<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DOT Attaches Foolish Conditions to US Airways and Delta Slot Swap in New York and Washington</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 22:59:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The numbers behind the &#8220;Southwest Effect&#8221; - The Wandering Aramean</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94380</link>
		<dc:creator>The numbers behind the &#8220;Southwest Effect&#8221; - The Wandering Aramean</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94380</guid>
		<description>[...] Of course, if they also end up backing out of the LaGuardia/Washington National slot swap as is being reported now, that will further hurt their pricing power in a number of markets.&#160; It is going to be a bumpy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Of course, if they also end up backing out of the LaGuardia/Washington National slot swap as is being reported now, that will further hurt their pricing power in a number of markets.&#160; It is going to be a bumpy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94318</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94318</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-94313&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Andrew&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Continental has not initiated any codesharing with US Airways and they seem to not really want to; they are only reaping the benefits of being in the same alliance. Since CO definitely has less that 5% of the slots at DCA, wouldn’t they be able to purchase the slots there?&lt;/blockquote&gt;
The DOT specifically calls out the airlines currently serving the airports that are eligible on page 18 of the ruling.  At National, it&#039;s only AirTran and Spirit.  At LaGuardia, it&#039;s AirTran, JetBlue, Southwest, and Spirit.  The only reason I can think of why Continental isn&#039;t allowed to play is that they own more slots than they use.  It&#039;s entirely possible that they sublease slots out to other carriers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><a href="#comment-94313" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">Andrew</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Continental has not initiated any codesharing with US Airways and they seem to not really want to; they are only reaping the benefits of being in the same alliance. Since CO definitely has less that 5% of the slots at DCA, wouldn’t they be able to purchase the slots there?</p></blockquote>
<p>The DOT specifically calls out the airlines currently serving the airports that are eligible on page 18 of the ruling.  At National, it&#8217;s only AirTran and Spirit.  At LaGuardia, it&#8217;s AirTran, JetBlue, Southwest, and Spirit.  The only reason I can think of why Continental isn&#8217;t allowed to play is that they own more slots than they use.  It&#8217;s entirely possible that they sublease slots out to other carriers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94313</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:39:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94313</guid>
		<description>From the article...

&quot;And these aren’t just slot sales. They are sales to airlines that hold less than 5% of the slots at each airport. No cheating allowed – the sales can’t be to any airline that is owned by Delta/US Airways or even one that codeshares with them. That pretty much means it has to be to a low cost carrier.&quot;

Continental has not initiated any codesharing with US Airways and they seem to not really want to; they are only reaping the benefits of being in the same alliance.  Since CO definitely has less that 5% of the slots at DCA, wouldn&#039;t they be able to purchase the slots there?  The DOT only specified that it couldn&#039;t be a codeshare partner.  CO may want these slots for now, so later it can use them as bargaining chips.

Just a thought...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the article&#8230;</p>
<p>&#8220;And these aren’t just slot sales. They are sales to airlines that hold less than 5% of the slots at each airport. No cheating allowed – the sales can’t be to any airline that is owned by Delta/US Airways or even one that codeshares with them. That pretty much means it has to be to a low cost carrier.&#8221;</p>
<p>Continental has not initiated any codesharing with US Airways and they seem to not really want to; they are only reaping the benefits of being in the same alliance.  Since CO definitely has less that 5% of the slots at DCA, wouldn&#8217;t they be able to purchase the slots there?  The DOT only specified that it couldn&#8217;t be a codeshare partner.  CO may want these slots for now, so later it can use them as bargaining chips.</p>
<p>Just a thought&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94275</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:27:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94275</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-94268&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;BJ&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Is there any way we can voice our opinion to the DOT?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Sure can.  Just go here:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a90300</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><a href="#comment-94268" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">BJ</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Is there any way we can voice our opinion to the DOT?
</p></blockquote>
<p>Sure can.  Just go here:<br />
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a90300" rel="nofollow">http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a90300</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BJ</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94268</link>
		<dc:creator>BJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:17:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94268</guid>
		<description>Is there any way we can voice our opinion to the DOT?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any way we can voice our opinion to the DOT?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Columbo</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94217</link>
		<dc:creator>Columbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:28:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94217</guid>
		<description>When is the last time you saw anything that made sense come out of Washington?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When is the last time you saw anything that made sense come out of Washington?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94095</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:22:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94095</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s see, these airlines will be closer to having a monopoly at the respective airports,which means that travelers will have higher fares and less choices.  They may get a few more non-stop destinations, as long as they are willing to pay a small fortune for that opportunity.  Overall, I am not sure how consumer travelers benefit from this situation.  If they were not slot restricted, I would see less problem, but making this exchange with the restrictions would prevent competition.  Overall, the relatively low number of slots lost still seems like a good deal for these airlines, although the penalty at DCA is twice what it is at LGA, which seems odd.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s see, these airlines will be closer to having a monopoly at the respective airports,which means that travelers will have higher fares and less choices.  They may get a few more non-stop destinations, as long as they are willing to pay a small fortune for that opportunity.  Overall, I am not sure how consumer travelers benefit from this situation.  If they were not slot restricted, I would see less problem, but making this exchange with the restrictions would prevent competition.  Overall, the relatively low number of slots lost still seems like a good deal for these airlines, although the penalty at DCA is twice what it is at LGA, which seems odd.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan powers</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94093</link>
		<dc:creator>dan powers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94093</guid>
		<description>for delta...it could be a blessing in disguise- having a split hub=jfk/lga usually does not work well</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>for delta&#8230;it could be a blessing in disguise- having a split hub=jfk/lga usually does not work well</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94080</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:35:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94080</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-94004&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;Isn’t this just a case of DOT trying to capitalize on an opportunity that happened to come their way? They would probably be happy to redistribute slots to new entrants on a regular basis, but they can’t force slots away from existing carriers. Well, now they can, so they do.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yes, but the problem is that the deal is highly unlikely to go through in this form.  So the DOT seems to be miscalculating here, because instead, they&#039;ll just end up with the status quo and that&#039;s where people are worse off.

