nycbusdriver
Veteran
"Could it be...SATAN!!!!" (Church Lady)
US Airways May File Papers in Weeks on Delta NYC-Washington Swap
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
"Could it be...SATAN!!!!" (Church Lady)
Art at ISP
Veteran
Well isn't that special???
redheadtempe33
Advanced
- Feb 26, 2009
- 157
- 49
I have no doubt that US would LOVE to fly PHX-LGA (and LAS-LGA for that matter), but I seriously doubt that will happen.
The current bill in Congress does make specific slots available for both new and incumbent carriers at DCA, so I would bet US will get at least two out-of-perimiter round trips (LAX and SFO would be my bets).
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #34
NYC is clearly unique... I'm not saying it isn't. Slot controls at ORD have effectively fallen. DCA and the NYC airports are it... and these are the markets where DL and US are working to enhance their own strength despite the slot controls.
US found that it can't compete against AA, DL, and CO/UA in NYC and is better off shrinking to making NYC essentially a spoke in its network, not much different that SFO or MCI, for instance.
Likewise, US needs to bulk up at DCA and DL really doesn't need to fly DCA non-strategic routes, esp if they can trade those slots plus a few other things (who knows how it will all play out) for greater access to NYC which is essential for DL strategically to win in.
again, part of the slot deal involves DL gaining access to US' terminal space since a hub couldn't work using DL's existing facilities. US is the only airline at LGA that has the space to push connecting passengers through the airport.
Congress can change the perimeter rules at DCA and add new non-perimeter flights but they can't change the perimeter rules at LGA which are set by the Port Authority.
US' best bet is to use the remaining slots it will have from LGA to connect the west as best as it can....
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Not too sure about that. Congress has tremendous power over civil airports in general, and they can bring enormous pressure to bear on the PANYNJ. I imagine LGA, EWR, and JFK get an expansive amount of federal money every year. Congress merely needs to tell PANYNJ to relax the rules or forget about the federal subsidies. Game. Set. Match.
Congress has done similar things in the past, and has pretty much always prevailed. Take note of the 55 MPH speed limit which was clearly a matter for state legislation. And the 21-year-old drinking age is another case in point.
I'm not saying that this Congress would consider pressuring the PANYNJ over this matter, but they certainly have the gravitas to get it done (if they wanted to.)
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #37
The DOT so far as I know has never told the PANYNJ to change the perimeter restrictions at LGA. In fact, several airlines have taken the issue to court and have lost on the basis that the PANYNJ has the right to force some destinations to be served from JFK in order to preserve the value of that airport - the same logic that is used in the DCA perimeter restrictions.
The FAA has changed the number of slots at NYC airports but has not intervened in how the slots can be used.
The FAA has changed the number of slots at NYC airports but has not intervened in how the slots can be used.
Who owns the “SLOTS”
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #39
that was part of the subject of the DL-US lawsuit that was filed to appeal the original slot decision.
DL and US with full support of the Air Transport Association has argued that slots are the property of the airlines and the government cannot take them without compensation.
The issue is that the airlines agree that the FAA has the right to limit the number of flights at slot controlled airports but not how those slots are used.
The only reason why they can do it at DCA is because it is a federally owned airport. LGA and JFK are not.
Airlines are free to provide service when and where demand exists, without having to seek permission the removeal of government intervention happen in 1978
There are, of course, serious problems remaining. But these problems stem from too much reliance on market forces and a obsolescent antiquated atc system.Congress authorized in 1998 for the dot to grant more slots at LaGuardia and set demands to routes and type of service the slots would be used for.Rules that limit long-haul flights to and from LGA were first introduced by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
So are the airlines regulated or not
There are, of course, serious problems remaining. But these problems stem from too much reliance on market forces and a obsolescent antiquated atc system.Congress authorized in 1998 for the dot to grant more slots at LaGuardia and set demands to routes and type of service the slots would be used for.Rules that limit long-haul flights to and from LGA were first introduced by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)
So are the airlines regulated or not
FlyUs
Veteran
- Jul 28, 2004
- 610
- 45
The government has not proposed taking slots away from US or DL "without compensation." All the govenment has demanded is that US and DL divest some slots (where US and DL get to keep the money) in exchange for approving the US/DL slot swap. Oh, and the government has demanded that all eligible airlines get to bid on the slots divested in a blind auction so that US and DL cannot collude to exlude some airlines from bidding on those slots (like, say, Southwest). There's no confiscation without compensation issue in the proposed DL/US slot swap.
