The US/DL LGA slot swap [Master Thread]
#31
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Washington, DC (DCA)
Programs: UA, AA, AS, SPG.
Posts: 3,463
The dirty little secret is that if Southwest gets their hands on a dozen more slots at LGA and aitran (or whomever) gets them at DCA, it'll cause fares to go down. That is better for the consumer than overinflated fares from a few additional small destinations to LGA or DCA.
I beg to differ! We don't need multiple airlines adding flights on the same route. That is wasteful and does not improve overall service. All it does is lower prices while CASM climbs and RASM falls. I would much rather see US get the slots from DL and begin to offer more nonstops from DCA. That is truly better for the consumer to have access to/from cities previously unserviced from DCA....not more nonstops to the NE and Florida
#32
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tucson, AZ USA
Programs: DL-Platinum / AS-PlatPro / Hyatt - Glob / Hilton-Diamond
Posts: 1,573
Yea, when I 1st heard of this "slot swap" my thought was .. "Excuse me ??? "
I don't exactly agree with the concept of slot controlled airports in a "free market" country ... when said country can't upgrade the 1950's technology to support today's free market ... but that's another topic. Given the fact that some airports are slot controlled....
The slots were originally awarded by DOT to help "spread the wealth". Yes the spread is biased. Alaska Air only gets a few cuz ... well ... they're way out in Washington & Oregon. The eastern seaboard airlines had more slots; they were willing to serve more cities from the "slotted" airport. But still, the DOT prevented any one airline from having too many of the coveted slots.
And now DL & US think they can just trade slots, each gaining the very concentration that DOT wanted to avoid !! Excuse Me ???
And some folks think this is valid thinking ?
If DL or US (or any airline) wants to increase competition in the northeast by providing additional hubs vs the traditional EWR/PHL/BWI/whatever, then they are certainly able to do so without controlling the limited number slots at controlled airports.
In fact, US had such a thing and threw it away. It's called PIT.
In fact, DL has such a thing, but they are starting to throw it away. It's called CVG.
I can't believe I'm siding with the Government on something
Steve
I don't exactly agree with the concept of slot controlled airports in a "free market" country ... when said country can't upgrade the 1950's technology to support today's free market ... but that's another topic. Given the fact that some airports are slot controlled....
The slots were originally awarded by DOT to help "spread the wealth". Yes the spread is biased. Alaska Air only gets a few cuz ... well ... they're way out in Washington & Oregon. The eastern seaboard airlines had more slots; they were willing to serve more cities from the "slotted" airport. But still, the DOT prevented any one airline from having too many of the coveted slots.
And now DL & US think they can just trade slots, each gaining the very concentration that DOT wanted to avoid !! Excuse Me ???
And some folks think this is valid thinking ?
If DL or US (or any airline) wants to increase competition in the northeast by providing additional hubs vs the traditional EWR/PHL/BWI/whatever, then they are certainly able to do so without controlling the limited number slots at controlled airports.
In fact, US had such a thing and threw it away. It's called PIT.
In fact, DL has such a thing, but they are starting to throw it away. It's called CVG.
I can't believe I'm siding with the Government on something
Steve
#33
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maine
Programs: US Airways Chairman, PetSmart PetPerks Elite
Posts: 366
When did the government become a jobs program? By supporting failing businesses, the feds prolonged the pain and suffering for the hundreds of thousands of employees of healthier airlines. How many people at every other legacy were furloughed after 9/11? Absent the current capacity that HP/US represents, that probably does not happen and the airlines that remain are healthier.
#34
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: High Point, NC
Programs: None
Posts: 9,171
BHM
ISP
ITH
BHM
LIT
MYR
PNS
SAV
TLH
they could serve those markets non-stop with only a fraction of the slots they already have. Heck, if US was so concerned about service from LGA to the smaller markets in the NE, they could have used some of the 100+ slots they want to trade away and done exactly that instead of doing things like running 18-20 Dash flights between LGA and PHL every day.
The whole purpose of this exercise is market concentration. Higher market concentration leads to higher fares - so what if those wanting lower fares have to go to IAD/BWI to get them.