&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-94056&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chrish&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;If you are considering LGA by itself you are absolutely correct. However, if you look at NYC collectively(LGA, JFK &amp; EWR) you are not. Take BTV as an example….today served by DL from JFK, US from LGA and CO from EWR. If the slot swap were to go through DL would assume the LGA-BTV route and drop its own route from JFK. Thus moves this market from 3 to 2 competitors.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
You&#039;ve forgotten JetBlue from JFK in there, so if you want to look at the market on the whole, then you&#039;re seeing 4 go down to 3.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways here.  It&#039;s a single market for some purposes but not for others?  If you count the entire metro area as a single market, then there isn&#039;t one single monopoly market being created that isn&#039;t a monopoly today.  

Here&#039;s another interesting thing to consider.  This move will actually increase competition in some places.  US Airways would start service from DC to 8 cities that don&#039;t have service today.  Tallahassee, for example, will get service to the northeast that it doesn&#039;t have today.  For flights south, Ithaca today has US Airways to Philly or LGA while Continental has Newark.  With this switch, US Airways will move LGA to DCA and Delta will enter with LGA.  They currently only fly there from Detroit today.  So there is a benefit.

&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-94056&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;chrish&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;A government which has oversight authority of a public,open access asset(airports) to allow the largest airline in the world to become an even more dominant carrier within a market and to not have to offer up concessions like take-off and landing rights(competition) to small competitors, To conclude otherwise is rediculous and would be a complete misinterpretation of what the DOT is tasked to do.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
The DOT&#039;s mission is:

&lt;em&gt;Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.&lt;/em&gt;

