is an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Delta and Northwest announced plans to merge last month, largely in an effort to create a stronger airline better able to weather the soaring cost of fuel.

Today, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is expected to examine the proposed merger. Congress is often skeptical of mergers, and rightly so. But this one may actually help consumers, the industry and its employees.

Since 2001, the airline industry has lost more than $29 billion, and 150,000 jobs have been cut from U.S. network carriers. Airline fuel costs are increasing far faster than fares, a reality that prompted Delta's CEO Richard Anderson to say that fares would have to go up by 20 percent to keep pace with the higher fuel costs.

I understand concerns about the merger: Economics 101 says mergers lead to less competition and higher prices. But at least three points argue in favor of this deal.

First, it is better to have a slightly less competitive industry than one in deep trouble. In April alone, four airlines permanently shut their doors. If this trend continues, there will be less competition one way or another. But bankruptcies are often more painful than mergers for the thousands of airline employees and customers affected.

Second, not all mergers are equal. Delta and Northwest overlap on only 12 nonstop domestic flights out of about 1,000, so the merger is unlikely to change the competitive landscape. Unlike mergers of airlines with significant overlap of routes, the Delta-Northwest merger won't lead to many (if any) route closures.

Don't forget the tremendous benefits this merger will provide to the growing number of international travelers. Delta covers the Latin American and European markets, while Northwest has access to the Asian markets. Together, this route network will allow the new airline to increase its global reach.

Third, similar concerns regarding anti-competitive effects were expressed in the 1990s when similar airline mergers were being announced between carriers. But academic research demonstrated that these alliances resulted in substantial benefits to consumers: in fact, average fares dropped and total traffic increased.

This is not to say that every merger will lead to the same outcome, but a merger of two complementary airlines such as Delta and Northwest is likely to produce similar benefits for the flying public.

Of course, one may wonder whether the merger is really the best way to turn around this industry. Some argue that instead of merging, legacy carriers should streamline operations to become more like low-cost carriers. But let's not forget that many low-cost carriers serve only selected high-traffic routes and not many small communities.

Delta and Northwest currently fly from more than 140 small communities, and the only way to serve them without huge losses is using smaller planes through the hub-and-spoke system of legacy carriers. Therein lies one of the huge benefits of the merger: The two airlines can reallocate their large and small planes to best match supply with demand and continue to serve small and rural communities.

Despite the sometimes deleterious effects of mergers, this one appears to be quite innocuous. This is probably the first in a series of mergers to come. If they all make this much sense, consolidation will lead to a stronger, more efficient industry.