Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares and Service at Buffalo, New York

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-09-20.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                     United States General Accounting Office

GAO                  Testimony
                     Before the Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on
                     Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
                     AIRLINE DEREGULATION
2:30 p.m. EDT
September 20, 1999
                     Changes in Airfares and
                     Service at Buffalo, New
                     Statement of John H Anderson, Jr., Director,
                     Transportation Issues,
                     Resources, Community, and Economic
                     Development Division

                           Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

                           Over two decades have passed since the Congress phased out the federal
                           government’s control over airfares and service, relying instead on
                           competitive market forces to decide the price, quantity, and quality of
                           domestic air service. Last March, we issued a report on the changes in
                           airfares and service quality since deregulation.1 Our testimony today is
                           based on information that we developed for that report and specifically
                           addresses the changes in airfares and service quality at Buffalo Niagara
                           International Airport (Buffalo), which serves the western portion of New
                           York State. In summary, we found the following:

                       •   Most communities in the United States, including Buffalo, have benefited
                           from a decrease in average airfares since 1990; average airfares for
                           passengers traveling to and from Buffalo are lower today than they were in
                           1990. Those average airfares, however, are higher than they were in 1994,
                           particularly for travel to or from cities within 750 miles of Buffalo. By
                           1998, overall average airfares to and from Buffalo were 27 percent higher
                           than those for comparably sized communities and nearly 29 percent higher
                           than the nation as a whole.2
                       •   Since deregulation, the overall quality of air service, as measured by
                           various quantitative (i.e., number of scheduled departures) and qualitative
                           (i.e., availability of jet service) factors has decreased for Buffalo. For
                           example, from 1978 through 1998, scheduled departures at Buffalo
                           decreased by 11 percent while those at comparably sized communities
                           increased by 83 percent.

                           Over the years, our work has consistently shown that airline deregulation
Overall Changes in         has led to lower fares and better service for most air travelers. This is
Airfares and Service       largely due to increased competition spurred by the entry of new airlines
Since Deregulation         into the industry and established airlines into new markets. However, the
                           benefits of deregulation have been uneven, and “pockets of pain”
                           exist—especially in small and medium-sized communities in the East and
                           upper Midwest.

                           Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to Entry (GAO/RCED-99-92,
                           Mar. 4, 1999).
                            In our analysis of U.S. national airfares, we excluded communities in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and
                           the Virgin Islands because their travel is often for very short distances (between islands), very long
                           distances (between Alaska or Hawaii and the contiguous states), or may take the place of ground
                           transportation (between cities in Alaska).

                           Page 1                                                                          GAO/T-RCED-99-286
A combination of factors has limited competition at these airports and
adversely affected fares and service. These factors include slower
economic growth and the dominance of routes to and from these airports
by one or two traditional hub-and-spoke airlines. In addition, restrictive
gate leases, slot controls, and perimeter rules continue to block entry at
key airports in the East and upper Midwest. As a result, it is extremely
difficult for other airlines to gain competitive access to these airports.
These operating barriers, combined with certain marketing strategies by
established airlines—such as frequent flyer plans—have deterred entry by
new airlines and fortified established airlines’ dominance at these airports.

Last March, we reported on trends in airfares and the quality of air service
since deregulation for airports serving comparably sized communities.3 To
determine how fares have changed, we analyzed data on airfares to and
from 171 airports submitted by the airlines to the Department of
Transportation (DOT) from 1990 to 1998.4 Our findings were similar to
those we reported in 1996—fares adjusted for inflation were lower in 1998
than they were in 1990.5 During this period, average airfares decreased at
168 of the 171 airports we examined, with airports serving larger
communities tending to experience greater decreases than smaller ones.
Because significant changes could have occurred over this span of nearly 9
years, we also examined airfare changes from 1990 through 1993 and then
from 1994 through the second quarter of 1998. For this latter period, we
found that although average airfares decreased for passengers flying to or
from most airports, they increased for passengers traveling to and from 39
airports. Passengers making short trips to or from airports serving larger
communities were most likely to experience these increases. Although we
were able to associate declines in average airfares with the introduction of
competing service from low-fare carriers, we were unable to account for

