Slot Swap
- Thread starter Hope777
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
Are you trying to apply logic to DOJ actions? Mistake. And, it doesn't matter whether US controls the slots now or not. If the DOJ steps in and rules that if the slots are sold, they must be sold to another airline, US would just have to spend (a lot of) money on lawyers to try to get an administrative law judge to overrule the DOJ with no guarantee of success in the end. Renting out and selling are two different events with different implications in the are of "control." And, remember for the most part the DOJ is the final word on what constitutes a monopoly situation and what does not.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #123
Fortunately or unfortunately, Parker/Kirby have shown no interest in buying a smaller carrier - US will still be the smallest of the legacies. Plus, selling Frontier to US or any other big carrier would leave RAH with E190's with quite possibly no place to fly them. So while they are contractually committed to "good faith" efforts to spin off most of Frontier they have a vested interest in keeping some equity in Frontier - enough to leverage into a contract to provide the 170/175/190 flying.
Likewise, I can't see Bedford selling Republic Airlines. Doing so is to wave goodby to most of the E-jets that RAH operates, which are in demand, and be left holding mostly 50 and fewer seat ERJ's which everyone wants less of. So that wouldn't be good for the prospects of RAH.
Bedford might sell all of RAH, but that gives the buyer a bunch of 50 and fewer seat RJ's - the last thing US or any other large carrier needs.
In other words, I just don't see a deal between US and RAH that would be mutually beneficial.
Jim
Likewise, I can't see Bedford selling Republic Airlines. Doing so is to wave goodby to most of the E-jets that RAH operates, which are in demand, and be left holding mostly 50 and fewer seat ERJ's which everyone wants less of. So that wouldn't be good for the prospects of RAH.
Bedford might sell all of RAH, but that gives the buyer a bunch of 50 and fewer seat RJ's - the last thing US or any other large carrier needs.
In other words, I just don't see a deal between US and RAH that would be mutually beneficial.
Jim
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #124
slot transactions are controlled by the DOT, not the DOJ.
The DOJ can object but if the DOT approves slot transactions, the DOJ can only stop it by filing suit against the DOT. That is highly unlikely to happen.
.
A US purchase of F9 would only work if WN and US could wink across the tarmac that US would shut down F9 and set up a hub in the midwest - such as MKE - and that WN would give DEN to WN and WN would give MKE (or whatever city) to US.
Absent that type of cooperation (highly unlikely), the chances of swapping around assets aren't terribly likely. Republic and F9 embarked on a questionable strategy and it is highly unlikely that it is worth anyone else trying to salvage the pieces for a possible gain - that likely won't materialize.
In all likelihood, WN will continue w/ what they are doing until F9 is removed from DEN AND WN owns MKE as well, sandwiching ORD between two WN strength cities.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no chance at all of the Department of Justice filing an antitrust suit against the Department of Transportation. Perhaps you meant to say "the DOJ can only stop it by filing suit against US and DL against the wishes of the DOT." Justice enforces the antitrust laws by filing actions against those it accuses of violating the laws, not by suing the Secretary of Transportation.
That said, I agree that it's unlikely that Justice will sue to stop the transfer.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #126
While technically true, I'd be careful understating the power of the DOJ. Traditionally with airlines, the threat of a DOJ suit has been enough to either result in the terms of the deal being changed enough to satisfy the DOJ or the deal was called off. Either way, the DOJ didn't need to file a suit to stop/amend the transaction. IF the DOJ does ultimately object to the slot swap as approved by the DOT and US/DL insist on pushing the DOJ into a corner you might be surprised at the clout the DOJ has in the courtroom.
Jim
Yes but I think these planes weren't full with payload , passenger, and gas . I don't think a wide body configured fot trans Atlantic service can operate out of LGA.
- Banned
- #128
I worked at LGA fully loaded 767s and DC-10s and L1011s and A300s and A310s had no problem landing or taking off.
MCD added the extra landing gear to the DC-10 just for LGA operations. But both types operated into LGA
DC-10s at LGA
The Port would never allow transatlantic from LGA, only JFK and EWR and LGA has no customs facilities. Only precleared flights operate into LGA.
MCD added the extra landing gear to the DC-10 just for LGA operations. But both types operated into LGA
DC-10s at LGA
The Port would never allow transatlantic from LGA, only JFK and EWR and LGA has no customs facilities. Only precleared flights operate into LGA.
nycbusdriver
Veteran
Others pointed out that wide-body aircraft have often used LGA over the years. I don't think they've ever seen a 777, A330, or 747; all the others have given service to the airport.
There is no international arrivals hall, and, despite so many flight attendants' ignorant announcement welcoming folks to "LaGuardia International Airport," it is not an international airport at all. Flights arriving from some Canadian cities, Bermuda, Aruba, Nassau, Freeport (I think) are all coming from "pre-clearance" airports. Those are airports that have US Customs and Immigration on them and passengers "clear customs" before they board in those cities. When the airplane arrives in the US, it is treated as a domestic flight.
