This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
"Ok, we're offering a $300 voucher to the airline willing to give up this slot... $300... ok, United, we're bumping you, you can pick up your voucher at the information desk."
The big airlines already do that. It's why the smaller airlines are forced into the smaller, outlying airports.
The airlines bought them. They're property. Just like the car dealer can't take your car back if you're not using it.
> You can probably personally blame me, at least to some degree, for the fact that United pulled out. When I was at American Airlines, we were consciously trying to push United out of JFK. That was our goal.
Once you give up those slots at an airport like JFK, good luck getting them back.
If you can afford a 5 year lease on a slot you won't actively use, you're still stifling the competition. And since EU prohibits EU-governments to subsidy airlines, this paves the way for non-EU countries with deep pockets to eventually control the EU air travel market.
If you want a slot to go to its most valuable use sell it to the entity that values it most, whether permanently or by auctioning it yearly.
The same concept easily applies to airline slots, an established player that is at capacity on how many slots they can profitably use still has some incentive to keep other airlines out, because any new players will be tapping into their existing market.
Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/airports/slots_en
EDIT 2: This appears to be a global practice: https://www.iata.org/en/policy/slots/
What they do do though is hold onto slots at congested airports that they perhaps don't have a use for until a few weeks/months down the line.
You not taking off means someone else can't land.
No, there aren't for airliners. Most are in the air at any given time.
There's boneyards and mfg. airports, and that's about it.
A possibility would be a non-operating airport in a friendly country - thinking about the new Berlin airport.
Boeing likely finally stopped making the 737 MAX after they ran out of parking space, which forced a decision.
To park even one airliner long-term requires prior permission and monthly payments.
Slots are used to regulate congestion in normal conditions.
Not if the 737 MAXes are hogging all those spots, of course.
This would lead to them getting fewer customers as they got a name for awful reliability, like Alaska Airlines have a reputation for being assholes from top to bottom, or United have a reputation for destroying musical instruments.
If you want to more directly disincentivise cancelling flights when people have booked already set a minimum payment to the affected passengers, as in the V EU.
As a frequent flyer on both airlines, I'm not sure that either of those reputations exist, at least I've never heard them. I vaguely remember some incident with a broken guitar (?) But I couldn't tell you which airline.
Internationally the rule is that you can have "slots" if your airport is busy enough. IATA classifies airports into three levels with only the busiest class 3 "Co-ordinated" airports having slots. A relatively small number of generally very globally important airports qualify, very few of them in the US - but of course these seem notable because you've heard of them. My local airport (which is a ghost town because the airline that ran most flights from there recently collapsed) does not have slots. If you had told them last year you wanted to take off and land six planes a day there they'd just say that sounds great, let us know when to expect them and where to send the bills. London Heathrow on the other hand obviously doesn't have capacity to just have you show up with six extra planes and not cause chaos.
But, the international rule doesn't say how you get slots. IATA organises conferences to discuss strategy, but it's completely legal for, say, Russia to decide that all slots in its major airports are for Russian companies. The EU has its own regulations which say if you're a EU member state with an airport that gets slots, you must meet certain EU criteria that aim to create a competitive marketplace, keep unsafe carriers out of European airspace and make everything efficient.
The UK implements those regulations through a private company because of course it does the Tories (party presently in government) love private companies, and that's what Airport Coordination Limited is for.
Anyway, the EU level regulation means you can't "just" buy more slots, you need to qualify to even be allowed them. If Big Airline A buys Small Airline B, it would not be unusual for the rules to say that too bad, the resulting company still named Big Airline A doesn't get all the resulting slots, some of them must be auctioned off to competitors.
Better yet, institute a proper carbon tax and either a carefully thought-out market for slots and/or fines.
- The collected fine will not be used to undo the damage to the market/competitors.
- The fine won't ever exceed the profits gained by the company because of the infringement. Or else the company will contest it as unfair.
That's why you read "EU fines Google with 5 billion" and Google doesn't really care. They will go through the moves of pretending they care, maybe try to shave off part of the fine, but at the end of the day, it's business as usual.
5 billion might be an acceptable loss for Google. 50 billion might not be.