Atlanta is #26, Denver is now #78. Denver's average fare is 35% lower than 2001, Atlanta's is 3% lower. In 2001, Denver's avg fare was about $90 higher than Atlanta's, in 2010 it is about $60 lower. That's a relative change of about $150 between the two cities.
Atlanta had 88 million passengers in 2009. Delta had 56%, AirTran had 18%. I can see a reduction of 13.2 billion in Delta's annual revenue over the next few years as long as they disregard the obvious threat to their business that the Southwest Move portends.
Is that a Clark Howard quote? If it is, toss it to the side, its not worth much.
Here is an interesting quote from a usa today article:
Opposing view on airline mergers: A bad deal for fliers - USATODAY.com
With the exception of travelers to or from Atlanta*, who in a combined Southwest-AirTran would have a significantly more robust alternative to Delta, there's little reason to think the net effect on consumers will be anything but negative.
The rhetoric deployed to justify the Southwest-AirTran buyout is taken from the same boilerplate used with the Delta-Northwest and United-Continental mergers. Employees, stockholders, consumers and the community at large are all promised outsized benefits, with nary a negative worthy of disclosure.
Indeed, stockholders may be well served by the deal. But that's for exactly the same reason consumers' best interests will be compromised: A reduction in competition will drive ticket prices higher.
While the falloff in travel demand makes it difficult to precisely gauge the cost effects of the Delta-Northwest merger, and United and Continental won't be officially merged until later this week, I have no doubt that when the economy stabilizes and ticket demand rises to post-recession levels, we will discover that average fares have risen markedly.
And taking AirTran, a particularly aggressive discounter, out of the mix will make matters worse, permitting Southwest to raise its prices and eroding whatever pricing discipline the low-cost carriers still exert over the legacy airlines.
It's a vicious cycle for price-conscious consumers, but a virtuous one for airlines intent on hiking fares and boosting profits.---
Basically, if ticket prices were reduced only 3% in ten years with AAI here, what does that say? There is more to meet the eye and outside of having to put up with SWA management trash talking when they come to town, I think there is a lot of good here for DAL on many fronts- and for pilots on just as many. JMHO.
---
*Whats interesting about the ATL thing, sure there will be sales but its not like AAI didn't do that already. If SWA starts flying ATL-SDF or ATL-MLB or ATL-DAB or ATL-ROA, then it'll bring down the prices but the prices from ATL-BOS or ATL-LGA or ATL-MDW or ATL-MSY are price competitive and AAI and DAL prices are equal. Now AAI, who had a draw down in flights in ATL will have increasing costs.
Now you pick based on experience, first class, FF perks, FF perks allowing you to fly to Europe, seat selection, etc. I think FF's are about to get a huge benefit from SWA coming to town, sure that costs money, but if DAL beats SWA then it'll get interesting in ATL.