with a choice between internal or organic growth.
Mergers & Acquisitions Julia & Daniel Lopes. Corporate management Merger Consolidation Acquisition Takeover.
Continental Airlines: The Competitive Arena
Lecture 11: Monopoly Readings: Chapter 13.
 Firm that is sole seller of product without close substitutes  Price Maker not a Price Taker  There are barriers to entry thru: Monopoly Resources,
Route Planning and Evaluation
Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly vs. Competition While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered.
Chapter 15 notes Monopolies.
Price Discrimination Price discrimination is the practice of selling different units of a good or service for different prices. To be able to price discriminate,
The Four Conditions for Perfect Competition
Copyright©2004 South-Western Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
Pure Monopoly Mr. Bammel.
Monopoly ETP Economics 101. Monopoly  A firm is considered a monopoly if...  it is the sole seller of its product.  its product does not have close.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Monopoly Chapter 12.
Evaluating Monopoly Comparison with Perfect Competition.
LECTURE #13: MICROECONOMICS CHAPTER 15
Chapter 22 Microeconomics Unit III: The Theory of the Firm.
MERGERS Clayton 7 as amended by the Celler-Kefauver Act:
Regulation and Deregulation The Government’s Role in Competition.
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved.13-1 Natural Monopolies And Regulation.
PowerPoint Slides prepared by: Andreea CHIRITESCU Eastern Illinois University Monopoly 1 © 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied,
Discussion Session 3. Outline Monopoly Monopolistic Competition Antitrust Policy and Regulation.
Monopoly CHAPTER 12. After studying this chapter you will be able to Explain how monopoly arises and distinguish between single-price monopoly and price-discriminating.
1. THE NATURE OF MONOPOLY Learning Objectives 1.Define monopoly and the relationship between price setting and monopoly power. 2.List and explain the.
Chapter Nineteen Acquisitions and Mergers in Financial-Services Management Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
MONOPOLY 12 CHAPTER. Objectives After studying this chapter, you will able to  Explain how monopoly arises and distinguish between single-price monopoly.
MICROECONOMICS: Theory & Applications By Edgar K. Browning & Mark A. Zupan John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10 th Edition, Copyright 2009 PowerPoint prepared by.
The “Southwest Effect” is Alive and Well Case Studies July 2015.
Principles of Merger Analysis The Antitrust Masters Course V September 30, 2010 Andrea Agathoklis, Department of Justice Norman A. Armstrong, Jr., Federal.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price.
Evaluating Monopoly Comparison with Perfect Competition.
Copyright © 2006 Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Ltd. 15 Monopoly.
Microeconomics ECON 2302 May 2009 Marilyn Spencer, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Chapter 14.
ECN 3103 Industrial Organisation
Chapter 15 Monopoly!!. Monopoly the monopoly is the price maker, and the competitive firm is the price taker. A monopoly is when it’s product does not.
Chapter Monopoly 15. In economic terms, why are monopolies bad? Explain. 2.
Antitrustitalia Bruxelles, 29 Avril 2016 Competition in the Aviation Sector.
13 MONOPOLY. © 2012 Pearson Education A monopoly is a market:  That produces a good or service for which no close substitute exists  In which there.
Monopoly 1. Why Monopolies Arise Monopoly –Firm that is the sole seller of a product without close substitutes –Price maker Barriers to entry –Monopoly.
Monopoly 15. Monopoly A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. it is the sole seller of its product. its product does.
© 2006 Prentice Hall Business Publishing Economics R. Glenn Hubbard, Anthony Patrick O’Brien—1 st ed. c h a p t e r fourteen Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn.
Monopolies.
Chapter 15 Monopoly.
MICROECONOMICS: Theory & Applications
Time Warner Rules Manhattan
Ch. 13: Monopoly Causes of monopoly
16 Monopoly CLICKER QUESTIONS Notes and teaching tips: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20,
Competitive Analysis: American Airlines
Presentation transcript:

Teaching Horizontal Mergers to Undergraduates: The Case of American Airlines and US Airways

Introduction In this lecture we analyze the welfare impacts of the American Airlines and US Airways merger – Merger description – Williamson model ‘Naive’ model of horizontal mergers – DOJ and FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines Government decision making process on mergers – Policy implications

Merger Description On December 9, 2013 world's largest airline was created $11 billion dollar merger of AMR Corporation and US Airways Group, parent companies of two out of four remaining legacy airline companies in the United States, American Airlines and US Airways Recent mergers in airline industry – United Airlines and Continental Airlines in 2010 – Northwest Airlines and Delta Airlines in 2008

Merger Description Largest carrier in the world – More than 6,700 daily flights to 336 locations in 56 countries worldwide – About $40 billion in operating revenue – More than 100,000 employees Affected airports – Dallas, TX – Charlotte, NC – Chicago, IL – Philadelphia, PA – Phoenix, AZ

Merger Description Potential welfare impacts – Positive Efficiency gains – Cost savings from integration of facilities, labor, information systems and acquiring similar productive capacities – Network benefits – Negative Welfare losses – Merged airline increases market power on many routes – Leads to price increases, service decreases and welfare losses

Williamson Model Modeling trade-offs from a merger of two competing firms Simplified model of governmental decision making on merger approval Focuses on cost reductions due to company synergies and welfare losses due to market power Does not consider more complicated circumstances like entry, political economy, etc.

