A Google Flights search has American, United and Southwest offering the exact same $523 price from Chicago to Denver. That’s creating a lot of consternation online about price-fixing. United showed the same fare across most of its schedule. American and United departed O’Hare while Southwest departed Midway.
Nobody is pricing at $522. Nobody is pricing at $599. There’s an exact match across three airlines. Surely that’s collusion!
fascinating, three different airlines have arrived at the exact same price to the penny of a trip with at least 20 variations https://t.co/6bPoWLuz5D pic.twitter.com/ezyTcz5XNa
— Oliver Renick (@OJRenick) July 9, 2026
Aviation watchdog JonNYC passes along ‘ATPCO’ as an explanation, and in fact that’s a clear part of it.
This?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATPCO
— JonNYC (@xjonnyc.bsky.social) July 13, 2026 at 4:32 AM
ATPCO is the industry clearinghouse for published domestic and international fares, rules and routings. We don’t actually know where data here is originating, since Southwest began distributing its fares on Google Flights in 2024 through a differeent partnership. Which data feed is the source for at least some of the flights isn’t known. But airlines publishing their flights in a single source does not on its own explain what’s going on.
- The Airline Tariff Publishing Company distributes a carrier’s fares, but it doesn’t set the price for a given flight or how many seats are available at each flight. An airline’s revenue management sets which booking classes are available on each flight based on remaining seats and expected demand.
- When you see an airline’s price for a trip, it’s the available fare that you’re qualifying for (based on route, date, advance purchase and routing rules) and availability at that fare, combining it with a return if roundtirp, and adding in taxes.
It turns out that competing airlines offer the same fare about half the time. Airlines are receiving ATPCO fare change feeds, and they are also checking availability through computer reservations systems, shopping airline websites and Google Flights, and using competitive pricing vendors. Each carrier knows when another one moves its prices, almost immediately.
You’d think that an airline would drop their fare by a dollar to gain market share (both because customers might choose the lower price, but also because their itinerary would usually be shown above the others with a default sort based on price).
At the same time, travelers do not buy solely on price. Schedule, airport, loyalty program, and product differences matter far more than they used to. Dropping price by $1 sacrifices revenue, and every other airline would match their price drop almost instantly. Instead, they’ll open a lower booking class only on a flight that isn’t selling.
There’s an old joke that every business always violates antitrust.
- If your prices are too low, that’s predatory pricing.
- If your prices are too high, that’s monopoly pricing power.
- If your prices are the same, that’s collusion.
However, an identical fare is not itself an antitrust violation. Independently matching a competitor’s price may be done at arms length, good for business, and good for customers.
The Department of Justice actually sued ATPCO over antitrust in the 90s, arguing that:
- airlines were filing future prices that consumers could not yet buy, repeatedly moving their effective dates while waiting for competitors to join the increases
- they were using fares to connect an airfare discount in one carrier’s hub with retaliation in another. We even used to see fare basis codes with things like ‘FU’ in them.
- US Airways even called ATPCO a “dedicated price-telegraph network.”
- DOJ claimed to have identified more than 50 price-fixing agreements.
Legendary American Airlines CEO Bob Crandall once called Braniff CEO Howard Putnam and demanded,
Raise your goddamn fares twenty percent. I’ll raise mine the next morning.
Putnam was taping the call. He said they couldn’t discuss pricing. He gave the tape to the government. Since Putnam didn’t ‘accept’ there was no agreement that violated antitrust, but Crandall agreed to clear contacts with rival airlines with his own legal counsel and keep contemporanous notes of those conversations.
Then-US Airways CEO Doug Parker complained to executives at his airline over email about a Delta triple SkyMiles promotion, growing capacity and bringing aircraft out of storage, saying it was hurting their own profitability “and unfortunately everyone else’s.” He suggested his executives portray Delta as idiots to Wall Street. And he forwarded the entire e-mail chain to Delta’s then-CEO Richard Anderson. That was an attempt at price-fixing but not an actual antitrust violation – Anderson simply forwarded the email to his airline’s general counsel.
Meanwhile, British Airways and Korean Airlines actually pled guilty to price-fixing, increasing surcharges 11-fold, and wound up paying out $300 million in fines.
Interestingly, there are times where international airlines are allowed to fix prices. The Airline Deregulation Act allowed the Department of Transportation to immunize specifically-approved international joint ventures which permits airlines to coordinate fares, schedules and capacity as though they were one airline. That’s a vestige of the regulated-era, where airline trade association and lobby group IATA used to hold price-setting conferences (an analog to the federal government setting domestic airfares at the time). That’s where the authority for joint ventures like United-Air Canada-Lufthansa Group, Delta-Air France KLM et al, American-British Airways and others comes from.
Airlines know what competitors are charging, but that doesn’t actually translate into pricing power, even when they want to tell Wall Street that it does. Just last week during Delta’s earnings call, CEO Ed Bastian claimed airfares would remain high as fuel prices dropped (thereby increasing their margins). And that’s likely true in the very short run, but unlikely true in the long run.