Jim
#35
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,335
#36
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20
As usual, Scott Kirby has this exactly right.
Too bad so many participants on this forum have such animus toward US that they can't understand the stupidity behind today's gov't ruling. You might think frequent flyers would understand the benefits of stronger legacy carriers.
Too bad so many participants on this forum have such animus toward US that they can't understand the stupidity behind today's gov't ruling. You might think frequent flyers would understand the benefits of stronger legacy carriers.
Management and shareholders want the highest RASM at the lowest CASM.
The frequent flyers on here aren't saying what they are saying because of their animus towards the airline rather their desire for the lowest ticket price possible with the highest level of service.
Finding the middle ground where all the parties are content is what is so difficult.
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,427
Actually,
Management and shareholders want the highest RASM at the lowest CASM.
The frequent flyers on here aren't saying what they are saying because of their animus towards the airline rather their desire for the lowest ticket price possible with the highest level of service.
Finding the middle ground where all the parties are content is what is so difficult.
Management and shareholders want the highest RASM at the lowest CASM.
The frequent flyers on here aren't saying what they are saying because of their animus towards the airline rather their desire for the lowest ticket price possible with the highest level of service.
Finding the middle ground where all the parties are content is what is so difficult.
But what the gov't doesn't realize is that the net result of their ruling is that EVERYBODY loses. There will be no new entrants. There will be no new competition. There will be no new flights. The legacy carriers won't get stronger.
Maybe the gov't will revisit this and work out a deal where a handful of slots can be sold. But I think the most probable result is that nothing happens, until the next administration. That might also apply to other merger/sale activity in the industry.
#38
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PHX
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 1,377
I think some on this board must be living in a bubble - times are not that good for many American business, especially the airline biz. Clearly it's time for the gov. to back off and let the struggling airline folks make a few bucks...or would a GM-like bailout be a better alternative? This one is a no brainer.
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,427
I think some on this board must be living in a bubble - times are not that good for many American business, especially the airline biz. Clearly it's time for the gov. to back off and let the struggling airline folks make a few bucks...or would a GM-like bailout be a better alternative? This one is a no brainer.
It's just really hard for me to see how anybody is hurt by US and DL swapping slots (except perhaps for the US commuter employees who get laid off), and how a lot of people might get some benefit. Instead, like many of the folks on this board, the gov't is looking for utopia, instead of a better reality.
#40
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Redlands, CA
Programs: AS, AA, WN
Posts: 974
But what the gov't doesn't realize is that the net result of their ruling is that EVERYBODY loses. There will be no new entrants. There will be no new competition. There will be no new flights. The legacy carriers won't get stronger.
And what if, after 4 months, DCA-BHM is a bust? Does it become yet another DCA-PHL flight?
Ask most people if they'd prefer to spend $300 to fly BHM-CLT-DCA or $500 to fly BHM-DCA, and I suspect most people and small businesses would "suffer" the connection to save money.
#41
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Redlands, CA
Programs: AS, AA, WN
Posts: 974
Were you in an uproar when Skybus went under? Aloha? Or do only well-established, full service airlines deserve protections from the free market?
#42
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: PIT
Posts: 10,984
I think some on this board must be living in a bubble - times are not that good for many American business, especially the airline biz. Clearly it's time for the gov. to back off and let the struggling airline folks make a few bucks...or would a GM-like bailout be a better alternative? This one is a no brainer.
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
#43
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Redlands, CA
Programs: AS, AA, WN
Posts: 974
WN seems to be doing OK. Airtran is more or less profitable. Isn't Allegiant profitable as well.?
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
#44
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Maine
Programs: US Airways Chairman, PetSmart PetPerks Elite
Posts: 366
WN seems to be doing OK. Airtran is more or less profitable. Isn't Allegiant profitable as well.?
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
#45
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 60
WN seems to be doing OK. Airtran is more or less profitable. Isn't Allegiant profitable as well.?
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
The problem isn't the airline business. It is the broken model that the legacy airlines persist in trying to use that is their downfall. The government should not be perpetuating that model.
.
The model is a failure. Why do the commuter flights need to be hyperinflated to make up for the innefficiencies in the legacy business model?