[jimworcs]

AADFW (Sorry, I don't know your name!)..

There are different ways of analyzing the current situation; it is true that US based carriers have achieved profitability over the last couple of years...but the question is how was this achieved?

They have "achieved" this by eliminating competitors... reducing capacity and in doing so eliminating or downgrading secondary hubs. In the last 10 years, we have seen TWA, NorthWest, Continental, America West and soon, US Airways disappear. We now have 3 mega carriers who have further consolidated their dominance and control of the market.

The reduction in competition is extremely unhealthy for the future of the market. Three carriers acting "in concert" can effectively control the overall market. For example, if Delta decided to charge for carry on bags, and United and the new American followed suit, there is little the consumer can do to influence this. The choices and the capacity of the system simply does not allow for consumers to switch in meaningful numbers.

I challenge the idea that the stripped down pricing model, with massively reduced levels of service and the so called "menu" of "optional fees" is "consumer driven" or that the average airline consumer "has become his own worst enemy". This is not how consumers behave. Look at other markets. In a healthy market, consumers will make a choice based on a variety of factors, including service, price, quality, comfort, convenience and utility. Low cost fast food restaurants did not kill the market for high end and high price, fine dining. Low cost, mid market and fine dining restaurants sit alongside each other comfortably, because a range of choice is provided. This applies in all healthy markets, consumers will behave rationally where meaningful choice is provided.

Meanwhile, US based carriers work hard to block competition. They fought to block any meaningful involvement by Virgin Group in the new Virgin America start up, so that by the time this was approved, the only involvement by Virgin was licensing the name. Why do they oppose so vigorously the involvement in the US market of foreign carriers? They oppose this even where there are reciprocal access arrangements. The reason is that these profitable foreign carriers offer models which challenge their orthodoxy and control. Imagine what Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa, BA or Emirates could bring to a US based subsidiary.

The reason they block this is because they know that these foreign carriers have the access to capital to purchase a carrier or invest in a start up which would present meaningful competition. There is no reason why you should not be able to fly to New York on a German owned airline, when you are going to see a show put on by Sony Corporation, travelling to the airport in a Toyota. It is protectionism and it protects their monopoly. The truth is, these mega hubs create barriers to entry to competitors and the big 3 know this.

The improvement in revenues and profitability and the severe decline in service standards are what you get when there is monopoly. *This lesson has been learned over many decades, why should it not apply to airlines?*