In the context of the merger, yes. I would not be wrong, right, in saying that?

Again, if I am taking a flight to Fargo, which I have done--I have not been invited back, but I did it once--and let us say I have to make a switch.

Does that not fit under the definition of enhanced competition?

I think it is terribly, terribly important that we do not have railroad companies going to Subcommittee Members telling them what letters they ought to write.

The FAA would step in. The President would declare a state of--it would be totally untenable.

I think that becomes very important because enhanced competition is not only a function of price, but it is a function of service.

I am one of those who tends to think that mergers kind of keep taking place until they cannot anymore.

I think it was you--or somebody--said 'I do not see why any industry should be treated differently.'

I do not know if that is true, but I would hope that that would not be true.

It is. Suppose you find it becomes deficient.

What would be a way that you might-- not hypothetically, but just thinking back in your experience when you say enhanced competition or I would say pro-competitive evidence--and we have agreed it is sort of the same. What would be an…

It is because you have behind that the threat of the choice.

Let me just simplify it to North America. Why is it that you should be able to operate under exemptions and an antitrust situation would be illegal in any other industry?

But I do not think we should be subject to two regulatory regimes, to two masters. One master is enough.

You can operate under rules that would be illegal for any other industry in this country to do.

I really question the basic proposition that railroad rates or conduct in any way, including mergers, would be found invalid under the antitrust laws.

Getting the choice is important to chemical companies, steel companies, coal companies, granaries, et cetera.

Well, let me just say two things.