 We analyzed data for 171 airports: 42 serving small communities, 42 serving medium-sized
communities, 42 serving medium-large communities, and 45 serving large communities. Small
communities were those in a metropolitan statistical area with a population of up to 300,000,
medium-sized communities were those in an area with a population of 300,001 to 600,000,
medium-large communities were those in an area with a population of 600,001 to 1.5 million, and large
communities were in an area with a population of more than 1.5 million. Buffalo is a medium-large
 Data from the second quarter of 1998 were the most current available at the time of our work.
Throughout the remainder of this testimony, references to 1998 airfares should be interpreted as those
for the latest four quarters of airfare data available, beginning with the third quarter of 1997 and ending
with the second quarter of 1998. We measured changes in airfares using data reported by the airlines
on revenue yields per fared passenger mile. Thus, we excluded from our calculations passengers flying
on free tickets. Throughout this testimony, we use the term airfare instead of yield. Additionally, all
data in the testimony referring to average airfares, except as noted, have been deflated into dollars
reflecting those for the last four quarters.
 See list of related GAO products at the end of this statement.

Page 2                                                                             GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                       all of the factors that can contribute to differences in airfares to and from

                       We also reported in March 1999 that the overall quality of air service had
                       generally improved for most communities since 1978, although larger
                       communities were more likely to benefit from these improvements than
                       smaller ones. Assessing trends in the overall quality of air service is
                       difficult because many factors contribute to the quality of service. Such an
                       assessment requires, among other things, a subjective weighting of the
                       relative importance of each measure that is generally considered a
                       dimension of quality. In assessing the overall quality of air service received
                       by communities in each of the size categories included in our study, we
                       used four commonly accepted measures, including the number of
                       (1) departures, (2) available seats, (3) destinations served by nonstop and
                       one-stop flights, and (4) jet departures compared with the number of
                       turboprop departures. Nonstop service is generally considered preferable
                       to flights requiring a stop, and jet aircraft are favored over turboprop

                       As indicated in our recent report, decreases in airfares at Buffalo have not
Average Airfares to    kept pace with those for the nation as a whole, or for those at comparably
Buffalo Have Not       sized communities. From 1990 to 1998, for the 171 airports in our review,
Decreased as Much as   overall average airfares decreased about 21 percent, while average airfares
                       for medium-large community airports, overall, decreased by more than
Those of Other U.S.    22 percent.6 However, during the same time period, the decrease in
Communities            average airfares at Buffalo was more modest—about 8 percent.7 In
                       addition, airfares at Buffalo have risen over the past few years, particularly
                       in flights to and from nearby markets.

                       Total passenger traffic to and from Buffalo has remained relatively
                       constant over the past 20 years. According to data from the Federal
                       Aviation Administration, about 3 million passengers flew to and from

                        Because the number of passengers traveling on routes can change over time, examining fares at two
                       different times could reflect differences in the number of travelers going to various destinations rather
                       than fare changes. Therefore, as with our prior reports, we held the distribution of passengers across
                       distance categories constant at the level found with the latest four quarters ending with the second
                       quarter of 1998.
                        Of the airports that serve New York and are included as part of our review, none experienced a
                       marked decrease in its average airfares commensurate with the national average. Two airports serving
                       New York City, John F. Kennedy International and Newark Airport (N.J.), experienced the greatest
                       declines in overall average airfares—decreases of 16.4 and 18 percent respectively—while the airport
                       serving White Plains experienced the smallest decrease—1.8 percent. (See app. I for a summary of
                       changes in airfares for other locations in New York State.)

                       Page 3                                                                            GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                           Buffalo in 1976. More than 20 years later, the number of passengers who
                           flew to or from Buffalo was approximately 3.1 million. For the United
                           States as a whole, however, domestic passenger traffic more than doubled
                           over roughly the same time period.

Airfares to Buffalo Are    Throughout the 1990s, airfares to and from Buffalo have been higher than
High Relative to           the average airfares of comparably sized communities and the national
Comparably Sized           average.8 (See fig. 1.) In 1990, Buffalo’s overall average airfares—about
                           20.4 cents per mile—were around 8 percent higher than average airfares at
Communities and National   comparably sized communities and almost 10 percent higher than the
Averages                   national average. By 1998, although Buffalo’s overall average airfares
                           declined to 18.8 cents per mile, that fare was more than 27 percent higher
                           than those at comparably sized communities and nearly 29 percent higher
                           than the national average.