Delta CEO Ed Bastian on the airline's Q2 earnings call said he believes the airline's revenue momentum will “remain sustainable” even as fuel prices go down.
In other words, fare increases are here to stay unless something changes, like the economic outlook. $DAL
— Edward Russell (@ByERussell) July 10, 2026
They can’t just keep prices high. If they could, they would have been doing it before the run up in oil to begin with. Supply and demand set fares. Fuel affects fares indirectly by changing the supply airlines are willing to operate (since higher costs mean more flights lose money). When fuel rises, airlines cut marginal flights and that reduced capacity pushes prices higher.
Ultimately, airfares – inclusive of fees – have been on a long-run downward trajectory over the past five decades. There are blips up, but airlines haven’t been able to charge higher fares in real, inflation-adjusted terms, even as consolidation has meant fewer carriers. They charge the same as competitors to avoid losing sales, since the marginal cost of carrying an additional passenger once a flight is operating is near-zero.
Airfares are very public information. If my competitor is charging $5 million to implement a software package I may not have information/insight into that pricing. But an airfare is there sitting on a website for all to see.
So does it make sense for airlines to monitor other carriers’ fares through AI? Of course. Is that “price fixing.” Probably not. The CEO of AA didn’t call the CEO of UA and say let’s agree on a fare we both will charge for “x” routes.
Government as usual runs 30 years behind the reality of the world.
Yes there’s enormous collusion although at times it can be tenuous, which is why airfares aren’t sky high despite highly amoral and predatory CEOs of both United and Delta. It’s akin to a confederation of frenemies in some cartel.
That is bizarre, almost makes you think its an error in the search engine? I fly FLL-PHL several times a year, I have NEVER seen the exact same price for all flights, and it’s even rare to see AA’s or Frontier’s different departure times priced the same.
Yes, they are rigged. And, instead of doing anything about it, we’re gonna get the typical pro-industry sane-washing, shilling, cucking, and plausible-deniability-inserting, as we’re already seeing from George above.
Thank you, @Christian, for consistently being on the side of consumers.
When analysts say airlines need to “maintain discipline,” they’re talking about capacity discipline and pricing discipline.
Capacity discipline
This is the most important piece.
Airlines are constantly tempted to add more flights because every airline wants a larger share of the market. The problem is that if United, Delta, American, Southwest and others all add flights simultaneously, the industry ends up with too many seats chasing the same number of passengers.
Once that happens:
Airlines begin discounting fares.
Competitors match those discounts.
A fare war develops.
Profit margins collapse.
This happened repeatedly in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s.
Think of it this way:
100 passengers need to travel.
Airlines collectively offer 105 seats.
Fares stay high because most seats fill.
But if airlines offer 140 seats?
Suddenly they’re competing to fill empty airplanes, and ticket prices fall rapidly.
An empty airline seat disappears forever once the plane departs. It’s like a hotel room that can’t be sold tomorrow.
Pricing discipline
Suppose United raises fares.
If Delta immediately undercuts them by $25, United often has to match.
If Delta, United and American all resist the urge to slash prices, fares remain elevated.
Nobody is colluding—that would be illegal. Rather, each airline independently recognizes that aggressively chasing market share can reduce profits for everyone.
Why investors liked what they heard
Last week, several airlines indicated demand remains healthy but, more importantly, they suggested they are not planning aggressive capacity expansion.
That tells Wall Street:
supply won’t grow much,
demand remains solid,
ticket prices should remain firm,
operating margins could stay high.
For airlines, that’s an excellent combination.
Why this matters more today than 20 years ago
The U.S. airline industry has consolidated dramatically.
Instead of a dozen major carriers battling one another, you now have a handful of dominant players.
That makes it easier for management teams to focus on return on invested capital rather than simply growing for growth’s sake.
Today’s executives are much more willing to say:
“We’ll fly fewer routes if it means making more money.”
Investors generally reward that mindset.
A simple analogy
Imagine there are only three hotels in town.
If each keeps occupancy around 90%, room rates can stay at $300 per night.
But if all three suddenly build hundreds of additional rooms, occupancy drops to 60%.
Now they’re advertising:
“$199 tonight!”
“Free breakfast!”
“Kids stay free!”
Revenue per room falls, even though there are more rooms available.
Airlines work the same way, except their “rooms” disappear forever once the plane takes off.
This is one reason you saw strong moves in UAL and DAL. Investors weren’t just reacting to good quarterly results—they were reacting to management commentary that suggested the industry has learned from decades of destructive fare wars. If carriers truly keep capacity growth modest while travel demand remains healthy, earnings can stay elevated for much longer than the market used to expect.
Phrase it any way you wish, but his is anti-competitive behavior, and one more huge argument against any further consolidation or merger approval in this industry, not to mention an equally huge argument in favor of the legitimate prosecution of the industry executives engaging in it.
Good luck seeing it actually happen, though!
Yikes, ChatGPT in the comments. But yes. The carriers price war but also price-fix on things like walk up fares. Frontier, what was formerly Spirit, and the smaller carriers like Avelo/Breeze/Allegiant/Southwest sometimes break the mold but they have defects such as no carry on bag or less-preferred airports. More often than not, though, Southwest will dutifully follow in price as if their flight is originating from the other airport and share the same fare as the legacy carriers.