Williamson model Pre-merger - Competitive airline industry - American Airlines and US Airways initially operate as competitors, charging a price equal to marginal cost. - MC 1 =AC 1 - Market equilibrium is found at point A, with a price of P 1 per ticket and a quantity of q 1 tickets - The consumer surplus is the triangle P 3 AP 1 - Producer surplus is non- existent due to the constant structure of costs.

Williamson model Post-merger - Monopolistic airline industry - The New American Airlines reduces costs by exploiting newly found economies of scale, shown by MC 2 =AC 2. - The New AA maximizes profit by equating marginal revenue with marginal cost, - New market equilibrium at point B, associated with a price of P 2 per ticket and a quantity of q 2 tickets.

Williamson model Post-merger - At point B: -The consumer surplus is the triangle P 3 BP 2 - Producer surplus is non- existent due to the constant structure of costs

Williamson model Post-merger - At point B: - Deadweight loss is triangle BAC -Due to ticket price increases and service reductions - Efficiency gains are area P 1 CDP 0 - Due to reductions in duplicative operation costs by integrating facilities, labor, and information systems and acquiring similar productive capacities.

Williamson model Welfare impacts - The merger is welfare enhancing is the deadweight loss (BAC) is smaller than the efficiency gains (P 1 CDP 0 ) - The merger is welfare decreasing is the deadweight loss (BAC) is greater than the efficiency gains (P 1 CDP 0 )

DOJ and FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines (HMG) “The Agencies (DOJ and FTC) seek to identify and challenge competitively harmful mergers while avoiding unnecessary interference with mergers that are either competitively beneficial or neutral” (DOJ and FTC 2010) The process pursued in evaluating the proposed merger of American Airlines and US Airways Address each section of the HMG relevant to the merger

HMG - Evidence of Adverse Competitive Effects Types of evidence – Actual effects observed in consummated mergers – Direct comparisons based on experience – Market shares and concentration in a relevant market – Substantial head-to-head competition – Disruptive role of a merging party Sources of evidence

HMG - Evidence of Adverse Competitive Effects Sources of evidence – Merging parties – Customers – Other industry participants and observers

HMG - Targeted Customers and Price Discrimination Impact of a merger on various groups of customers Price discrimination – Leisure travelers – Business travelers

HMG – Market definition All city pairs served by both of the carriers, including nonstop and connecting services – Hubs like Dallas, TX; Charlotte, NC; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ No close substitutes for travel beyond 300 miles for both leisure and business travelers

HMG - Market Participants, Market Shares, and Market Concentration Market participants – All the competing airlines in the relevant market, including airlines that fly between the same city pairs the newly merged airline Market concentration – Measured using the HHI – Forecasted increase in HHI beyond 2,500 in more than 1,000 city pairs in which the airlines competed head- to-head prior to the merger, – Average increase in HHI of over 200 points.

HMG - Market Participants, Market Shares, and Market Concentration Market shares

HMG - Coordinated Effects Impact of the merger on coordinated interaction More concentrated airline industry will lead to lower coordination costs, especially among the legacy airlines – Less likely to engage in price competition – More likely to pursue both explicit and tacit collusion – Signaling through transparent price publishing – Cross-market initiatives

HMG - Entry More ‘slots’ in ownership of legacy airlines Special agreements with airport authorities regarding the use of gates, terminals and other airport facilities.

HMG - Efficiencies Agencies are most likely to consider either verified merger specific efficiencies or efficiency claims substantiated by similar past experience US Airways-American Airlines merger predicted efficiencies of about $1.05 billion in 2013

HMG - Efficiencies Cost efficiencies – Economies of scale – integration of facilities, labor, information systems and acquiring similar productive capacities Network efficiencies – Adding destinations to the network – Offering more round-trip options on existing routes – Converting interline service into a single line service – Optimizing the combined fleet of aircraft across a larger hub-and- spoke network – Scheduling improvements – Reducing service in marginally profitable and unprofitable markets – Eliminating inefficient patterns that do not fit within the hub-and- spoke network model

Policy Implications Another merger in an already concentrated industry Policy implications of the merger are still contested and it may take some time to observe its full welfare effects Previous airline mergers lead to higher fares, declines in services, and increases in the cost of ancillary services such as luggage and meals US Airways-American Airlines merger is unlikely to bring many benefits to customers and further increases the hold of the industry by the legacy airlines