Domestic Aviation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety Since Airline
Deregulation (Testimony, 04/25/96, GAO/T-RCED-96-126).

GAO discussed changes that have occurred in domestic aviation since the
deregulation of the airline industry, focusing on changes in airline
fares, service quantity and quality, and safety. GAO noted that: (1)
increased competition and especially the entry of new airlines has
resulted in lower air fares than before deregulation at most airports;
(2) fares have risen at some airports, many of which are dominated by
one or two airlines; (3) most airports have more and better quality air
service, in terms of number of departures and available seats, available
now than they did before deregulation, although some airports serving
small- and medium-sized communities have experienced decreases in
service; and (4) air travel safety has improved since deregulation, and
there were no statistically significant differences in air safety rates
among airports serving small, medium, or large communities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-96-126
     TITLE:  Domestic Aviation: Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety 
             Since Airline Deregulation
      DATE:  04/25/96
   SUBJECT:  Transportation safety
             Aircraft accidents
             Commercial aviation
             Airline regulation
             Airline industry
             Airports
             Competition
             Transportation rates
             Economic analysis

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation,
U.S.  Senate

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m.  EDT
Thursday,
April 25, 1996

DOMESTIC AVIATION - CHANGES IN
AIRFARES, SERVICE,
AND SAFETY SINCE AIRLINE
DEREGULATION

Statement of John H.  Anderson, Jr., Director,
Transportation and Telecommunications Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-96-126

GAO/RCED-96-126T


(341490)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV


============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the changes that have
occurred in domestic aviation since the deregulation of the airline
industry.  The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 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.  Our testimony today discusses
the findings of our report, prepared at the request of this Committee
and being released today, in which we compared the changes in airline
(1) fares, (2) service quantity and quality, and (3) safety since
deregulation for airports serving small, medium-sized, and large
communities.\1 In summary, we found the following: 

  -- Fares per passenger mile, adjusted for inflation, have fallen
     since deregulation about as much at airports serving small and
     medium-sized communities as they have at airports serving large
     communities.  A key factor contributing to the overall trend
     toward lower airfares has been the increased competition spurred
     by the entry of new low-cost, low-fare airlines, especially at
     airports in the West and Southwest.  Nevertheless, some
     airports--particularly those serving small and medium-sized
     communities in the Southeast and in the Appalachian region--have
     experienced substantial increases in fares since deregulation. 
     At these airports, one or two airlines account for the vast
     majority of flights and passengers, and there is relatively
     little competition. 

  -- In general, the quantity of the air service available, as
     measured by the number of both departures and available seats,
     has increased since deregulation for airports serving small,
     medium-sized, and large communities.  Large-community airports
     in particular have experienced a substantial increase in the
     amount of air service.  Not all of the airports that we
     reviewed, however, shared in this general trend toward more air
     service.  Some airports--particularly those serving small and
     medium-sized communities in the Upper Midwest--have less air
     service today than they did under regulation.  However, while
     changes in air service quantity can be easily measured,
     assessing changes in the overall quality of this service is
     difficult because there are many dimensions of quality and not
     everyone agrees on the relative importance of each.  The factors
     that are usually considered to be primary in service quality,
     such as the number of destinations served by nonstop flights,
     generally suggest that for large communities, quality has
     improved substantially.  For small and medium-sized communities,
     on the other hand, the results are mixed. 

  -- In general, the safety of air travel has improved at all three
     groups of airports we sampled.  The accident rates at the
     airports in each group were lower in 1994 than in 1978.  Indeed,
     there are so few accidents each year that a change of just one
     or two accidents from year to year can cause significant
     fluctuation in an accident rate.  As a result, we did not find
     any statistically significant differences between the trends in
     air safety for small-, medium-sized-, and large-community
     airports. 


--------------------
\1 Airline Deregulation:  Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at
Small, Medium-Sized, and Large Communities (GAO/RCED-96-79, Apr.  19,
1996).  We analyzed data for 112 airports:  49 serving small
communities, 38 serving medium-sized communities, and 25 serving
large communities.  In 1994, these airports accounted for about
two-thirds of the 7.1 million domestic airline departures and 481.7
million passenger enplanements in the United States. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Before 1978, the U.S.  airline industry was tightly regulated.  The
federal government controlled what fares airlines could charge and
what cities they could serve.  Legislatively mandated to promote the
air transport system, the Civil Aeronautics Board believed that
passengers traveling shorter distances--more typical of travel from
small and medium-sized communities--would not choose air travel if
they had to pay the full cost of service.  Thus, the Board set fares
relatively lower in short-haul markets and higher in long-haul
markets than would be warranted by costs.  In effect, long-distance
travel subsidized short-distance markets.  In addition, the Board did
not allow new airlines to form and compete against the established
carriers. 