Sick airlines that find themselves in danger of not being sustainable companies are a big problem.  The DOT may want to force these airlines to cough up slots, but I can&#039;t imagine the airlines doing it.  So the DOT needs to decide if it&#039;s more important to stand its ground and keep the status quo or give up something and move to something that&#039;s better than what we have now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><a href="#comment-94004" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">Ron</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>Isn’t this just a case of DOT trying to capitalize on an opportunity that happened to come their way? They would probably be happy to redistribute slots to new entrants on a regular basis, but they can’t force slots away from existing carriers. Well, now they can, so they do.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, but the problem is that the deal is highly unlikely to go through in this form.  So the DOT seems to be miscalculating here, because instead, they&#8217;ll just end up with the status quo and that&#8217;s where people are worse off.</p>
<p><b><a href="#comment-94056" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">chrish</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>If you are considering LGA by itself you are absolutely correct. However, if you look at NYC collectively(LGA, JFK &#038; EWR) you are not. Take BTV as an example….today served by DL from JFK, US from LGA and CO from EWR. If the slot swap were to go through DL would assume the LGA-BTV route and drop its own route from JFK. Thus moves this market from 3 to 2 competitors.</p></blockquote>
<p>You&#8217;ve forgotten JetBlue from JFK in there, so if you want to look at the market on the whole, then you&#8217;re seeing 4 go down to 3.</p>
<p>You seem to be trying to have it both ways here.  It&#8217;s a single market for some purposes but not for others?  If you count the entire metro area as a single market, then there isn&#8217;t one single monopoly market being created that isn&#8217;t a monopoly today.  </p>
<p>Here&#8217;s another interesting thing to consider.  This move will actually increase competition in some places.  US Airways would start service from DC to 8 cities that don&#8217;t have service today.  Tallahassee, for example, will get service to the northeast that it doesn&#8217;t have today.  For flights south, Ithaca today has US Airways to Philly or LGA while Continental has Newark.  With this switch, US Airways will move LGA to DCA and Delta will enter with LGA.  They currently only fly there from Detroit today.  So there is a benefit.</p>
<p><b><a href="#comment-94056" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">chrish</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>A government which has oversight authority of a public,open access asset(airports) to allow the largest airline in the world to become an even more dominant carrier within a market and to not have to offer up concessions like take-off and landing rights(competition) to small competitors, To conclude otherwise is rediculous and would be a complete misinterpretation of what the DOT is tasked to do.</p></blockquote>
<p>The DOT&#8217;s mission is:</p>
<p><em>Serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future.</em></p>
<p>Sick airlines that find themselves in danger of not being sustainable companies are a big problem.  The DOT may want to force these airlines to cough up slots, but I can&#8217;t imagine the airlines doing it.  So the DOT needs to decide if it&#8217;s more important to stand its ground and keep the status quo or give up something and move to something that&#8217;s better than what we have now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: chrish</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2010/02/11/dot-attaches-foolish-conditions-to-us-airways-and-delta-slot-swap-in-new-york-and-washington/comment-page-1/#comment-94056</link>
		<dc:creator>chrish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:59:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=4538#comment-94056</guid>
		<description>&quot;At LGA many smaller NE cities will go from 3 airlines down to 2 or 2 down to 1. DL shifting flights from JFK to LGA will also eliminate Intl’ options as well.&quot;

CF
That’s not true. US Airways will stop serving 26 routes. Of those, 21 are not served by anyone else today from LaGuardia. So Delta will just keep the status quo in those markets. Of those 5 remaining markets, 3 will go from 3 competitors to 2 while 2, Savannah and Charleston, will go from 2 to 1. Of course, those do have ample service from Continental at Newark.
******
If you are considering LGA by itself you are absolutely correct.  However, if you look at NYC collectively(LGA, JFK &amp; EWR) you are not.  Take BTV as an example....today served by DL from JFK, US from LGA and CO from EWR.  If the slot swap were to go through DL would assume the LGA-BTV route and drop its own route from JFK.  Thus moves this market from 3 to 2 competitors.  

As I stated, you could make the case that 2 competitors is plenty in the NYC-BTV market, It is clearly, however, less choice and fewer seats for consumers.  

A government which has oversight authority of a public,open access asset(airports) to allow the largest airline in the world to become an even more dominant carrier within a market and to not have to offer up concessions like take-off and landing rights(competition) to small competitors, To conclude otherwise is rediculous and would be a complete misinterpretation of what the DOT is tasked to do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;At LGA many smaller NE cities will go from 3 airlines down to 2 or 2 down to 1. DL shifting flights from JFK to LGA will also eliminate Intl’ options as well.&#8221;</p>
<p>CF<br />
That’s not true. US Airways will stop serving 26 routes. Of those, 21 are not served by anyone else today from LaGuardia. So Delta will just keep the status quo in those markets. Of those 5 remaining markets, 3 will go from 3 competitors to 2 while 2, Savannah and Charleston, will go from 2 to 1. Of course, those do have ample service from Continental at Newark.<br />
******<br />
If you are considering LGA by itself you are absolutely correct.  However, if you look at NYC collectively(LGA, JFK &amp; EWR) you are not.  Take BTV as an example&#8230;.today served by DL from JFK, US from LGA and CO from EWR.  If the slot swap were to go through DL would assume the LGA-BTV route and drop its own route from JFK.  Thus moves this market from 3 to 2 competitors.  </p>
<p>As I stated, you could make the case that 2 competitors is plenty in the NYC-BTV market, It is clearly, however, less choice and fewer seats for consumers.  </p>
<p>A government which has oversight authority of a public,open access asset(airports) to allow the largest airline in the world to become an even more dominant carrier within a market and to not have to offer up concessions like take-off and landing rights(competition) to small competitors, To conclude otherwise is rediculous and would be a complete misinterpretation of what the DOT is tasked to do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