                            Average airfares for passengers flying to or from Buffalo are expected to be somewhat higher than the
                           overall national average because many Buffalo trips tend to be relatively short. Short trips generally
                           have higher costs per mile than longer trips, thus accounting for some of the difference against the
                           national average.

                           Page 4                                                                         GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Figure 1: Changes in Overall Average
Airfares at Buffalo, Comparably Sized
Communities, and the Continental
United States

                                        Source: GAO’s analysis of information from Data Base Products, Inc.

                                        While Buffalo’s overall average airfare was lower in 1998 than it was in
                                        1990, it has increased since 1994. This increase is attributable to the
                                        growth in average airfares for short trips, which rose by 31.5 percent.9 This
                                        increase is of concern for Buffalo travelers because several of Buffalo’s
                                        most important markets are within that distance. In contrast, since 1994,
                                        overall average airfares for short trips for comparably sized communities
                                        increased by only 1.9 percent. Buffalo did benefit from a decline in average
                                        airfares for medium and long trips—a decline of 13.9 and 7 percent,
                                        respectively. These declines were roughly the same as those in
                                        comparably sized cities. Figure 2 shows the percent change in average
                                        airfares for Buffalo and other comparably sized cities for 1994 to 1998.

                                         For our analysis, we defined short trips as being equal to or less than 750 miles, medium-length trips
                                        as being between 751 and 2,000 miles, and long trips as being 2,001 miles or more.

                                        Page 5                                                                           GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Figure 2: Percent Change in Average
Airfares for Buffalo and Comparably
Sized Communities, by Length of Trip,
1994 through 1998

                                        Source: GAO’s analysis of data from Data Base Products, Inc.

Competition in the Buffalo              Average airfares paid for short trips to and from Buffalo have become
Market Is Limited                       relatively expensive compared to other communities. Several of Buffalo’s
                                        most important markets—those with the greatest passenger volume—are a
                                        relatively short distance from Buffalo. In 1998, these markets included
                                        New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, and Washington, D.C. Of those,
                                        since 1994, only fares between Buffalo and Atlanta have fallen. We believe
                                        that the presence of low-cost competition from AirTran in the
                                        Buffalo-Atlanta market was primarily responsible for this drop in average
                                        fares. On the other hand, the other short-haul markets important to

                                        Page 6                                                         GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Buffalo lacked low-cost competition and were essentially dominated by a
single airline.

We examined changes in passenger traffic and airfares for Buffalo’s 10
largest markets. From 1994 through 1998, the total overall number of
passengers for these markets decreased by 14 percent. By 1998, the
passenger volume on 5 of Buffalo’s top 10 routes had decreased while the
passenger volume on the others had increased or stayed about the same.
The Buffalo-New York City market, with a loss of about 270,000
passengers (35 percent), had the largest decrease in passenger volume.10
In contrast, the Buffalo-Orlando market, with a gain of 100,000 passengers
(107 percent), had the largest increase in passenger volume.

Where competition—especially from low-cost airlines—was present, fares
generally declined while passenger volume increased. Between 1994 and
1998, average airfares dropped and passenger volume rose for travel
between Buffalo and Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando. For example, after
AirTran began service between Buffalo and Atlanta in 1998, average
one-way fares fell from $159 in the second quarter of 1997 to $105 in the
second quarter of 1998, a decrease of about 34 percent.11 Similarly, for
service between Buffalo and Orlando, average fares fell from about $114 in
mid-1994 to about $92 in mid-1998, a decrease of about 19 percent.

In contrast, when the level of competition remained the same or
decreased, passengers did not benefit from a reduction in airfares. For
example, Buffalo travelers used to have two choices for flights to and from
Newark Airport (NJ), an important airport linking Buffalo to the New York
City market. In the second quarter of 1994, Continental carried 78,410
passengers (61 percent of the market) and US Airways carried 49,610
passengers (38 percent of the market), each for an average fare of about
$58. By the second quarter of 1995, however, US Airways had dropped its

  Most travelers flying between Buffalo and New York City used Newark International Airport (NJ) or
LaGuardia Airport (NY). Seven percent or fewer of these passengers used John F. Kennedy
International Airport and those that did generally connected with overseas flights. The Buffalo-New
York City market’s loss of 270,000 passengers mainly reflects a decline in passengers using Newark
airport. In 1998, 42 percent of passengers used Newark but in 1994 this percentage was 61 percent. The
number of passengers flying between Buffalo and LaGuardia in 1994 and 1998 stayed about the same.
  The one-way fares cited in this and the following paragraph are based on the cost of a roundtrip
ticket and are stated in nominal dollars.