Concerned that government regulation had caused fares to be too high
in many heavily traveled markets, made the airline industry
inefficient, and inhibited its growth, the Congress deregulated the
industry.  The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 phased out the
government's control over fares and service but did not change the
government's role in regulating and overseeing air safety. 
Deregulation was expected to result in (1) lower fares at
large-community airports, from which many trips are long-distance,
and somewhat higher fares at small- and medium-sized-community
airports; (2) increased competition from new airlines entering the
market; and (3) greater use of turboprop (propeller) aircraft by
airlines in place of jets in smaller markets that could not
economically support jet service. 

In 1990, at the request of this Committee, we reported on the trends
in airfares since deregulation for airports serving small,
medium-sized, and large communities.\2 For the 112 airports we
reviewed, we found that overall fares had fallen not only at airports
serving large communities, as was expected, but at airports serving
small and medium-sized communities as well.  We noted, however, that
despite the overall trend toward lower airfares, some small- and
medium-sized-community airports had experienced substantial increases
in fares following deregulation, especially in the Southeast.  Our
current report on changes in airfares, service, and safety since
airline deregulation updated this analysis for the same 112
airports.\3 We have also reported on several other issues concerning
airfares since deregulation, including the effects of market
concentration and the industry's operating and marketing practices on
fares.  These reports are listed at the end of this statement. 


--------------------
\2 Airline Deregulation:  Trends in Airfares at Airports in Small and
Medium-Sized Communities (GAO/RCED-91-13, Nov.  8, 1990). 

\3 Airline Deregulation:  Changes in Airfares, Service, and Safety at
Small, Medium-Sized, and Large Communities (GAO/RCED-96-79). 


   AIRFARES HAVE FALLEN OVERALL
   BUT HAVE RISEN SHARPLY AT SOME
   AIRPORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

As of the first 6 months of 1995, airfares overall continued to be
below what they were in 1979 for airports serving small,
medium-sized, and large communities.  Comparing full-year data for
1979 and 1994, the fares per passenger mile, adjusted for inflation,
were about 9 percent lower for small-community airports, 11 percent
lower for medium-sized-community airports, and 8 percent lower for
large-community airports.\4 Despite the general trend toward lower
fares, however, fares at small- and medium-sized-community airports
have remained consistently higher than fares at airports serving
large communities, largely because of the economics associated with
traffic volume and trip distance.  As the volume of traffic and
average length of haul increase, the average cost per passenger mile
decreases, allowing for lower fares.  Airports serving small and
medium-sized communities tend to have fewer heavily traveled routes
and shorter average distances, resulting in higher fares per
passenger mile compared with those of large-community airports. 

Nevertheless, fares have fallen since deregulation for most of the
airports in our sample.  Of the 112 airports that we reviewed, 73
have lower fares, while 33 have higher fares.\5 Specifically, fares
have declined at 36 of the 49 airports serving small communities, 19
of the 38 airports serving medium-sized communities, and 18 of the 25
airports serving large communities. 

The overall trend toward lower fares since deregulation has resulted
in large part from increased competition, spurred in many cases by
the entry of new airlines.  The average number of large airlines
serving the medium-sized-community airports in our sample, for
example, increased by over 50 percent between 1978 and 1994, while
the average number of commuter carriers serving these airports
increased by about 40 percent.  Low-cost airlines, such as America
West and Southwest Airlines, have accounted for much of this new
entry, resulting in substantially lower fares at airports in the West
and Southwest, regardless of the size of the community served. 

In addition, the established airlines' transition to hub-and-spoke
systems following deregulation has increased competition at many
airports serving small and medium-sized communities.  By bringing
passengers from multiple origins (the spokes) to a common point (the
hub) and placing them on new flights to their ultimate destinations,
these systems provide for more frequent flights and more travel
options than did the direct "point-to-point" systems that
predominated before deregulation.  Thus, instead of having a choice
of a few direct flights between their community and a final
destination, travelers departing from a small community might now
choose from among many flights by several airlines through different
hubs to that destination. 

