Originally Posted by
DoubleHaul
There are several ways to make their respective operations more profitable without necessarily increasing fares. Say US wants to add PNS-DCA service to attract military traffic, but can't today because it does not have the slots at DCA.
With 50% of available slots US can't fly routes like PNS-DCA non-stop any time they want? I guarantee you that if US thought such routes would be more profitable than some of the routes they already fly (like ILM-DCA) they'd drop the current route and add the "more profitable" route.
If military routes are so important, why did US say they'd offer non-stop service to MYR (a truly leisure destination) and not FAY (One of if not the biggest military installations in the country (personnel count)?
Does this mean that DL and US not try to increase yields where they can? Of course not.
So fares will go up, which I think is what I said. Plus it'll be easier to increase fare if no more lcc competition is allowed.
Successful new DCA routes for US, made possible because of the slot swap, would benefit both the airline and the passengers. If the passengers don't see a benefit, then they won't use it, and US won't make any money.
Which would benefit passengers more - more higher cost non-stops or lower fares from low cost competition? With all the slots US currently has, would not being able to serve a few markets nonstop be better than not being able to serve any new non-stop markets? Or is it just the new competition that US doesn't want.
I'm not sure that any of the airlines would scream for slot controls.
And you're right. But the airlines/public/Congress did want something done about congestion before NextGen was a dream. And, of course, no incumbent airline wanted to shoulder the cost of reducing it's flights at those airports to ease congestion.
Airlines, like any business, are going to do their best to act in their own best interests, and the best interests of their shareholders.
Absolutely. And notice that the consumer isn't in there anywhere. That's for the government to worry about.
From what I can see, it just looks like to me that this slot swap would be pretty neutral from a customer standpoint. It could be slightly positive, or it could be slightly negative. So I really don't see any practical reason for the DOT to condition its approval on surrendering slots to LCC competition.
One could certainl say that $10 to $20 higher fares will have little effect on a consumer but taken in total for all consumers at an airport the effect gets very large very quickly. Throw in the low cost competition (and frankly that's mostly who would benefit from the slot divestiture other than AS and maybe AC) and the advantage to the consumers as a group gets even bigger.
In many ways we're saying the same thing but come to different conclusions. US, at DCA, wants to increase the advantage it already has without allowing any more competition. That's understandable enough, but not justification enough from a consumer standpoint for the feds to say "Fine, go right ahead." DL is a somewhat different case - they want to establish a domestic hub at LGA (and JFK/EWR don't have the facilities for another hub) - something US already effectively has at DCA. Plus DL wouldn't end up with as high a percentage of slots at LGA as US would at DCA. US, as far as I know, has no beyond perimeter slots at LGA so DL wouldn't gain the advantage of getting more beyond perimeter slots. On the other hand, DL does have some beyond perimeter slots at DCA, but I haven't seen if any of them are included in the proposed swap.
Jim