US Airlines Play the Slots at NYC Area Airports

Newark Liberty Airport
(Image: panynj.org)

Remember a time when airlines competed against one another? Those days are increasingly becoming a chapter in commercial aviation history. The major US carriers -- United, American, Delta, Southwest -- are apparently pursuing a business strategy predicated on local dominance rather than robust competition. A case in point is Newark Liberty Airport, the closest New York area airport to my residence. United currently commands about seventy percent of the facility's arrivals and departures. That fact gives the airline considerable leverage in its consumer pricing. In contrast, United's LaGuardia-based service is typically cheaper than its Newark-based flights to the same destination. A lot cheaper, as I discovered (and used to my advantage) during my frequent flyer days.

Access and passenger-unfriendly pricing is hardly limited to New York. Hubs such as Atlanta foster de facto monopoly service and high rates. How can this business situation exist? Airport access is entirely controlled by the number of slots an airline can obtain. This tends to be a fixed number. According to a recent Bloomberg article, these slots are the currency between airlines that aim to obtain quasi-exclusive control of lucrative local markets. The recent Newark-JFK slot swap engineered by United and Delta is a case in point. Why the FAA permits these anti-competitive situations to fester is an interesting question.

Image: en.wikipedia.org

One suspects the United States is marching toward acceptance of the notion of controlled aviation markets, high prices, and effectively no competition. These three qualities precisely characterized the friendly skies prior to industry deregulation. One big difference between flight during the Mad Men epoch and today's House of Cards era is service. At least in a deregulated world, you didn't have to pay for a pillow, a blanket, or a meal. Then again, a traveler couldn't gamble on an airplane. Contemporary passengers can simply go online and play the slots.

Good luck beating the house, whether it's Las Vegas action or slot-fixed airline fares.

US Senators Cite Drone Threat to Privacy

Interior of a drone

A bipartisan group of US senators expressed profound concern today that the wide-open, domestic use of drones signifies a potentially dangerous erosion of privacy rights.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, "So far, no privacy policy defines how long government authorities may keep video and other data collected by the drones, how it can be used or whether it can be shared with other government agencies or the public."

Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) expressed their deep concern over unregulated drone activity and its impact on privacy. Their hearings on this issue have assumed greater urgency as the drone industry has undertaken something of a full-court press to sell its products in the US market. Their potential clients extend well beyond natural surveillance constituencies, such as law enforcement agencies. As the LA Times report noted, "Congress has mandated the FAA to open U.S. airspace to commercial drone traffic by September 2015..."

Real estate firms, "data aggregators," and traffic reporting services are among those enterprise categories keenly interested in obtaining the Sons of Predator. Unstated are the darker uses of drones, such as private investigation businesses and tabloid publications, which would presumably be legal. Would the First Amendment cover their activities?

FAA Plans Six Domestic Test Sites for Drones

Someone who invested in drone manufacture must be very happy these days. The unmanned flying devices, once the military's newest and quite effective toy, has become embraced by domestic law enforcement constituencies, corporate interests, and institutional users. The demand for drones is so hot that the FAA is ready to open the gates to widespread use in the United States.

According to a report in The Washington Post, the federal agency has requested permission to open a half-dozen drone test sites across the country. Apparently, the FAA plan is to have states compete for the "honor" of housing a drone test site.

Drone prototype/United Kingdom
(photo and related video: guardian.co.uk)

The Post article notes the enormous amount of money behind the "must have a drone" movement. "Industry experts," the Post observed, "predict the takeoff of a multibillion-dollar market for civilian drones as soon as the FAA completes regulations to make sure they don't pose a safety hazard to other aircraft."

The FAA has supposedly cared about individual privacy in this matter, including a stipulation that each test center follow relevant federal and state laws "and make a privacy policy publicly available."

That tricky tray of regulations and good intentions is unlikely to offer a great deal of tangible privacy. In the meantime, people will experience a continued erosion of their privacy. What happens, for example, when a tabloid hires a drone to photograph celebrities? Or a private detective agency rents some time to document the movements of a suspect? Or a social media firm decides to provide "real time" images from public areas, such as a sports stadium? (Air rights could become a significant legal issue in those cases.) While one could argue the FAA would simply deny access to sensitive or high-profile venues, one could also suggest that everything has a price. What would you pay for drone-free privacy?