Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares and Service at Buffalo, New
York (Testimony, 09/20/1999, GAO/T-RCED-99-286).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed changes in airfares
and service quality at Buffalo Niagara International Airport since
deregulation.

GAO noted that: (1) most communities in the United States, including
Buffalo, New York, have benefited from a decrease in average airfares
since 1990; average airfares for passengers travelling to and from
Buffalo are lower today than they were in 1990; (2) those average
airfares, however, are higher than they were in 1994, particularly for
travel to or from cities within 750 miles of Buffalo; (3) 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; (4) 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; and (5) for example, from
1978 through 1998, scheduled departures at Buffalo decreased by 11
percent while those at comparably sized communities increased by 83
percent.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-99-286
     TITLE:  Airline Deregulation: Changes in Airfares and Service at
	     Buffalo, New York
      DATE:  09/20/1999
   SUBJECT:  Airline regulation
	     Airports
	     Performance measures
	     Prices and pricing
	     Competition
	     Commercial aviation
	     Comparative analysis
	     Air transportation operations
IDENTIFIER:  Buffalo (NY)
	     Buffalo Niagara International Airport (NY)

******************************************************************
** 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 Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representative

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
2:30 p.m.  EDT
Monday
September 20, 1999

Changes in Airfares and Service at Buffalo, New York

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

GAO/T-RCED-99-286

GAO/RCED-99-286t

(348195)

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

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

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. 

--------------------
\1 Airline Deregulation:  Changes in Airfares, Service Quality, and
Barriers to Entry (GAO/RCED-99-92, Mar.  4, 1999). 

\2 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). 

   OVERALL CHANGES IN AIRFARES AND
   SERVICE SINCE DEREGULATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Over the years, our work has consistently shown that airline
deregulation has led to lower fares and better service for most air
travelers.  This is largely due to increased competition spurred by
the entry of new airlines into the industry and established airlines
into new markets.  However, the benefits of deregulation have been
uneven, and ï¿½pockets of painï¿½ existï¿½especially in small and
medium-sized communities in the East and upper Midwest. 

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
airlinesï¿½such as frequent flyer plansï¿½have 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 all of the factors that can
contribute to differences in airfares to and from airports. 

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
aircraft. 

--------------------
\3 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 community. 

\4 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. 

\5 See list of related GAO products at the end of this statement. 

   AVERAGE AIRFARES TO BUFFALO
   HAVE NOT DECREASED AS MUCH AS
   THOSE OF OTHER U.S. 
   COMMUNITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

As indicated in our recent report, decreases in airfares at Buffalo
have not kept pace with those for the nation as a whole, or for those
at comparably sized communities.  From 1990 to 1998, for the 171
airports in our review, overall average airfares decreased about 21
percent, while average airfares for medium-large community airports,
overall, decreased by more than 22 percent.\6 However, during the
same time period, the decrease in average airfares at Buffalo was
more modestï¿½about 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
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. 

--------------------
\6 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. 

\7 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
airfaresï¿½decreases of 16.4 and 18 percent respectivelyï¿½while the
airport serving White Plains experienced the smallest decreaseï¿½1.8
percent.  (See app.  I for a summary of changes in airfares for other
locations in New York State.)

      AIRFARES TO BUFFALO ARE HIGH
      RELATIVE TO COMPARABLY SIZED
      COMMUNITIES AND NATIONAL
      AVERAGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

Throughout the 1990s, airfares to and from Buffalo have been higher
than the average airfares of comparably sized communities and the
national average.\8 (See fig.  1.) In 1990, Buffalo's overall average
airfaresï¿½about 20.4 cents per mileï¿½were around 8 percent higher than
average airfares at comparably sized communities and almost 10
percent higher than the 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. 

   Figure 1:  Changes in Overall
   Average Airfares at Buffalo,
   Comparably Sized Communities,
   and the Continental United
   States

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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
tripsï¿½a 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. 

   Figure 2:  Percent Change in
   Average Airfares for Buffalo
   and Comparably Sized
   Communities, by Length of Trip,
   1994 through 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

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

--------------------
\8 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. 

\9 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. 

      COMPETITION IN THE BUFFALO
      MARKET IS LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

Average airfares paid for short trips to and from Buffalo have become
relatively expensive compared to other communities.  Several of
Buffalo's most important marketsï¿½those 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 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 competitionï¿½especially from low-cost airlinesï¿½was 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 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 through 1998

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

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

--------------------
\10 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. 

\11 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. 

\12 In late 1993, Continental Airlines targeted the Buffalo market by
introducing ï¿½Peanut Fares,ï¿½ 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. 

   OVERALL QUALITY OF BUFFALO AIR
   SERVICE HAS GENERALLY DECREASED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

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

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 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

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of airline schedule information provided by
the Department of Transportation. 

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

--------------------
\13 All statistics referring to departures in this testimony are
based on the number of scheduled nonstop flights from each airport. 

\14 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. 

-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

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

   CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

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

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
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                              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
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. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1

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). 

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). 

*** End of document. ***