On Friday, Alaska Airlines petitioned a U.S. judge to dismiss a consumer lawsuit challenging its planned $1.9 billion acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines. The airline argued that the transaction would not unlawfully consolidate its power within the transportation industry.
In its filing with the Hawaii federal court, Alaska Airlines contended that the lawsuit, filed by consumers in April, failed to demonstrate any “concrete, particularized and impending harm” that passengers would face if the deal proceeded. Reuters reported that Alaska Airlines described the plaintiffs as “serial litigants” who had previously filed lawsuits over other airline mergers, labeling their claims as “boilerplate.”
Alaska Airlines refrained from commenting further on Friday. Meanwhile, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, a group of eight airline passengers from Hawaii, California, and other states, did not immediately respond to requests for comment, according to Reuters.
The lawsuit alleges that the merger would exacerbate the current trend towards concentration and reduced competition in the airline industry, which the plaintiffs argue is “unmatched, unparalleled, and dangerous.” In response, Alaska Airlines asserted in its filing that the merger would significantly expand customer access to global destinations.
The proposed acquisition is currently under antitrust review by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Both Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines have stated they are cooperating with the DOJ and expect to continue doing so, as reported by Reuters in March.
The case, titled Warren Yoshimoto et al v. Alaska Airlines and Alaska Air Group, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, under case number 1:24-cv-00173.
JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – The Supreme Court of Alaska will be taking up the case of the State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.
The oral arguments will be held Monday at 10 a.m. via Zoom, according to an order and opening notice.
The document also specifies that a decision is expected to be made before noon on Tuesday.
According to documents from the Division of Elections, the state must start printing ballots at noon on the same day.
Advertisement
This comes after an Anchorage Superior Court Judge ordered Dan J. Sullivan on to the ballot Friday.
See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com
A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)
This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.
Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?
It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.
Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.
Advertisement
A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.
Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.
Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.
That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.
Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.
Advertisement
This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.
Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”
• • •
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
