Don't go blaming the airlines for contributing to Republican campaigns for so-called monopolies.
The Justice Dept. under the Clinton Administration sued AA
for running Vanguard out DFW
, and the Bush Administration continued to prosecute the case, including a subsequent appeal.
Simply put, the federal courts believe that, as long as an airline doesn't price its seats below it marginal cost, then an airline is never guilty of anti-competitive behavior.
I believe that AA
matched Vanguard's fares and added additional seats on the routes they competed. Once Vanguard left DFW
, service was reduced and fare swent up. The court ruled that AA
was only meeting Vanguard's fares and added capacity, because of extra demand. Since Vanguard was not able to add flights, AA
got more traffic. Once Vanguard left, AA
was able to charge what it wanted, which resulted in fewer flyers.
The court noted that an LCC like Southwest would have the resources to add more flights and be able to stay on a route for the long term. After all, it was about this time that AA
due to WN
flying to ISP
. Even though AA
had flown ORD
since before deregulation, it couldn't compete and make money, even by adding Eagle jets.