If a carrier has a fare sale or wants to get into a price war with another airline, prices fall and consumers win, but the airline makes less money. If they have no sales going on or there’s a capacity squeeze or a reason to keep the fare high (e.g: holiday or work conference), prices will be the same.
Yes, fares are rigged. And this is how it should be. We need a return to the CAB era of price fixing so that airlines can go back to competing on service. Yes, airfare will be higher. Do I care? No. I’d prefer that trailer trash be driven back to driving, Greyhound, or staycations to clean up our airports.
You know what will be better? Airport congestion as airlies can decrease frequency due to lesser numbers of passengers (because the trailer trash will be gone). Better airports, better airspace, better flights as FAs become stewardesses again and realize that their job depends on service.
Revive the United Businessman’s Special and I can die happy.
As usual people blab out Pocahontas like statements. They are clueless to what price collusion is. If AI tells AA revenue management that UA is selling ORD/LAX for $150 one way and AA revenue matches that pricing that is not price collusion. That’s being competitive. And that can be up or down.
Maybe 1990 is very happy to take a pay cut so people can have free stuff.
I’m a former revenue/sales exec with an airline. This is all AI now. Airlines have both yield & inventory tools working in tandem that will screen-scrape or monitor other airline fares and automatically adjust the fare or inventory to match at every level, anytime, within certain parameters.
In the old days, we had to just monitor the GDS and check pricing to see who did what at the lastest ATP uploads and file away to match. Now its mostly all automated.
A-I greed at it’s finest
Oh my gosh. These terrible US airlines are arriving at the same historically low (adjusted for inflation) airfares that don’t even cover the costs to fly the flights. Oh yes, any politician who truly loved us would force this to change, and we could get historical ridiculously low fares and we’d only have to deal with worse service before it forced a cascade of bankruptcies.
@George Romey — Keep carrying water for multinational billion-dollar companies while they rob us all blind, yourself included, with this deceptive tactics. (Also, let’s be clear, demanding fair practices isn’t ‘seizing the means of…’ oh, let’s say, Wawa.)
Can’t be the first time you’ve noticed? Nothing to do with AI. Its a legal monopoly when you are allowed to “merge” down to 4 “majors” that don’t serve every market so more likely 3. Southwest was an idiot for being different and took an anvil to the head before coming into the fold…
I started serious business travel in 1997. Monday to Friday, LGA to DFW. $1514, no way around it, only way was to purchase “economy” fully refundable full fare. Delta match AA and AA matched Delta. 12 solid months.
@George Romey – When you say “As usual people blab out Pocahontas like statements.” I can’t figure if you’re claiming to be a couple of hundred years old, even if that would explain your views or if you’re being both a racist and a fascist. Which is it?
No one seems to be focused in the elephant in the room. Spirit isn’t with us anymore
Seventy-five percent of all USA flights are controlled by the Big Four. Southwest lost its independence many years ago; way before Elliott Investment came into the picture. Alaska/Hawaiian (TATL service) and JetBlue (Mini-Mint) mimic their big brothers as of late.
With Spirit out of the picture, only Breeze, Frontier, Avelo, and Allegiant are left to duke it out in the ULLC field. However, each has such eccentric business models, they fail to appeal to a broad customer base.
By default, the bulk of PAX look for convenience (non stops, closest airport). The only variance in price is the time of day of travel. Frequent Flier programs have turned into Fool’s Gold chasing points at any cost.
Fares will only go down when PAX pause their spending like during a recession or Covid II. The big fourwill respond in kind, but the reduced fares will still be equal to one another.
A no win situation
@Brad Whitford, @Christian, @BBK — You each said very different things, and you’re each right. Thank you.
@Exit Row Seat — You’re right, too. I know I’m cutting back second half of this year, and next year’s looking bleak. Probably not alone. Demand will fall. “Winter is coming…”
@1990, we dont get winter in Panama.
come enjoy a drink on the beach here and watch 5% of the world’s economy sail.past you….
@haolenate — Ah, yes. I remember. There’s just ‘wet’ season (which can also be dry) and ‘dry’ season (which can also be wet). Also, there’s a nice viewing platform at the Miraflores Locks.
@ John Rouse, please no more ChatGPT generated comments. This website is not Airline Management 101 for most readers. Everything Chat wrote could have been effectively stated in your last paragraph. Take a page from 1990’s recently evolved posting style, BREVITY.
It’s as rigged as the recent LA mayor election.
When one airline drops, the others follow. And vice versa.
I am continually astonished at the logic bubble that airline groupies exhibit. Why is this any different than competing has stations have for price of gallon of gas being same, or retailers price matching competitors? Why is ordained that airlines are to operate under different principles than other industries?
On a few occasions I had AA price matching Allegiant on certain overlapping routes. AA created a special economy code with restrictions in that code to match it to Allegiant biz model.
I didn’t any of the majors would match a ULCC but there it was.
@One Trippe — LOL. So, you DO care!