Nevertheless, while fares have fallen at the majority of airports in
our sample, they have risen substantially for travel out of several
airports.  As appendix I shows, those airports that have experienced
the largest fare increases--over 20 percent--mostly serve small and
medium-sized communities in the Southeast and Appalachia.\6 In
contrast to those airports in the West and Southwest that have
experienced substantial declines in fares, these airports tend to be
dominated by one or two higher-cost airlines.  For example, Delta
accounted for nearly 90 percent of the passenger enplanements in 1994
at the airport serving Jackson, Mississippi, where fares have risen
by over 25 percent since deregulation.\7 By contrast, three low-cost,
new entrant airlines--America West, Reno Air, and
Southwest--accounted for about 65 percent of the enplanements in 1994
at the airport serving Reno, Nevada, where fares have fallen by about
21 percent since deregulation. 

The more widespread entry of low-cost airlines at airports in the
West and Southwest in the nearly two decades since deregulation--and
the resulting geographic differences in fare trends--stems primarily
from stronger economic growth, less airport congestion, and more
favorable weather conditions in those regions, compared to the East
and Southeast.  For example, the average annual increase in
employment between 1979 and 1993 for Reno, Nevada, was 2.6 percent,
which compares with an average annual increase of 0.9 percent for the
communities in the Southeast and Appalachia whose airports have
experienced an increase in fares of over 20 percent since
deregulation. 

Nevertheless, over the past 2 years, a few new entrant airlines have
attempted to initiate low-cost, low-fare service in the East.  The
results have been mixed.  In early 1994, for example, Continental
Airlines created a separate, low-cost service in the East, commonly
referred to as "Calite." Largely because it grew too rapidly and was
unable to compete successfully against USAir and Delta, Calite failed
and was terminated in early 1995.  As a result of the loss of
competition brought by Calite, the largest fare increases during the
first 6 months of 1995 occurred at airports in the East, primarily at
small- and medium-sized communities in North Carolina and South
Carolina. 

More recently, other low-cost carriers have emerged in the East.  The
most successful of these to date has been Valujet.  However, Valujet
has begun to experience some of the problems of operating in the
East, such as difficulties in obtaining scarce take-off and landing
slots at congested airports.  Even so, Valujet's success has sparked
competitive responses from the dominant airlines in the East.  Delta,
for example, plans to initiate a separate, low-cost operation of its
own in the East later this year.  However, because most of Valujet's
growth occurred in the second half of 1995 and the competitive
responses of other airlines are only beginning to unfold, data are
not yet available to determine the extent to which Valujet has
affected fares in the East, particularly at airports serving small
and medium-sized communities that have yet to benefit from the
overall trend toward lower airfares since deregulation. 


--------------------
\4 When the increase in fares that occurred between 1994 and the
first half of 1995 is factored in, the fares since deregulation are
about 6 percent lower for small-community airports, 9 percent lower
for medium-sized-community airports, and 6 percent lower for
large-community airports.  Because the data for 1995 cover only 6
months, however, we used primarily the latest available full-year
data (for 1994) in analyzing the trends since deregulation. 

\5 For six airports in our sample, the fare changes were not
statistically significant.  Because the data on fares is developed
from a statistical sample of tickets, they have a sampling error. 
For these airports, it was not possible to determine the direction of
the changes in fares between 1979 and 1994 due to sampling error. 

\6 In appendix I, we only included those airports whose change in
fares between 1979 and 1994 was greater than 20 percent regardless of
the sampling error (i.e., the lower bound estimate of percent change
was greater than plus or minus 20 percent). 

\7 While nearly all of the airports in our sample that have
experienced an increase in fares since deregulation of over 20
percent serve small and medium-sized communities, one large-community
airport--Pittsburgh--experienced an increase of 21 percent.  In 1994,
USAir accounted for over 90 percent of the enplanements at
Pittsburgh.  Like Pittsburgh, the six other large-community airports
that have experienced increases in fares, although less than 20
percent, are large hub airports dominated by one or two airlines. 


   LARGE COMMUNITIES HAVE MORE AND
   BETTER AIR SERVICE, BUT THE
   TRENDS FOR SMALL AND
   MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITIES ARE
   MIXED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Most communities served by the airports in our sample have more air
service today than they did under regulation.  Seventy-eight percent
of the small and medium-sized-community airports have had an increase
in the number of departures, and every large-community airport has
more departures.  Overall, the number of departures has increased by
50 percent for small-community airports; 57 percent for
medium-sized-community airports; and 68 percent for large-community
airports. 

