Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ordinaryguy
"AirTran and US Airways will sell a non-stop ticket for $117."

"Delta is apparently not competitive on that route."

That explains Delta's 100% load factor from DC to ATL last weekend. Obviously if Delta is overbooking its airplanes at $138, a basic college sophomore microeconmics class suggests the price is too low.

The mistaken assumption you are making is that AirTran and US Airways are charging a microeconmically sound price, and that AirTran and US Airways are covering their costs. My personal guess is AirTran is loosing its shirt, and instead of using low prices to fill its seats for a given day (an airline has a limited product, and once it has sold its seats, it cannot sell more), instead AirTran is keeping prices low to cause financial damage to its competitors (i.e., "dumping"). In a duopoly market like Atlanta, this should be considered anticompetitive. It is just hard for the government to consider a "small" AirTran (market cap $960M) taking anticompetitive action against a "large" Delta (market cap $148M), or a "small" JetBlue (market cap $2B) against a "large" United (market cap $70M).

I remember when people complained about dumping when it was cheap Japanese cars and the damage caused was to American car companies.

But today, the same penny-wise, pound-foolish Americans love unrealistically low airline fares will be complaining when the Deltas, Uniteds, Northwests, and Americans pull out of their mid-sized cites. Service to mid-sized cities will be the first casualties of legacy carrier bankruptcy restructuring. The complaints will be loud when the lack of airline service means driving three hours to a major airport, but will get even lounder, when lack of air service results in corporations deciding against putting new plants in their towns.

The chickens will come home to roost. And the politicians who subsidized so-called low-cost carriers into their mid-sized cities will react with surprise when the low-cost carriers pull out of their cities shortly after the legacy carriers depart. Then they will start demanding the federal government subsidize air carriers to fly into their cities.

153 posted on 09/15/2005 8:36:18 AM PDT by magellan ( by)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: magellan
I am not making any assumption, mistaken or otherwise, as to whether or not AirTran and US Airways are charging a micro-economically sound price. If you are going to make claims of that sort, please back them up with quotes supporting your argument. It is simply an issue I never addressed.

Thanks for your time.

158 posted on 09/15/2005 5:51:08 PM PDT by ordinaryguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: magellan

You might notice a trend toward smaller airplane manufacturing such as the 737. The 757 line has shut down. Very few 747's are being built and the 767 line is almost down. Airbus has the big A380 albatross and Boeing is placing its bets on smaller more fuel efficient airplanes.The new 787 should be the most fuel efficient of all.

This falls in line with point to point service versus hub and spoke that Airbus is counting on. This would mean more service to smaller airports in this country if Boeing is correct in their assumption. This might indicate that the major carriers with their big planes may be going out of business and the smaller Southwest models will thrive in the near future.


159 posted on 09/15/2005 6:12:30 PM PDT by phantomworker (It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson