Consumer Travel Alliance
the voice for consumers in travel

Congressional testimony: The CO/UA merger will squeeze competition out of the system

June 21st, 2010


Charlie Leocha, the Director of the Consumer Travel Alliance was invited by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to testify about the proposed merger of Continental and United Airlines. Here is his oral statement made before the committee. (more…)


Filed under: Airline,Airline alliances,Government Documents,Laws and Regulations | Tags: , , , , ,
June 21st, 2010 07:41:32

Should airline slots be traded like baseball cards?

August 27th, 2009

Reagan-Wash

I watched the recent swapping of airline slots between Delta Air and US Airways and between AirTran and Continental. Once upon a time, the airlines were howling when the FAA wanted to limit landing and take-off slots at La Guardia, Newark and JFK as a solution to overcrowding of the airspace. They claimed that Congress never explicitly gave the FAA the right to auction slots.

Has Congress given the airlines explicit rights to trade federal assets? And what about the consumers?

Whenever and airline executive mentions “strengthen our network,” it is code for “eliminate competition.” Hopefully, someone in the regulatory regions of the U.S. government will take a hard look at how consumers will fair under these cavalier swaps being proposed by the airlines.

So far every article I have found covering this subject has pronounced changes and the effects on the airline industry. No one has taken the time to look at these swaps from a passenger’s point of view and at the elimination of competition that many of the moves portend.

As I look at these swaps, it looks like the major airlines are working at making their fortress hubs more secure. In other words, they want to eliminate as much competition in their hubs as possible. That normally has meant that the consumers are ready to take it in the shorts with higher airfares.

Craig Jenks, who heads Airlines/Aircraft Projects Inc., also believes the swaps are “the right thing to do in the current environment.” Airlines are more worried about yield than volume now, and these moves address that concern by making them stronger in their best markets while reducing competition.

US Airways has added to their already leading position at Washington Reagan. Delta is ensconcing itself in the La Guardia and JFK airports. Delta and US Airways has also swapped coveted international routes that are normally carefully controlled by the FAA. And Continental has added to its position at its Newark hub.

The AirTran move to give up its Newark slots allows it to shut down an all-but-orphaned operation at Newark and shut their entire operation there. The increases at LaGuardia and Washington Reagan (DCA) are welcome, since they will enhance and strengthen low-cost-carrier pressure at both airports.

However, this all begs the question: Shouldn’t the FAA be controlling these slot swaps, rather than allowing the airlines to trade their positions like baseball cards?

When the FAA wanted to cap service, the airlines fought them at every step. Now that they the airlines are making moves without what seems like any serious FAA and DOT studies, it seems like our transportation watchdogs are toothless.

There is still time for the DOT and FAA to act. The slot exchange is expected to start sometime in early 2010, and the final parts of the agreements probably will not fall into place until next fall.

The least they can do is take a close look at how this will shape competition in each of the airports concerned. They need to take into consideration airline alliances as they make their assessments. It is obvious that US Airways controlling DCA and their partner United Airlines with a giant footprint at Washington Dulles smacks of coordinated power-sharing. US Airways virtual abandonment of Newark also seems to play into their coming alignment with Continental that dominates that hub.

From an international point of view, the competition for the routes in question should be reopened so those airlines who bid for the routes can compete again for the routes and the international revenue. It doesn’t seem right that airlines who once competed against each other for these routes now give them up willingly after they were selected in the public interest.

I hope someone in Washington at the DOT and the FAA is watching as the airlines make their swaps. I hope they keep the public interest uppermost in their minds as they assess the fallout of these slots. We have some time for a bit of good old government oversight.


Filed under: Airline | Tags: , , , , , , ,
August 27th, 2009 13:03:42

House and Senate committees face off over airline alliances and antitrust immunity

July 31st, 2009

An interesting dynamic has emerged in Congress with discussions about airline alliances, The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is staunchly against such antitrust immunity and the Senate Commerce Science, & Transportation Committee is strongly in favor of these arrangements.
(more…)


Filed under: Airline,Airline alliances,Codesharing | Tags: , , ,
July 31st, 2009 07:51:32

Wait a second! Continental/United IT deal is flat-out collusion

July 30th, 2009

Orignial published on Tripso.com

When the Department of Transportation (DOT), over the objections of the Department of Justice (DOJ), approved the Continental/United Airlines antitrust immunity deal this wasn’t included. DOT needs to take another look, now.

