The barrier to entry does not have to be slot restrictions. The barrier to entry for any competitor at Atlanta is the inability to get a foothold for the lucrative business market which is what sustains the fortress hubs. AirTran nibbles at the edges with small levels (relatively) of business travel and new markets for low cost leisure travellers, who are willing to bend to the slots and timings of low cost and accept significantly lower levels of service.
The cost is the barrier to entry for real competition to thrive. The investment a competitor would have to set up is so high, and the risks so great, there is no realistic possibility of such a eventuality without government anti-trust involvement and break up of the monopoly. Even if a competitor came in on such a scale they could offer competitive timetables, enough connecting passengers and sufficient presence to compete, they would still significant barriers to entry as most business travellers in each market have entrenched positions in frequent flyer incentive schemes which they would be reluctant to yield to an unknown competitor.
These fortress hubs pose a real threat to genuine competition, and the airlines know this. They have fought politically for protection from normal consumer laws and are exempt from state enforcement procedures. They pay huge sums to bribe (or lobby, as they like to call it) to protect these positions. Why would they need to do this, if all was well in the "free market" you all seem to feel exists. There is not a free market operating in the US airline industry and any one who argues otherwise is niave.
|