This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-778T entitled 'Airline Mergers: Issues Raised by the Proposed Merger of United and Continental Airlines' which was released on May 27, 2010. This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Testimony: Before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate: United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: For Release on Delivery: Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT: Thursday, May 27, 2010: Airline Mergers: Issues Raised by the Proposed Merger of United and Continental Airlines: Statement for the Record by Susan Fleming: Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: GAO-10-778T: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-10-778T, testimony before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate. Why GAO Did This Study: Earlier this month, United Air Lines (United) and Continental Airlines (Continental) announced plans to merge the two airlines and signed a merger agreement. This follows the acquisition of Northwest Airlines by Delta Air Lines (Delta) in 2008, which propelled Delta to become the largest airline in the United States. This latest merger, if not challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ), would surpass Delta’s merger in scope to create the largest passenger airline in terms of capacity in the United States. The passenger airline industry has struggled financially over the last decade, and these two airlines believe a merger will strengthen them. However, as with any proposed merger of this magnitude, this one will be carefully examined by DOJ to determine if its potential benefits for consumers outweigh the potential negative effects. At the Committee’s request, GAO is providing a statement for the record that describes (1) an overview of the factors that are driving mergers in the industry, (2) the role of federal authorities in reviewing merger proposals, and (3) key issues associated with the proposed merger of United and Continental. To address these objectives, GAO drew from previous reports on the potential effects of the proposed merger between Delta and Northwest and the financial condition of the airline industry, and analyzed Department of Transportation (DOT) airline operating and financial data. What GAO Found: As GAO has previously reported, airlines seek to merge with or acquire other airlines to increase their profitability and financial sustainability, but must weigh these potential benefits against operational costs and challenges. The principal benefits airlines consider are cost reductions—by combining complementary assets, eliminating duplicate activities, and reducing capacity—and increased revenues from higher fares in existing markets and increased demand for more seamless travel to more destinations. Balanced against these potential benefits are operational costs of integrating workforces, aircraft fleets, and systems. DOJ’s antitrust review is a critical step in the airline merger and acquisition process. DOJ uses an integrated analytical framework set forth in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines to determine whether the merger poses any antitrust concerns. Under that process, DOJ assesses the extent of likely anticompetitive effects of reducing competition in the relevant markets—in this case, between cities or airports. DOJ further considers the likelihood that airlines entering these markets would counteract any anticompetitive effects. It also considers any efficiencies that a merger or acquisition could bring—for example, consumer benefits from an expanded route network. Finally, it examines whether one of the airlines proposing to merge would fail and its assets exit the market in the absence of a merger. One of the most important issues in this merger will be its effect on competition in the airline industry. For example, GAO’s analysis of 2009 ticket data showed that combining these airlines would result in a loss of one effective competitor (defined as having at least 5 percent of total traffic between airports) in 1,135 markets (called airport pairs) affecting almost 35 million passengers while creating a new effective competitor in 173 airport pairs affecting almost 9.5 million passengers (figure). However, in all but 10 of these airports pairs there is at least one other competitor. Figure: Change in Effective Competitors for Airport-Pair Markets from United-Continental Combination, 2009: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Change in number of competitors: 2-1; Number of competitors decreased: 10 markets. Change in number of competitors: 3-2; Number of competitors decreased: 120 markets. Change in number of competitors: 4-3; Number of competitors decreased: 454 markets. Change in number of competitors: 5-4; Number of competitors decreased: 387 markets. Change in number of competitors: 6-5; Number of competitors decreased: 143 markets. Change in number of competitors: 7-6; Number of competitors decreased: 21 markets. Change in number of competitors: 1-2; Number of competitors increased: 13 markets. Change in number of competitors: 2-3; Number of competitors increased: 61 markets. Change in number of competitors: 3-4; Number