Page 7                                                                          GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                                    service and Continental had dropped its low-fare operations.12 Average
                                    one-way fares between Buffalo and New York (Newark) then rose to $114,
                                    an increase of 97 percent. Similarly, for travel between Buffalo and
                                    Albany, fares increased after one carrier dominated the market. Between
                                    mid-1994 and mid-1998, average one-way fares doubled from $99 to $198.
                                    Table 1 summarizes the changes in Buffalo’s 10 largest markets between
                                    1994 and 1998.

Table 1: Changes in Buffalo’s 10
Largest Air Service Markets, 1994                       1994                                                    1998
Through 1998                        Market                           Passengers             Market                         Passengers
                                    New York City                         759,660           New York City                        493,080
                                    Chicago                               159,090           Orlandoa                             189,370
                                    Boston                                139,840           Atlanta                              135,650
                                    Washington, D.C.                      115,040           Chicago                              114,610
                                    Atlanta                               106,550           Boston                               108,770
                                    Orlando                                91,380           Washington, D.C.                      94,100
                                    Phoenix                                79,390           Las Vegas                             87,720
                                    Tampa                                  75,850           Tampaa                                86,670
                                    Albany                                 63,630           Phoenix                               81,010
                                    Los Angeles                            57,510           Los Angeles                           73,340
                                    Total                               1,647,940           Total                             1,464,320
                                     AirTran, a low-cost competitor, competed in the market in 1998.

                                    Source: GAO’s analysis of data from Data Base Products, Inc.

                                    Although our previous review found that airports serving medium-large
Overall Quality of                  communities were more likely than smaller communities to benefit from
Buffalo Air Service                 an overall increase in the quality of air service, the airport serving Buffalo
Has Generally                       generally experienced declining service.

Decreased                           First, our review of air service showed that the number of airline
                                    departures has decreased at Buffalo. This decrease is more consistent with
                                    service trends we found at smaller communities. From 1978 through 1998,
                                    at Buffalo, scheduled departures decreased by 11 percent, available seats

                                      In late 1993, Continental Airlines targeted the Buffalo market by introducing “Peanut Fares,” fares
                                    that dramatically reduced the cost of flying to several destinations, including Newark Airport. For
                                    example, Continental’s average fare to Newark Airport dropped from $119 in the second quarter of
                                    1993 to $59 in the second quarter of 1994. As a result, Continental’s passenger volume for this route
                                    more than doubled. However, this low-fare operation proved unprofitable and Continental ended it by
                                    early 1995.

                                    Page 8                                                                         GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                                        decreased by 25 percent, nonstop flights decreased by 12 percent, and jet
                                        service decreased by 44 percent. On the other hand, during the same time
                                        period, Buffalo had more destinations served by one-stop flights, and its
                                        nonjet service increased. Figure 3 compares the difference in the quality of
                                        air service between Buffalo and other airports serving comparably sized
                                        communities from 1978 through 1998.13

Figure 3: Percent Change in Measures
of Air Service Quality at Buffalo and
Other Airports Serving Comparably
Sized Communities, 1978 through 1998

                                        Source: GAO’s analysis of airline schedule information provided by the Department of

                                        Because a variety of factors have contributed to the fare and service
                                        problems that communities, like Buffalo, have experienced since

                                          All statistics referring to departures in this testimony are based on the number of scheduled nonstop
                                        flights from each airport.

