WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #61
Robbed and swamt,
You keep repeating the same thing about what has been published in umpteen articles and about what Baer and AA/US execs said regarding the fact that DL and UA aren’t invited to bid – or won’t get the assets if they do.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that DL is not happy with that answer. We live in a country based on the rule of law. Just as is being played out with ObamaCare, a government official, even the President, can’t choose to make a decision which is against the law. Even the Democrats are realizing that the President’s decision to force insurance companies to rebuy insurance which was cancelled under ObamaCare is illegal and they aren’t supporting the President on his requirements.
I’m not going to get into politics but the parallel should be clear. There is no legal basis for excluding any carrier in the United States from being able to participate in an asset divestiture based on economic factors. Slot controls exist for operational, not economic purposes, and there is no law which says that any one carrier can be excluded from operating at any airport. IN fact there are clear laws about requiring access to new entrants at airports. It is also unprecedented and completely unsupportable to force a carrier out of an airport and then tell them they cannot gain access to it.
Whether you and swamt can see the legal questions that DL is raising between the lines of the single press release they issued on the topic or not, they are raising those questions and they are not going to sit by quietly on the sidelines while the nation is reregulated according to the desires of AA/US and WN. It is bad enough that a DOJ official is stupid enough to make a statement that cannot be supported by law but AA/US’ execs parroting “DL and UA can bid if they want but they won’t get any assets” smacks of the very same mentality that the DOJ uncovered in the emails in which AA/US execs told competitors (DL) to get rid of the triple miles promotion and that AA/US would have to eliminate the Advantage Fares because of the merger.
You can repeat that you personally, swamt, aren’t saying that DL won’t get slots but that what the DOJ official said, but that doesn’t change that in an open bidding process, how can any party make a statement like that before the process begins. Your decision to echo a limitation in selection is no more open and just than it is for the DOJ to make that statement without even knowing who might bid.
Interesting that just a few months ago we had a chorus of people on this site touting the Justice Dept’s screwed up policies with gun running and that the DOJ had no right to extract concessions from AA/US in LGA, yet now they are all lining up against DL when DL wants to compete by the same rules that the DOJ is supposed to be enforcing but isn’t.
As for evidence to show that true competition between carriers of any carriers produces lower fares and not just a protectionist policy that prefers one carrier, I already pointed out the Dallas-Houston market which WN dominates and where Texas consumers pay a higher price than they would on other airlines including AA. I will also mention for you LGA/JFK-MIA, a market that was dominated by AA for years but which DL entered. Historically, fares from LGA/JFK-FLL were lower while MIA had a premium to the market. Since DL aggressively expanded its NYC-MIA presence, AA has reduced fares in order to fill the seats that it has put into the market in order to keep DL from taking higher and higher shares of the market. LGA/JFK-MIA average fares are now lower than they are to FLL. Competition brought down airfares and it happened between two legacy carriers. B6 dominates the LGA/JFK-FLL market and that market has higher average fares than to MIA, a market that has no meaningful low fare competition.
Same thing is happening in LGA-ORD, a market where AA is the largest carrier by share, has increased its capacity in order to limit DL’s growth in the market, and where AA has the lowest average fare. There is no low fare carrier competing in the LGA-ORD market.
SO much for the theory that legacy carriers don’t aggressively compete against each other or that low fare carriers bring fares down but legacy carriers don’t.
You don’t see that data yet but you will have if DL and potentially UA choose to challenge the DOJ’s settlement agreement.
Their understanding of the economics of the airline industry is wrong and their application of policy is illegal.
Just as I told you that DL would be challenging the DOJ’s decision regarding access to DCA slots before DL issued the press release, I am telling you now what will take place in this case tomorrow if the DOJ continues to push forward with the settlement agreement with an intent to exclude certain carriers.
You aren’t reading what I am saying now because DL is negotiating out of the press with the DOJ right now….the DOJ officials who are trying to make a name for themselves aren’t exactly interested in being shown to be legal buffoons which is exactly what they are facing if the case went to trial.
As for the WA, I understand the process well enough and how the revisions to it over decades took place. And you may well be right about who is being protected. Which is also why I say that fair competition should allow WN to be able to add flights from DFW, something you have suggested they should be able to do. As much as you and I are butting heads on this issue, remember that we agree about a whole lot of others including the fact that other legacy carriers don’t want to and haven’t succeeded at competing against WN. And it also doesn’t change what I have repeatedly said in that WN is a very well run company and will succeed in finding new sources of revenue, including in the N. Texas market.
But it also doesn’t change that the WA – regardless of who it protects – also limits competition at two airports that are part of the US national transportation system and which receive significant federal funding. Limited competition, regardless of where it takes place, is bad for consumers. There is no other example in the USA of restrictions on what carriers can serve specific airports. The WA is patently uncompetitive and anti-consumer.
DL isn’t interested in taking on the legality of the Wright Amendment as long as DL can compete at DAL and can gain access to the bidding process for AA/US assets.
My bets remain that the DOJ official who made those statements which mirrored exactly what AA/US execs said will be superseded by the reality that making those kinds of statements and excluding any carriers from the bidding process, including for DAL gates, is illegal and cannot be legally supported under US law.
As such, I fully expect to look out the window of my Delta jet – perhaps a 717 – as it is boarding from DAL in October 2014 and see you and your WN peers.
Feel free to reply…. I am more than happy to wait until the case plays out perhaps on a flight to DCA.