of competitors increased: 73 markets. Change in number of competitors: 4-5; Number of competitors increased: 22 markets. Change in number of competitors: 5-6; Number of competitors increased: 4 markets. Source: GAO analysis of DOT Origin and Destination Ticket Data. [End of figure] View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-778T] or key components. For more information, contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512- 2834 or flemings@gao.gov. [End of section] Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We appreciate the opportunity to provide a statement for the record on the potential implications of the merger proposal recently announced by United Air Lines (United) and Continental Airlines (Continental). Earlier this month, these two airlines announced plans for United to merge with Continental through a stock swap the airlines valued at $8 billion. This follows the acquisition of Northwest Airlines (Northwest) by Delta Air Lines (Delta) in 2008, which propelled Delta to become the largest airline in the United States. The United- Continental merger, if not challenged by the Department of Justice (DOJ), would surpass Delta's in scope to create the largest passenger airline in terms of capacity in the United States. However, as with any proposed merger of this magnitude, this one will be carefully examined by DOJ to determine if its potential benefits for consumers outweigh the potential negative effects. Extensive research and the experience of millions of Americans underscore the benefits that have flowed to most consumers from the 1978 deregulation of the airline industry, including dramatic reductions in fares and expansion of service. These benefits are largely attributable to increased competition from the entry of new airlines into the industry and established airlines into new markets. At the same time, however, airline deregulation has not benefited everyone; some communities--especially smaller communities--have suffered from relatively high airfares and a loss of service. We have been analyzing aviation competition issues since the enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.[Footnote 1] Our work over the last decade has focused on the challenges to competition and industry performance, including the financial health of the airline industry, the growth of low-cost airlines, changing business models of airlines, and prior mergers.[Footnote 2] In the airline context, DOJ has the primary responsibility to evaluate most mergers in order to carry out its antitrust responsibilities.[Footnote 3] In its review, DOJ considers a number of factors, including increases in market concentration; potential adverse effects on competition; the likelihood of new entry in affected markets and possible counteraction of anticompetitive effects that the merger may have posed; verified "merger specific" efficiencies or other competitive benefits; and whether, absent the merger, one of the airlines is likely to fail and its assets exit the market. This statement presents (1) an overview of the factors that are driving mergers in the airline industry, (2) the role of federal authorities in reviewing merger proposals, and (3) key issues associated with the proposed merger of United and Continental. This statement is based on two previously issued reports--our 2008 report for this Committee on airline mergers and our 2009 report on the financial condition of the airline industry and the various effects of the industry's contraction on passengers and communities[Footnote 4]-- as well as our other past work on aviation issues. In addition, we conducted some analysis of the proposed United and Continental merger, including analysis of the airlines' financial, labor, fleet, and market conditions. To identify the factors that help drive mergers in the airline industry, we relied on information developed for our 2008 and 2009 reports on the airline industry, updated as necessary. To describe the role of federal authorities, in particular DOJ and the Department of Transportation (DOT), in reviewing airline merger proposals we relied on information developed for our 2008 report, also updated as necessary.[Footnote 5] To identify the key issues associated with the proposed merger of United and Continental, we reviewed airline merger documents and financial analyst reports and analyzed data submitted by the airlines to DOT (Bureau of Transportation Statistics financial Form 41, origin and destination ticket, and operations data). We also analyzed airline schedule data. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted this audit work in May 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Background: On May 3, 2010, United and Continental announced an agreement to merge the two airlines. The new airline would retain the United name and headquarters in Chicago while the current Continental Chief Executive Officer would keep that title with the new airline. The proposed merger will be financed exclusively through an all-stock transaction with a combined equity value of $8 billion split roughly with 55 percent ownership to United shareholders and 45 percent to Continental shareholders. The airlines have not announced specific plans for changes in their networks or operations that would occur if the proposed merger is not challenged by DOJ. The airline industry has experienced considerable merger and acquisition activity since its early years, especially immediately following deregulation in 1978 (fig. 1 provides a timeline of mergers and acquisitions for the seven largest surviving airlines). A flurry of mergers and acquisitions during the 1980s, when Delta Air Lines and Western Airlines merged, United Airlines acquired Pan Am's Pacific routes, Northwest acquired Republic Airlines, and American Airlines and Air California merged. In 1988, merger and acquisition review authority was transferred from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to DOJ. Since 1998, despite tumultuous financial periods, fewer mergers and acquisitions have occurred. In 2001, American Airlines acquired the bankrupt airline TWA, in 2005 America West acquired US Airways while the latter was in bankruptcy, and, in October 2008, Delta acquired Northwest. Certain other attempts at merging in the last decade failed because of opposition from DOJ or from employees and creditors. For example, in 2000, an agreement was reached that allowed Northwest to acquire a 50 percent stake in Continental (with limited voting power) to resolve the antitrust suit brought by DOJ against Northwest's proposed acquisition of a controlling interest in Continental.[Footnote 6] A proposed merger of United Airlines and US Airways in 2000 also resulted in opposition from DOJ, which found that, in its view, the merger would violate antitrust laws by reducing competition, increasing air fares, and harming consumers on airline routes throughout the United States. Although DOJ expressed its intent to sue to block the transaction, the parties abandoned the transaction before a suit was filed. More recently, the 2006 proposed merger of US Airways and Delta fell apart because of opposition from Delta's pilots and some of its creditors, as well as its senior management. Figure 1: Highlights of Domestic Airline Mergers and Acquisitions: [Refer to PDF for image: illustrated timeline] Airline: Alaska; 1934: McGee Airways; 1937: Renamed Star Airlines; 1942: Renamed Alaska Airlines; 1968: Alaska Coastal-Ellis, Cordova (Acquisition or merger); 1986: Horizon Air, Jet America Airlines (Acquisition or merger). Airline: American; 1934: Other event; 1970: Trans Caribbean Airways (Acquisition or merger); 1986: Air California (Acquisition or merger); 1990: Eastern Airlines Latin American routes (Acquisition or merger); 1999: Reno Air (Acquisition or merger); 2001: TWA (Acquisition or merger). Airline: Continental; 1934: Varney Speed Lines; 1937: Renamed Continental; 1953: Pioneer Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 1968: Air Micronesia subsidiary formed; 1982: Acquired by Texas International Air (Acquisition or merger); 1986: People Express (Frontier) (Acquisition or merger); 1987: New York Air(Acquisition or merger). Airline: Delta; 1929: Other event; 1953: Chicago and Southern Air Lines (Acquisition or merger); 1972: Northeast Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 1987: Western Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 1991: Pan Am trans-atlantic routes and shuttle (Acquisition or merger); 2000: ASA and Comair (Acquisition or merger); 2008: Northwest (Acquisition or merger). Airline: Southwest; 1971: Other event; 1994: Morris Air (Acquisition or merger). Airline: United; 1934: Other event; 1962: Capital Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 1986: Pan Am Pacific routes (Acquisition or merger); 1990: Pan Am London routes (Acquisition or merger); 1991: Pan AM Latin American routes (Acquisition or merger). Airline: US Airways; 1937: All-American Airways; 1953: Renamed Allegheny Airlines; 1968: Lake Central Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 1972: Mohawk (Acquisition or merger); 1986: Empire Airlines acquired by Piedmont (Acquisition or merger); 1988: PSA (Acquisition or merger); 1988: Piedmont Airlines (Acquisition or merger); 2005: America West merger (Acquisition or merger). Sources: Cathay Financial and airline company documents. [End of figure] Since deregulation in 1978, the financial stability of the airline industry has become a considerable concern for the federal government owing, in part, to the level of financial assistance it has provided to the industry by assuming terminated pension plans and other forms of assistance. Between 1978 and 2008, there have been over 160 airline bankruptcies. While most of these bankruptcies affected small airlines that were eventually liquidated, 4 of the more recent bankruptcies (Delta, Northwest, United, and US Airways) are among the largest corporate bankruptcies ever, excluding financial services firms. During these bankruptcies, United and US Airways terminated their pension plans and $9.7 billion in claims was shifted to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PGBC).[Footnote 7] Furthermore, to respond to the shock to the industry from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the federal government provided airlines with $7.4 billion in direct assistance and authorized $1.6 billion (of $10 billion available) in loan guarantees to six airlines.