In addition, the overall number of available seats has increased for
all three airport groups.  However, because of the substitution of
turboprops for jets in many markets serving small and medium-sized
communities following deregulation, the increase in the number of
available seats has been less dramatic for those communities than the
increase in departures.  For example, although the number of
departures has increased by 50 percent for small-community airports,
the number of seats has increased by only 15 percent--an increase
that barely exceeds the overall increase in population over the past
two decades at the communities served by these airports.  Because of
the greater use of turboprops, some airports serving small and
medium-sized communities have actually had a decrease in the number
of available seats even though the number of departures has
increased.  The airport serving Bismarck, North Dakota, for example,
has had a 23-percent decrease in the number of seats even though the
number of departures has increased by 54 percent.  By comparison,
every large-community airport has had an increase in the number of
seats, and in some cases--like Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport and
Houston's Hobby Airport--that increase exceeds 300 percent. 

In addition, several other airports serving small and medium-sized
communities have experienced a decline in the number of both
departures and seats.  The communities that these airports
serve--including Duluth, Minnesota; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Moline,
Illinois; and Rapid City, South Dakota--are located primarily in the
Upper Midwest, where economic growth has been relatively slow.  In
some cases, the communities served by these airports have contracted. 
For example, the average annual change in population for Moline,
Illinois, between 1979 and 1993 was -0.5 percent.  For the three
communities in our sample whose airports have experienced the
sharpest decline in departures and seats--Lincoln, Nebraska;
Rochester, Minnesota, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota--the average
annual growth rate during this period was only 0.4 percent in
population, 1.3 percent in personal income, and 1.4 percent in
employment.  By comparison, for Phoenix, Arizona, the average annual
growth rate was 3.0 percent in population, 3.7 percent in personal
income, and 3.7 percent in employment. 

Measuring the overall changes in air service quality since
deregulation is more difficult than measuring the changes in
quantity.  Such an assessment requires, among other things, a
subjective weighting of the relative importance of several variables
that are generally considered dimensions of quality.  These variables
are the number of (1) departures and available seats, (2)
destinations served by nonstop flights, (3) destinations served by
one-stop flights and the efficiency of the connecting service, and
(4) jet departures compared with the number of turboprop departures. 

We found that large-community airports, largely because of their
central role in hub-and-spoke networks, have not only had an increase
in the number of departures but have also experienced a nearly
25-percent increase in the number of cities served by nonstop
flights.  In addition, while the share of departures involving jets
at large-community airports has decreased slightly with the greater
use of turboprops, the actual number of jet departures has increased
by 47 percent for airports serving large communities. 

For airports serving small and medium-sized communities, the picture
is much less clear.  For these airports, hub-and-spoke networks have
resulted in more departures and more and better one-stop service. 
However, because much of this service is to hubs via turboprops,
small and medium-sized communities have few destinations served by
nonstop flights and relatively less jet service.  For the
small-community airports in our sample, for example, the number of
cities accessible via nonstop service has declined by 7 percent since
deregulation while the percentage of departures involving jets fell
from 66 percent in 1978 to 39 percent in 1995.  On the other hand,
the number of cities accessible via one-stop service has increased by
about 10 percent and the efficiency of that service has improved
substantially as a result of the greater number of departures. 

Weighting the value placed on these changes depends on a subjective
determination that will vary by individual.  As a result, it is
difficult to judge whether smaller communities such as Fayetteville,
North Carolina, have better air service today.  Even though the
number of destinations served from Fayetteville's airport has
declined from nine in 1978--including daily service to Washington,
D.C.--to two in 1995, those two cities (Atlanta, Georgia, and
Charlotte, North Carolina) are major hubs.  When service to these
hubs is combined with more frequent turboprop service to and from
Fayetteville, the result is a substantial increase in one-stop
connections and a corresponding decrease in layover times between
flights for residents of Fayetteville. 

An assessment of service quality for small and medium-sized
communities is further complicated because it is not possible to
convert each dimension of quality into a common measure, such as
total travel time.  Although most of the dimensions can be measured
in terms of travel time, one cannot:  the perceived levels of
amenities and comfort that travelers associate with the different
types of turboprops and jets.  As a result, developing a formula that
combines the various factors to produce a single, objective "quality
score" is problematic. 

Nevertheless, as appendix II shows, when we considered the airports
in our sample that had either a positive or negative change in every
quality dimension, we found not only that large-community airports
have better air service today than they did under regulation but that
geographical differences exist as well.\8

Fast-growing communities of all sizes in the West, Southwest, Upper
New England, and Florida have better service, while some small and
medium-sized communities in the Upper Midwest and Southeast--areas of
the country that have experienced relatively slow economic growth
over the last two decades--are worse off today. 

