It's not necessary to go to extremes (random cancellations?)

For slot-controlled airports now over capacity, reduce the number of slots to a level which can be sustained in weather better than "bad" (define later ), put slots on other airports near or over capacity, and spread the slots over a 24 hour period. This would require an amendment to AIR-21 (signed by Clinton). Bush won't sign a bill un-doing AIR-21, so I'm talking theoretically here.

Anyway, reserve some slots for new entrants or discount carriers. Auction the rest of the slots to the major airlines, with a limit on the number of slots for any one particular airline (keeping in mind whether that airport is a hub; e.g., UA's slot limit at ORD needs to be higher than at EWR, but don't allow UA to buy 95% of all the slots at ORD). Slot auction proceeds should be used to improve the airport and related items (or reduce PFC's).


As I wrote in a thread in the Delta forum, fare amounts should not be regulated. The government can never determine the right price for anything. What should be regulated is routes. Even with a Big Three consolidation (UA/US, AA/TW, DL/CO/NW), regulating routes would ensure all three Big Daddies are competing with one another as well as the discount carriers on all routes.

My opinion is that a Big Three with route authorities would be more competitive than what we have today. Each member of the Big Three has enough market share and aircraft to be able to serve most routes, something that even United today can't do. Plus, route authorities include serving small cities (i.e., you get fly ORD-LGA if you also fly ORD-CHO-LYH).

Flying before de-regulation was better in most respects except for the high fares. What we need is to combine the best of both worlds.