You keep repeating the same thing about what has been published in umpteen articles and about what Baer and AA/US execs said regarding the fact that DL and UA aren’t invited to bid – or won’t get the assets if they do.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that DL is not happy with that answer. We live in a country based on the rule of law. Just as is being played out with ObamaCare, a government official, even the President, can’t choose to make a decision which is against the law. Even the Democrats are realizing that the President’s decision to force insurance companies to rebuy insurance which was cancelled under ObamaCare is illegal and they aren’t supporting the President on his requirements.
I’m not going to get into politics but the parallel should be clear. There is no legal basis for excluding any carrier in the United States from being able to participate in an asset divestiture based on economic factors. Slot controls exist for operational, not economic purposes, and there is no law which says that any one carrier can be excluded from operating at any airport. IN fact there are clear laws about requiring access to new entrants at airports. It is also unprecedented and completely unsupportable to force a carrier out of an airport and then tell them they cannot gain access to it.
Whether you and swamt can see the legal questions that DL is raising between the lines of the single press release they issued on the topic or not, they are raising those questions and they are not going to sit by quietly on the sidelines while the nation is reregulated according to the desires of AA/US and WN. It is bad enough that a DOJ official is stupid enough to make a statement that cannot be supported by law but AA/US’ execs parroting “DL and UA can bid if they want but they won’t get any assets” smacks of the very same mentality that the DOJ uncovered in the emails in which AA/US execs told competitors (DL) to get rid of the triple miles promotion and that AA/US would have to eliminate the Advantage Fares because of the merger.
You can repeat that you personally, swamt, aren’t saying that DL won’t get slots but that what the DOJ official said, but that doesn’t change that in an open bidding process, how can any party make a statement like that before the process begins. Your decision to echo a limitation in selection is no more open and just than it is for the DOJ to make that statement without even knowing who might bid.
Interesting that just a few months ago we had a chorus of people on this site touting the Justice Dept’s screwed up policies with gun running and that the DOJ had no right to extract concessions from AA/US in LGA, yet now they are all lining up against DL when DL wants to compete by the same rules that the DOJ is supposed to be enforcing but isn’t.
As for evidence to show that true competition between carriers of any carriers produces lower fares and not just a protectionist policy that prefers one carrier, I already pointed out the Dallas-Houston market which WN dominates and where Texas consumers pay a higher price than they would on other airlines including AA. I will also mention for you LGA/JFK-MIA, a market that was dominated by AA for years but which DL entered. Historically, fares from LGA/JFK-FLL were lower while MIA had a premium to the market. Since DL aggressively expanded its NYC-MIA presence, AA has reduced fares in order to fill the seats that it has put into the market in order to keep DL from taking higher and higher shares of the market. LGA/JFK-MIA average fares are now lower than they are to FLL. Competition brought down airfares and it happened between two legacy carriers. B6 dominates the LGA/JFK-FLL market and that market has higher average fares than to MIA, a market that has no meaningful low fare competition.
Same thing is happening in LGA-ORD, a market where AA is the largest carrier by share, has increased its capacity in order to limit DL’s growth in the market, and where AA has the lowest average fare. There is no low fare carrier competing in the LGA-ORD market.
SO much for the theory that legacy carriers don’t aggressively compete against each other or that low fare carriers bring fares down but legacy carriers don’t.
You don’t see that data yet but you will have if DL and potentially UA choose to challenge the DOJ’s settlement agreement.
Their understanding of the economics of the airline industry is wrong and their application of policy is illegal.
Just as I told you that DL would be challenging the DOJ’s decision regarding access to DCA slots before DL issued the press release, I am telling you now what will take place in this case tomorrow if the DOJ continues to push forward with the settlement agreement with an intent to exclude certain carriers.
You aren’t reading what I am saying now because DL is negotiating out of the press with the DOJ right now….the DOJ officials who are trying to make a name for themselves aren’t exactly interested in being shown to be legal buffoons which is exactly what they are facing if the case went to trial.
As for the WA, I understand the process well enough and how the revisions to it over decades took place. And you may well be right about who is being protected. Which is also why I say that fair competition should allow WN to be able to add flights from DFW, something you have suggested they should be able to do. As much as you and I are butting heads on this issue, remember that we agree about a whole lot of others including the fact that other legacy carriers don’t want to and haven’t succeeded at competing against WN. And it also doesn’t change what I have repeatedly said in that WN is a very well run company and will succeed in finding new sources of revenue, including in the N. Texas market.
But it also doesn’t change that the WA – regardless of who it protects – also limits competition at two airports that are part of the US national transportation system and which receive significant federal funding. Limited competition, regardless of where it takes place, is bad for consumers. There is no other example in the USA of restrictions on what carriers can serve specific airports. The WA is patently uncompetitive and anti-consumer.
DL isn’t interested in taking on the legality of the Wright Amendment as long as DL can compete at DAL and can gain access to the bidding process for AA/US assets.
My bets remain that the DOJ official who made those statements which mirrored exactly what AA/US execs said will be superseded by the reality that making those kinds of statements and excluding any carriers from the bidding process, including for DAL gates, is illegal and cannot be legally supported under US law.
As such, I fully expect to look out the window of my Delta jet – perhaps a 717 – as it is boarding from DAL in October 2014 and see you and your WN peers.
Feel free to reply…. I am more than happy to wait until the case plays out perhaps on a flight to DCA.