In a recent study of the nation's smallest airports, which account
for approximately 3 percent of the total passenger enplanements in
the United States, the Department of Transportation has found trends
in fares and service similar to those that we observed, and the
study's conclusions are consistent with our findings.  Because we
were interested in fare trends at individual airports, we limited the
airports we examined to those that had sufficient numbers of tickets
to ensure that the results were statistically meaningful.  As a
result, we excluded the airports serving the nation's smallest
communities.  We believe that the Department of Transportation's
study could therefore serve as a valuable complement to our analysis. 


--------------------
\8 In identifying those airports in our sample that had a positive
change in each quality dimension, we included large-community
airports that experienced a decline in one-stop service if that
decline was accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of
destinations served by nonstop flights. 


   SAFETY HAS IMPROVED SINCE
   DEREGULATION FOR COMMUNITIES OF
   ALL SIZES, BUT COMPARISONS
   BETWEEN AIRPORT GROUPS ARE
   INCONCLUSIVE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

Since the 1940s, the rate of airline accidents in the United States
has been declining.  Following the introduction of jet aircraft in
the late 1950s (e.g., the Boeing 707) and second-generation jets in
the 1960s (e.g., the Boeing 737), this long-term decline in the
accident rate accelerated.  By the late 1980s there were only a small
number of airline accidents occurred each year, and as a result, the
rate of decline has slowed in recent years.  In addition, the overall
accident rate for commuter carriers has declined by 90 percent over
the last two decades, largely due to more advanced aircraft
technology and better pilot training. 

As appendix III shows, this general trend toward improved safety is
evident for all three airport groups that we reviewed, especially for
airports serving medium-sized communities.  Specifically, the rate of
accidents at airports serving small communities fell from 0.47
accidents per 100,000 departures in 1978 to 0.14 accidents per
100,000 departures in 1994.  At medium-sized-community airports, the
rate fell from 1.29 accidents per 100,000 departures to 0.00 in 1994
because no accidents were recorded at those airports in 1994. 
Finally, at airports serving large communities, the rate fell from
0.41 accidents per 100,000 departures to 0.14 in 1994. 

However, as appendix III also shows, an increase of just one or two
accidents in a given year can cause a significant fluctuation in
accident rates.  Thus, while it is true that turboprops do not have
as good a safety record as the larger jets they replaced in many
markets serving small and medium-sized communities, this fluctuation
in accident rates makes it difficult to discern any impact of the
increasing use of turboprops on relative safety between the airport
groups.  Our attempts to discern trends between airport groups by
smoothing the data--employing, for example, such common practices as
calculating a 3-year moving average--did not help identify any
trends.  Our analysis of accidents on routes to and from the airports
in our sample was similarly inconclusive in terms of identifying any
differences in the trends between airport groups. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement.  We would be
glad to respond to any questions that you or any member of the
Committee may have. 


AIRPORTS IN OUR SAMPLE FOR WHICH
FARES INCREASED OR DECREASED BY
MORE THAN 20 PERCENT, 1979-94
=========================================================== Appendix I



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO's analysis of
   DOT's O&D Survey.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


AIRPORTS IN OUR SAMPLE FOR WHICH
THE QUALITY OF AIR SERVICE HAS
IMPROVED OR WORSENED IN EVERY
QUALITY DIMENSION
========================================================== Appendix II



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO's analysis of data
   from DOT and OAG.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


ACCIDENT RATES AT AIRPORTS SERVING
SMALL, MEDIUM-SIZED, AND LARGE
COMMUNITIES, 1978-94
========================================================= Appendix III



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Data for 1978 are fiscal-year data. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of data from the Federal Aviation
Administration and National Transportation Safety Board. 

RELATED GAO REPORTS

Airport Competition:  Essential Air Service Slots at O'Hare
International Airport (GAO/RCED-94-118FS, Mar.  4, 1994). 

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 Competition:  Weak Financial Structure Threatens Competition
(GAO/RCED-91-110, Apr.  15, 1991). 

Airline Competition:  Fares and Concentration at Small-City Airports
(GAO/RCED-91-51, Jan.  18, 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 Competition:  DOT's Implementation of Airline Regulatory
Authority (GAO/RCED-89-93, June 28, 1989). 

Airline Service:  Changes at Major Montana Airports Since
Deregulation (GAO/RCED-89-141FS, May 24, 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). 

*** End of document. ***