                                        Page 9                                                                          GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                  deregulation, no single action will solve those problems. Instead, potential
                  solutions will require a careful balancing of federal involvement and
                  regional, local, and private sector initiatives. For instance, the National
                  Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, in its recently
                  released report on the effects of deregulation on airline competition in the
                  United States, made a number of recommendations and suggestions on
                  how airline competition could be preserved and promoted.14 When
                  describing the difficulties of some communities in retaining quality air
                  service, the study suggested, as we have reported in the past, that regional
                  jets may be a potential solution. The more frequent use of regional jets in
                  place of turboprop aircraft could provide benefits to both air carriers and
                  communities typically served by turboprop aircraft. These jets generally
                  seat between 35 and 70 passengers and are more popular than turboprop
                  aircraft because of their added speed and comfort. In addition, air carriers
                  may be able to benefit from lower seat-mile costs when serving small and
                  medium-sized communities.

                  Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be glad
                  to respond to any questions.

                  For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Mr. John H.
Contact and       Anderson, Jr. at (202) 512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to
Acknowledgement   this testimony included Mr. Steven Martin and Ms. Sonja Bensen.

                    Entry and Competition in the U.S. Airline Industry: Issues and Opportunities, Special Report 255,
                  Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (July 1999). This report, at the request of
                  the Congress, updated the Council’s 1991 study of airline deregulation.

                  Page 10                                                                        GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Page 11   GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Appendix I

For Airports Serving New York
Communities, Percent Change in Average
Airfares Per Passenger Mile, by Size of
Community and by Length of Trip, 1990-1998
                                                         Percent change in average airfares
Community                  Length of trip             1990-98                 1990-93                   1994-98
Small-community airport
Binghamton                 Short                        –20.1                   –14.0                       2.2
                           Medium                       –19.1                    –8.6                      –4.1
                           Long                          –4.7                   –11.1                      13.8
                           Overall                      –10.7                    –8.7                       2.3
Elmira/Corning             Short                        –10.2                     7.3                      –9.5
                           Medium                       –11.1                     4.8                     –10.4
                           Long                          –2.1                   –11.1                       4.1
                           Overall                       –3.0                     4.2                      –5.6
Medium-sized-community airports
Newburgh                   Short                         –6.9                     9.9                       4.3
                           Medium                       –13.7                    11.5                      –9.1
                           Long                         –14.9                    –1.7                      –4.4
                           Overall                      –12.4                     5.8                      –4.1
Medium-large-community airports
Albany                     Short                         –9.7                    –6.2                      18.7
                           Medium                        –6.4                    10.7                      –5.2
                           Long                          –6.8                    –3.7                       0.5
                           Overall                       –3.2                     4.0                       4.7
Buffalo                    Short                         –9.3                    –9.1                      31.5
                           Medium                       –12.3                    11.6                     –13.9
                           Long                          –9.5                    –3.4                      –7.0
                           Overall                       –8.0                    –1.1                       9.3
Rochester                  Short                        –12.8                    –1.5                      17.6
                           Medium                        –5.9                     8.2                      –4.4
                           Long                          –5.4                    –5.1                       5.9
                           Overall                       –7.5                     1.7                       7.6
Syracuse                   Short                        –15.9                    –7.2                       0.6
                           Medium                       –20.0                    –5.5                     –14.6
                           Long                         –17.0                   –11.7                      –6.4
                           Overall                      –14.4                    –5.3                      –6.4
Large-community airports
Islip                      Short                        –12.4                    –8.9                      18.8
                           Medium                       –13.3                     1.5                       0.5
                           Long                          –4.4                     0.4                      –1.0
                           Overall                      –11.4                    –0.3                       3.0
Kennedy                    Short                        –33.5                   –15.5                      –2.3
                           Medium                       –19.0                    –0.8                      –6.6
                           Long                         –14.6                    –5.9                      –5.2
                           Overall                      –16.4                    –5.4                      –5.2
Newark (NJ)                Short                        –29.8                   –25.7                      25.9
                           Medium                       –18.1                    –3.5                      –3.8
                           Long                          –8.2                    –4.6                       2.8
                           Overall                      –18.0                   –11.0                       7.4

                                            Page 12                                           GAO/T-RCED-99-286
                                Appendix I
                                For Airports Serving New York
                                Communities, Percent Change in Average
                                Airfares Per Passenger Mile, by Size of
                                Community and by Length of Trip, 1990-1998

                                                                  Percent change in average airfares
Community      Length of trip                                 1990-98                      1990-93               1994-98
LaGuardia      Short                                            –10.2                          –11.6                25.5
               Medium                                            –8.3                            6.1                –3.5
               Long                                               5.0                            2.6                 7.0
               Overall                                           –7.6                           –1.8                 7.7
White Plains   Short                                            –14.9                          –15.6                 4.9
               Medium                                             2.4                           –2.6                19.0
               Long                                               5.9                           –6.2                14.1
               Overall                                           –1.8                           –6.7                10.5

                                Source: GAO’s analysis of data from Data Base Products, Inc.

