What's new

F9 Pulling Out Of Lax-msp

Do you think UA and AA are allowed to discuss how many flights each operates out of ORD to each market?

In a manner of speaking, they are. Remember that both AA and UA agreed to "voluntary" flight reductions at ORD to reduce delays during peak flight activity. I doubt they discussed changes in the style you indicate, but I would not be surprised if there were some "wink wink, nudge nudge" conversations.

On a related note, I was surprised to see F9 go head-to-head with WN in the LAX-PHL market. Southwest is another carrier that has been known to defend its turf very aggressively; does Frontier have some kind of death wish?
 
Umm... OK... Well, the last I heard, AA and BA do not have "anti-trust immunity".

That is correct.

This means, even though they are alliance partners, they are not able to coordinate pricing, scheduling, and marketing.

That is not correct. As alliance partners they are allowed to coordinate scheduling, even allowing one partner to abandon a market since they are for all intents and purposes both flying the same plane when there is a code share.

However, this is comparing apples to oranges since NWA and F9 are not alliance partners.

Unless NW and F9 have anti-trust immunity, I don't think they are allowed to discuss who will serve what route. There are other precedents for this, as noted above.

Only if their alleged collusion results in harm to the people of MSP or LAX and since there are other carriers serving those city pairs the burden of proof will be difficult to meet.

Do you think UA and AA are allowed to discuss how many flights each operates out of ORD to each market?

Actually, yes, I do. They have been in discussions on just that subject for the past few months and both have agreed to downsize their service in ORD.

Once upon a time I believed, as you apparently do, that anti-trust laws prevented such discussions. Then I married a corporate anti-trust lawyer.

Of course this is not allowed. Neither is the purported discussion between NWAC and F9.

Incorrect, but such a discussion need never take place to begin with. Even without actual discussions, airlines send each other messages when they file their schedules - which is apparently what happened here.
 
Duh! Airlines send messages via their schedule... Really? I would never have guessed. [sarcasm]

While I cannot find the details online, in my rather limited quick search, I recall that BA and AA wanted anti-trust immunity in order to code-share transatlantic, and coordinate pricing and schedules. AA and BA were allowed a more limited arrangement where AA can place its code on BA's LHR-Europe/Africa/Asia flights and BA can place its code on AA's domestic USA/North/South America flights, however they were specifically prohibited from coordinating transatlantic, since they must compete. My recollection is that AA and BA argued to the authorities in the USA and UK for two years or so that they should be given the same anti-trust immunity granted to NW-KL and UA-LH (both of whom can code-share on each others transatlantic services) in order to compete. (Not that they don't all "collude" to a certain degree anyway, as any time one carrier makes a pricing move, it is either universally matched or abandoned.)

Examples: Could AA drop service to Rome and replace it with code-share service on BA? Sure. Likewise, BA can drop service to SEA using AA codeshare. Can AA and BA discuss raising the average fare on LHR-BOS service by each one dropping a flight (thus limiting supply and forcing fares to rise, all else being equal)? No - this was specifically prohibited by the lack of anti-trust immunity.

I am not so naive as to think that anti-trust laws prevent conversations. Speeding laws do not stop speeders... Yet a law is still broken, and offenders should still be punished. If the purported conversation took place, then the DOJ or DOT should investigate.

Coolflyingfool stated that he believed the airlines "got together and said I'll stop mine if you stop yours. This way they can both make money instead of lose." I do not believe this happened. I tend to think that at least some of the players involved are ethical. That is almost the same conversation had between Crandall and Putnam (Crandall said: "You raise your fares today, I raise my fares tomorrow, and we both win" or something similar). The day after F9 LAX-MSP service ends, and NW reestablished the $1000 each way walk up fare (as has occured in the past), the evidence of harm to consumers will be there.

He later restated: "I think there was some sort of "feeler" put out by F9 to NW to see if they would pull. I am not saying they sat down together and talked it out, but there is no way they pull out of competing markets within hours of each other."

Its possible, but I think unneccesary. NWA knew (by scientific analysis of the traffic data) that F9 would not make money on LAX-MSP... F9 also knew this about NW's LAX-DEN service. Thus, NWA was probably just waiting to "save" its LAX-MSP service and was ready to pull the plug on money-losing DEN-LAX as soon as its purpose was fulfilled. This appears to me to be what happened.

Also, since NW announced its intention to serve DEN-LAX within hours of F9's announcement, it is not a stretch of logic to think the service discontinuation announcements also came quickly to each other. And, did you know airlines actually get to look at competitor moves before the general public via airline schedule clearing-houses such as OAG? (Thus NW could have had advance notice of F9's moves, and moved accordingly...)

BOTTOM LINE: DOJ needs to be involved if competitors discussed critical information with each other. Otherwise, NWA (in a fairly predatory way, although perhaps not by the manipulation of law... see the AA-Vanguard case, which I cannot believe AA won) forced F9 out of the market, and the "mission" of its DEN-LAX service was complete.
 
Duh! Airlines send messages via their schedule... Really? I would never have guessed. [sarcasm]

Hmmm.....sarcasm.........how original.......... and here I was trying to keep things civil.

I recall that BA and AA wanted anti-trust immunity in order to code-share transatlantic, and coordinate pricing and schedules.

Because BA and AA overwhelmingly dominate the transtlantic market they attempted to obtain anti-trust immunity preemptively. Even after failing to obtain it they still openly coordinate their schedules at JFK and LHR for flights outside the transatlantic market to maximize their codeshare profits, yet remain unindicted.

Can AA and BA discuss raising the average fare on LHR-BOS service by each one dropping a flight (thus limiting supply and forcing fares to rise, all else being equal)? No - this was specifically prohibited by the lack of anti-trust immunity.