These two airlines have announced that they are building a new common IT platform that will serve as the backbone of their joint operations. This is the kind of cooperation that Delta is now implementing with Northwest. But Delta had to merge with Northwest before starting such integration.

Continental and United are attempting to take this merger-like step outside of a merger. They are using the antitrust immunity grant as a merger-in-fact agreement and are beginning to cooperate in ways never envisioned by the luminaries in the DOT alliance offices.

Unless these IT changes and cooperation are limited to international flights, Continental Airlines and United Airlines have a lot of explaining to do. They are simply breaking the law by cooperating intimately on on everyday domestic airline operations.

Domestic collusion is strictly forbidden in the antitrust immunity/airline alliance agreements that DOT allowed to go forward. United is pushing the envelope to see how far they can go before the administration reigns them in. Continental is probably going along since they are with a lame-duck CEO who is also interested in seeing how far airline can push the limits of the law.

Star Alliance, to which both Continental and United will belong, currently uses Amadeus to provide blended international IT services.

This IT cooperation according to Continental and United is only for international endeavors, but that is hard to believe. The algorithms and inside information to create a blended IT system goes far beyond the limited antitrust immunity currently in force.

Plus, the Amadeus platform, based in Europe, and dominate there, can serve any IT needs the airlines require for international interoperability.

DOT should take a close look at what Continental and United are tinkering with under the disguise of international antitrust immunity. This is a step too far.


Filed under: Airline,Airline alliances | Tags: , , ,
July 30th, 2009 09:11:45

Transportation Department has it all wrong on airline alliances

April 10th, 2009

The recent Department of Transportation “tentative” approval of Continental’s application to joint the Star Alliance and immunize the “joint venture” is based on faulty reasoning and airline-industry-cooked studies. Plus, the approval and its “joint venture” ramifications are shrouded in secrecy.

The Transportation Department tentatively concluded that “granting antitrust immunity to Continental to join the alliance and approving the joint venture would be in the public interest because it would support increased levels of service in international markets served by the carriers, give consumers more travel options and shorter travel times, and reduce fares.”

The DOT is wrong on all four counts.

• No alliance has even increased levels of service.
• No alliance has ever given consumers more travel options.
• Alliances have never provided shorter travel times.
• No alliance has resulted in reduced fares.

Moreover, any DOT consideration of airline alliances must be made with the increased alliance powers included in these new requests rather than being based on past alliance activities.

The DOT release wording is ominous: “Under the venture, the carriers would jointly arrange capacity, sales and marketing as well as share revenues.”

Here is an alternative dose of reality regarding the four “benefits” of a joint venture, to counteract the DOT misguided assertions.

Increased levels of service
The only increase in level of service that will result is the number of different airline designations that will be attached to the same aircraft. Having a Lufthansa airplane filled with 300 passengers holding tickets on LH999 is no different from from having the same flight with 100 passengers holding UA tickets, another 100 holding CO tickets and 100 with LH tickets. The level of service is the same. The level of codesharing misinformation is multiplied.

More travel options
Having a CO flight connect with a LH flight is no different than having a CO flight connect with the same LH flight but with a CO designation on the ticket. Alliance and codesharing do not create any additional service. In fact, the collusion may reduce options.

Provide shorter travel times
There may be some truth if the options for flights are only between alliance partners. However, when all options are considered, travel times are almost always similar. If anything, by strong-arming passengers onto connecting alliance partner flights, the travel times may increase. In many cases, these alliance members do not even share terminals, in which case, hassles and connection times are increased.

Reduced airfares
Here the results of anti-competitive alliances are exactly the opposite. By having antitrust immunity for marketing, pricing and route structure, the alliances can coordinate pricing better than ever. Such price fixing is blatantly anti-consumer. I do not think that there exists any examples of reduced competition resulting in reduced prices. Plus, the creation of three defacto massive international airlines will serve as an insurmountable barrier to entry for any long-haul low-cost carriers.

The DOT order, alliance application and public comments are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number DOT-OST-2008-0234. Make your voice heard.

Originally published on Tripso, April 10, 2009


Filed under: Airline,Airline alliances,Codesharing | Tags: , , ,
April 10th, 2009 07:45:33