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'.