                                Page 13                                                                GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Related GAO Products

              Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service Quality, and Barriers to
              Entry (GAO/RCED-99-92, Mar. 4, 1999).

              Aviation Competition: Effects on Consumers From Domestic Airline
              Alliances Vary (GAO/RCED-99-37, Jan. 15, 1999).

              Aviation Competition: Proposed Domestic Airline Alliances Raise Serious
              Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-215, June 4, 1998).

              Domestic Aviation: Service Problems and Limited Competition Continue in
              Some Markets (GAO/T-RCED-98-176, Apr. 23, 1998).

              Aviation Competition: International Aviation Alliances and the Influence of
              Airline Marketing Practices (GAO/T-RCED-98-131, Mar. 19. 1998).

              Airline Competition: Barriers to Entry Continue in Some Domestic
              Markets (GAO/T-RCED-98-112, Mar. 5, 1998).

              Domestic Aviation: Barriers Continue to Limit Competition
              (GAO/T-RCED-98-32, Oct. 28, 1997).

              Airline Deregulation: Addressing the Air Service Problems of Some
              Communities (GAO/T-RCED-97-187, June 25, 1997).

              International Aviation: Competition Issues in the U.S.-U.K. Market
              (GAO/T-RCED-97-103, June 4, 1997).

              Domestic Aviation: Barriers to Entry Continue to Limit Benefits of Airline
              Deregulation (GAO/T-RCED-97-120, May 13, 1997).

              Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Entry Continue to Limit Competition in
              Several Key Domestic Markets (GAO/RCED-97-4, Oct. 18, 1996).

              Domestic Aviation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety Since Airline
              Deregulation (GAO/T-RCED-96-126, Apr. 25, 1996).

              Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at Small,
              Medium-Sized, and Large Communities (GAO/RCED-96-79, Apr. 19, 1996).

              International Aviation: Airline Alliances Produce Benefits, but Effect on
              Competition Is Uncertain (GAO/RCED-95-99, Apr. 6, 1995).

              Page 14                                                    GAO/T-RCED-99-286
           Related GAO Products

           Airline Competition: Higher Fares and Less Competition Continue at
           Concentrated Airports (GAO/RCED-93-171, July 15, 1993).

           Computer Reservation Systems: Action Needed to Better Monitor the CRS
           Industry and Eliminate CRS Biases (GAO/RCED-92-130, Mar. 20, 1992).

           Airline Competition: Effects of Airline Market Concentration and Barriers
           to Entry on Airfares (GAO/RCED-91-101, Apr. 26, 1991).

           Airline Deregulation: Trends in Airfares at Airports in Small and
           Medium-Sized Communities (GAO/RCED-91-13, Nov. 8, 1990).

           Airline Competition: Industry Operating and Marketing Practices Limit
           Market Entry (GAO/RCED-90-147, Aug. 29, 1990).

           Airline Competition: Higher Fares and Reduced Competition at
           Concentrated Airports (GAO/RCED-90-102, July 11, 1990).

           Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Competition in the Airline Industry
           (GAO/T-RCED-89-65, Sept. 20, 1989).

           Airline Competition: Fare and Service Changes at St. Louis Since the
           TWA-Ozark Merger (GAO/RCED-88-217BR, Sept. 21, 1988).

           Competition in the Airline Computerized Reservation Systems
           (GAO/T-RCED-88-62, Sept. 14, 1988).

           Airline Competition: Impact of Computerized Reservation Systems
           (GAO/RCED-86-74, May 9, 1986).

           Airline Takeoff and Landing Slots: Department of Transportation’s Slot
           Allocation Rule (GAO/RCED-86-92, Jan. 31, 1986).

           Deregulation: Increased Competition Is Making Airlines More Efficient and
           Responsive to Consumers (GAO/RCED-86-26, Nov. 6, 1985).

(348195)   Page 15                                                    GAO/T-RCED-99-286
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:


or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:


United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested