For readers insufficiently swayed by the editorial and the Eduardo Porter business section column opposing the proposed merger between US Airways and American, the Times piled on over the weekend with a Joe Nocera column and a James Stewart column (labeled "common sense" by the Times) that reiterated the arguments against the merger. For those keeping score, that's four (4!) opinion pieces in the newspaper critical of the merger in less than a week, repeating mostly the same points.
Lest anyone think that there is a party line on the matter at the Times, however, the news organization published a more balanced piece the other day. Under the headline "Merger's Pros and Cons for Fliers," reporter Emily Brennan wrote:
Would the consumer benefit from the merger of American Airlines and US Airways, or not? It's complicated.
The consumer could see advantages and disadvantages to either outcome of the suit, according to George Hobica, the founder and president of Airfarewatchdog.com.
On the downside, the merger would lead to a consolidation of routes, giving an airline a monopoly over a particular route, which might cause its fare to increase. But, he noted, "That opens doors to another airline to go in there and start charging less."
On the upside, Mr. Hobica said that mergers allow airlines to cut costs by eliminating redundant departments and by being able to invest in new fuel-efficient planes that are more comfortable for consumers.
Without a merger, he said, American and US Airways may not be able to make such improvements to compete with rivals like Delta Air Lines, which merged with Northwest Airlines in 2008, and United Airlines, which merged with Continental in 2010. And a market without competition with Delta and United could hurt the consumer, he said.
Ms. Brennan's article, unlike the earlier ones critical of the merger, was a short blog item that, so far as I can tell, has not yet been published in the print newspaper.
Earlier Smartertimes coverage of the airline merger issue is here.