Yes, and as I said initially it was PRICING that got Crandall in trouble. There is a book called Splash of Colors by John Nance that contains their conversation in detail and at no point did Crandall mention anything but PRICING. Thanks for the completely redundant explanation regarding apples and oranges though. [Sarcasm]

I am not so naive as to think that anti-trust laws prevent conversations....If the purported conversation took place, then the DOJ or DOT should investigate.

They would find nothing actionable unless there was a discussion of ........wait for it........PRICING. The airlines openly collude in many areas, including labor - witness the AirCon Group specifically formed to do just that. They could have had this fictional conversation in the DOJ airline anti-trust office during a staff meeting and it would not have mattered if they did not discuss pricing or attempt to deprive MSP or LAX of service.

I tend to think that at least some of the players involved are ethical.

We are talking about NWA - Northwest Airlines, right? They, and their counterparts have shown for 20 years that they are as ethical as they are required to be, no more. Even Putnam admitted he turned Crandall in because it was to his advantage to do so.

The day after F9 LAX-MSP service ends, and NW reestablished the $1000 each way walk up fare (as has occured in the past), the evidence of harm to consumers will be there.

Is that different than their fare preceding F9's entry into the market? Are they the only carrier serving those markets, and no, direct flights aren't the only ones that count.

And, did you know airlines actually get to look at competitor moves before the general public via airline schedule clearing-houses such as OAG?

Yes, my first airline job was in the TWA scheduling department, hence my comment you found it necessary to answer sarcastically.

BOTTOM LINE: DOJ needs to be involved if competitors discussed critical information with each other.


While the anti-trust laws were effective when Teddy Roosevelt wrote them, they bear little relationship now to what they were then. Particularly in the last three or four years it is nearly impossible to reach the burden of proof required to prove harm.

BOTTOM LINE: If it isn't a slam-dunk, caught red-handed case they aren't interested. They're tired of losing and tired of being a political football, never knowing when their meticulously prepared cases will be traded away to please a big donor. I wish you were right; I wish there were regiments of young lawyers waiting to pounce on any hint of such thing, but the reality is that there aren't. My wife left in 2002 when there facts became obvious. Now she works for the other side but at least she doesn't have the frustration of being part of an organization that has become a toothless watchdog.

Otherwise, NWA (in a fairly predatory way, although perhaps not by the manipulation of law... see the AA-Vanguard case, which I cannot believe AA won) forced F9 out of the market, and the "mission" of its DEN-LAX service was complete.

If Spirit can't win against NWA after being virtually run out of DTW, does F9 stand much chance? There's a reason DTW and MSP are called 'Fortress Hubs'.
 
NWA/AMT said:
Yes, and as I said initially it was PRICING that got Crandall in trouble. There is a book called Splash of Colors by John Nance that contains their conversation in detail and at no point did Crandall mention anything but PRICING. Thanks for the completely redundant explanation regarding apples and oranges though. [Sarcasm]
It seems as though your source does not agree with your assertion then. If, according to Nance, PRICING was never mentioned, why did Bob get turned in?

They could have had this fictional conversation in the DOJ airline anti-trust office during a staff meeting and it would not have mattered if they did not discuss pricing or attempt to deprive MSP or LAX of service.

You drop your MSP-LAX service and I'll drop my DEN-LAX service... Sounds like they are depriving these communities of competitive air service to me.

The point of this argument was this: Coolflyingfool suggested the airlines discussed who would fly what. I found this statement suspect, and called him on it. Dispite your posts, you have provided no evidence that F9 and NWA worked together. In fact, as noted above, you stated this conversation was "fictional".
 
It seems as though your source does not agree with your assertion then. If, according to Nance, PRICING was never mentioned, why did Bob get turned in?

Read the statement again: 'at no point did Crandall mention anything but PRICING'.

You drop your MSP-LAX service and I'll drop my DEN-LAX service... Sounds like they are depriving these communities of competitive air service to me.

Then perhaps you should contact the DOJ. They'll tell you that there is plenty of service between both of those city pairs. If both colluded to eliminate, for instance, DEN-LAX service, and they together were the majority of the air service between those cities, or they were attempting to be the only carriers with direct or indirect service between those cities, or were attempting to coordinate their prices, then and only then would the DOJ even return your call.

The point of this argument was this: Coolflyingfool suggested the airlines discussed who would fly what. I found this statement suspect, and called him on it. Dispite your posts, you have provided no evidence that F9 and NWA worked together. In fact, as noted above, you stated this conversation was "fictional".

I have never said it was anything but fictional, nor attempted to infer otherwise. What I said was that even if it wasn't fictional there is no actionable anti-trust violation. If you wish to retain your serious misconceptions regarding the US anti-trust laws and how they apply to the airlines it's fine with me.
 
You are right... I did misread the quote. Thanks for the correction (seriously).

I understand your point, that the DOJ will consider the indirect service alternative, thus the carriers cannot "collude" since UA, DL, HP, AA all offer competing service via their hubs.

I understand I have an idealist viewpoint here, and that isn't necessarily how the world works. I don't have a misunderstanding here that Frontier would "win" the hypothetical case. However, I think bringing these cases to light better defines the gray areas operated in.
 
funguy2 said:
I understand I have an idealist viewpoint here, and that isn't necessarily how the world works.
As I said before, I wish it did work that way. It's something to keep in mind come November.
 
JetClipper said:
On a related note, I was surprised to see F9 go head-to-head with WN in the LAX-PHL market. Southwest is another carrier that has been known to defend its turf very aggressively; does Frontier have some kind of death wish?
Clipper,

Don't know about a "deathwish", but F-9 has been doing extremely well in the PHL market. I guess it goes to show that reasonable airlines can coexisit and be profitable in a market without resorting to tactics that costs both carriers millions of dollars and ultimately makes the consumer the loser.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top