Here you go Idaho... although I am pretty sure you are not interested in any kind of debate. I havn't translated this into American English, so not sure you will find that acceptable.. but here is my position on a monopoly...
Monopoly power does not mean that there is no competition. However, it does mean that the barriers to entry for any new competitor are such that competition is severly limited. Delta has such a huge position at ATL, to compete effectively any entrant would have to be able to offer the high number of time options, connections, etc that Delta do. The cost of entry to achieve this is so high, and their lock on favourable leases and gates so strong, that this is prohibitive. This is the very meaning of a fortress hub. Therefore, competitive airlines instead compete at the margins.. low costs targeting leisure travellers where timings are less important or point to point competition on heavy routes. There is no substantive competitor to Delta at ATL.
Let us look at another example. In the bilateral agreement between the EU and DOT relating to access to London Heathrow, the stalling point was access by other carriers to LHR slots. The US DOT argued that BA operated a monopoly position at Heathrow which acted as a deterrent to entry for any carrier, as the launch costs and through traffic limited the capacity of other carriers to compete effectively. They required BA to relinquish slots and open the access to any carrier as part of the extension of Open Skies. BA had 41% of the slots at LHR in 2009. As a point of comparison, Delta in 2009 carried 73% of the passengers travelling via ATL.
So, before you respond calling me stupid, ignorant or object to my vernacular lets just be clear. This is not just my definition of monopoly, but one used by the US DOT in relation to market share of airlines at a hub airport. Pretty specific definition before you reach for wikipedia.
|