It's not much different from the regulators' demands that AA/BA give enough LHR slots to enable the two new LHR flights at BOS and the one new flight at MIA. DL applied for those slots and is leasing them from AA/BA.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #43
john john, airlines have always been regulated just as about every other business is regulated. There's OHSA regulations, IRS regulations, EPA regulations, ADA regulations, etc - the list of regulations that airlines (and most businesses) have to comply with is long indeed.
"Deregulation" was really route and fare deregulation - airlines could fly almost anywhere they wanted and charge whatever they thought the market would bear. Does that mean that US could fly an A333 to Southern Pines, NC? No - the pavement won't support that size of plane, the runway is too short, there's no airport fire/rescue, etc - FAA regulations keep it from happening. So with the slots. They reside in the gray area between being the airline's property and being the government's property - not 100% one or the other.
Haven't we had this discussion before?
Jim
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #44
I'm not saying that the DOT or FAA planned to confiscate slots w/o payment.
I am saying though that the issue of ownership of slots was raised. The airlines have all argued (including AA and others not involved in the case) that slots are private property of the airlines and the US government cannot seize private property w/o compensation.
.
DL and US also raised the issue of control of slots, including the ability for the owners to decide how to dispose of them if they desire. They argued that the FAA's sole role in slot controls is for safety purposes and can reduce the total number of slots but cannot specify how they are used, including whether they can be sold or transferred to other airlines.
The airlines argued (again with the support of the ATA and other US airlines not involved in the slot deal) that there is no law that exists that allows slots to be regulated on the basis of economic reasons.
.
I suspect part of the reason why the DOT has been willing to settle is because there is a very real chance that they would lose the case. I also suspect that the issue of slot ownership will not be addressed.
I don't know the details of how the case will be settled but I will bet that there will be some "splitting the difference" with some amount of slots to be distributed by the airlines (DL and US) where they desire and a few will be given to the DOT where they can distribute them. Given that WN will have a fairly decent sized operation at LGA and DCA after the FL merger, I doubt if WN will get any slots which was the biggest concern of DL and US. I suspect the total number of slots to be divested will be closer to what DL and US proposed and not the DOTs demands based on the fact that the impact of LFCs in NYC is growing as a result of the FL/WN merger.
I am saying though that the issue of ownership of slots was raised. The airlines have all argued (including AA and others not involved in the case) that slots are private property of the airlines and the US government cannot seize private property w/o compensation.
.
DL and US also raised the issue of control of slots, including the ability for the owners to decide how to dispose of them if they desire. They argued that the FAA's sole role in slot controls is for safety purposes and can reduce the total number of slots but cannot specify how they are used, including whether they can be sold or transferred to other airlines.
The airlines argued (again with the support of the ATA and other US airlines not involved in the slot deal) that there is no law that exists that allows slots to be regulated on the basis of economic reasons.
.
I suspect part of the reason why the DOT has been willing to settle is because there is a very real chance that they would lose the case. I also suspect that the issue of slot ownership will not be addressed.
I don't know the details of how the case will be settled but I will bet that there will be some "splitting the difference" with some amount of slots to be distributed by the airlines (DL and US) where they desire and a few will be given to the DOT where they can distribute them. Given that WN will have a fairly decent sized operation at LGA and DCA after the FL merger, I doubt if WN will get any slots which was the biggest concern of DL and US. I suspect the total number of slots to be divested will be closer to what DL and US proposed and not the DOTs demands based on the fact that the impact of LFCs in NYC is growing as a result of the FL/WN merger.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #45
And if the "owners" decided to fly 767's or bigger out of DCA? Or to operate flights scheduled outside the time schedule of the slots? If the slots are truly owned by the carriers possessing them, the government has no say in how the slots are used. But they do...
See my answer to john john. Slots exist in a gray area - not 100% owned by the airline to use as they please but not 100% government property. Generally, airlines can buy/sell slots with government review but the slots are provided by the government. I think it's AIR 21 slots that have tighter restrictions - they don't automatically transfer to the surviving carrier in a merger for example. Slots are assigned to a time block - if US has a LGA slot for around 9:30am they can't schedule use of it for 6pm. If slots go unused for a specified period of time I think the government can reclaim those slots and hand them out to someone else. The government can create more slots or decrease the number of slots. All of these actions and more wouldn't apply if slots are the exclusive property of the carriers possessing them.
Jim