Theoretically, LGA could accept flights from Shannon and Dublin, Ireland, for the same reason. At least they could do it on weekends when the perimeter rule does not apply.
Thanks 700 .That makes more sense.
Jester
Veteran
The Devil is in the details, in particular, what if any contractual obligations, as it would be a buy-out and not something obtained through bankruptcy which allows contracts to be rejected. If the 50-seat RJs are owned, then they are sold-off or become beer cans. If the leases are short, then use them to replace the 737 flying which the company has been trying to remove from the fleet for awhile. Hell, spin-off the RJs back to Bedford (or even J.O.), so he can go back into what he should have never deviated from in the first place after buying Frontier and Midwest.
In terms of what the Tempe boys are saying, frankly, their public pronouncements should be viewed with a jaundice eye, as they will change their stated agenda as business opportunities come available.
So Views Jester.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #133
Nothing like buying an asset then paying to park it in the desert, which is about all the 50-seaters are good for with the price of fuel. What does that make the ERJ-135/145's worth?
Can't use Express to replace the 737's - that minimum fleet count.
Even they are smart enough to be getting rid of the 50-seat and smaller RJ's, replacing them with larger RJ's.
Making part of the deal a guaranteed contract for the 50-seater flying makes sense from Bedford's perspective, but not US'. US has been doing what it can within the limits of contracts to upsize the Express fleet, even replacing some Republic 170's with 175's. I'm sure US would love for Air Wisconsin to buy a bunch of 170's to replace their CRJ-200's, but with a guaranteed contract for the CRJ-200's Air Whiskey isn't in any hurry. The last thing US wants is another 10-year contract for 35 to 50-seaters.
To me there are just too many negatives with a US purchase of RAH to make it worthwhile. There are less with a purchase of Frontier and Republic's E190's, which could all be absorbed into US mainline, but that would mean expanding domestic mainline which is something Parker/Kirby have shown no interest in doing. DEN is a contest between WN and UA, with F9 becoming a distant #3. MKE is being abandoned as a hub by F9 - if they can't make money with a hub there with the advantage of their low costs, what chance does US have?
In short, I just can't find any real justification for US acquiring RAH or any parts of it. Which probably means something will be announced next month...
Jim
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #134
As you know, it has been a key legal question in this slot transaction that the government does not have the legal right to block or amend a slot transfer on the basis of economic or competitive reasons....and responsibility for managing slots lies with the DOT, not the DOJ.
.
Thus, any challenge by the DOJ to the transaction would be to the DOT, not the airlines, in a slot transaction.
.
Given that DL and US were careful in their final press release on the approval of the transaction to note that it is the DOT and the transaction is moving forward, I think it is being shown to be true that the DOJ does not have jurisdiction.
.
That said, this whole process has been one of compromise and negotiation designed to give the DOT much of what it wanted and leaves the questions of the ownership and transfer of slots unclear to the benefit of the airlines.
.
Given that EWR, LGA, and DCA are probably "set" as far as slot ownership for the foreseeable future, it is perhaps only AA and B6's holdings at JFK that could come in question and that still might not change without a merger related transaction which the DOJ can control.
The end result is that this transaction likely will stand as you note.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #135
Do you lay awake at night dreaming this stuff up?
The DOJ, under the Clayton act, has jurisdiction on anti-trust matters. Not the DOT. That is obvious. IF the DOJ decides that the slot swap, as structured, is anti-competitive it will sue the carriers, not the DOT. Just like when it announced that it would bring suit to stop/amend the UA/US merger, just like with the NW acquisition of the "golden share" in CO, just like when EA proposed selling gates at PHL to US, just like with EA's proposal to sell slots/gates at DCA to US. The suits were, or would have been, against the carriers - NOT the DOT.
It is amusing the way airlines claim that the DOT doesn't have anti-trust jurisdiction - until the DOJ exerts it's anti-trust jurisdiction. Then it's the DOJ that's "trying to re-regulate the airlines through the back door" instead of staying out of airlines' business and letting the DOT handle it.
Jim
The DOJ, under the Clayton act, has jurisdiction on anti-trust matters. Not the DOT. That is obvious. IF the DOJ decides that the slot swap, as structured, is anti-competitive it will sue the carriers, not the DOT. Just like when it announced that it would bring suit to stop/amend the UA/US merger, just like with the NW acquisition of the "golden share" in CO, just like when EA proposed selling gates at PHL to US, just like with EA's proposal to sell slots/gates at DCA to US. The suits were, or would have been, against the carriers - NOT the DOT.
It is amusing the way airlines claim that the DOT doesn't have anti-trust jurisdiction - until the DOJ exerts it's anti-trust jurisdiction. Then it's the DOJ that's "trying to re-regulate the airlines through the back door" instead of staying out of airlines' business and letting the DOT handle it.
Jim