[Footnote 8] Although the airline industry has experienced numerous mergers and bankruptcies since deregulation, growth of existing airlines and the entry of new airlines have contributed to a steady increase in capacity, as measured by available seat miles. Previously, we reported that although one airline may reduce capacity or leave the market, capacity returns relatively quickly.[Footnote 9] Likewise, while past mergers and acquisitions have, at least in part, sought to reduce capacity, any resulting declines in industry capacity have been short- lived, as existing airlines have expanded or new airlines have expanded. Capacity growth has slowed or declined just before and during recessions, but not as a result of large airline liquidations. Airline Mergers Are Driven by Financial and Competitive Pressures, but Challenges Exist: Volatile earnings and structural changes in the industry have spurred some airlines to explore mergers as a way to increase their profitability and financial viability. Over the last decade, the U.S. passenger airline industry has incurred more than $15 billion in operating losses. Several major airlines went through bankruptcy to reduce their costs and restructure their operations, while others ceased to operate or were acquired. Most recently, U.S. airlines responded to volatile fuel prices and then a weakening economy by cutting their capacity, reducing their fleets and workforces, and instituting new fees, but even with these actions, the airlines experienced over $5 billion in operating losses in 2008 before posting an operating profit of about $1 billion in 2009.[Footnote 10] Furthermore, over the last decade, airfares have generally declined (in real terms), owing largely to the increased presence of low-cost airlines, such as Southwest Airlines, in more markets and the shrinking dominance of a single airline in many markets. One of the primary financial benefits that airlines consider when merging with another airline is the cost reduction that may result from combining complementary assets, eliminating duplicative activities, and reducing capacity. A merger or acquisition could enable the combined airline to reduce or eliminate duplicative operating costs, such as duplicative service, labor, and operations costs--including inefficient (or redundant) hubs or routes--or to achieve operational efficiencies by integrating computer systems and similar airline fleets. Other cost savings may stem from facility consolidation, procurement savings, and working capital and balance sheet restructuring, such as renegotiating aircraft leases. Airlines may also pursue mergers or acquisitions to more efficiently manage capacity--both to reduce operating costs and to generate revenue--in their networks. Given recent economic pressures, particularly increased fuel costs, the opportunity to lower costs by reducing redundant capacity may be especially appealing to airlines seeking to merge. Experts have said that industry mergers and acquisitions could lay the foundation for more rational capacity reductions in highly competitive domestic markets and could help mitigate the significant impact that economic cycles have historically had on airline cash flow. The other primary financial benefit that airlines consider with mergers and acquisitions is the potential for increased revenues through additional demand, which may be achieved by more seamless travel to more destinations and increased market share and higher fares on some routes. * Increased demand from an expanded network: An airline may seek to merge with or acquire an airline as a way to generate greater revenues from an expanded network, which serves more city-pair markets and better serves passengers. Mergers and acquisitions may generate additional demand by providing consumers more domestic and international city-pair destinations. Airlines with expansive domestic and international networks and frequent flier benefits particularly appeal to business traffic, especially corporate accounts. Results from a recent Business Traveler Coalition (BTC) survey indicate that about 53 percent of the respondents were likely to choose a particular airline based on the extent of its route network.[Footnote 11] Therefore, airlines may use a merger or acquisition to enhance their networks and gain complementary routes, potentially giving the combined airline a stronger platform from which to compete in highly profitable markets. * Increased market share and higher fares on some routes: Capacity reductions in certain markets after a merger could also serve to generate additional revenue through increased fares on some routes. Some studies of airline mergers and acquisitions during the 1980s showed that prices were higher on some routes from the airline's hubs soon after the combination was completed.[Footnote 12] Several studies have also shown that increased airline dominance at an airport results in increased fare premiums, in part because of competitive barriers to entry.[Footnote 13] At the same time, though, even if the combined airline is able to increase prices in some markets, the increase may be transitory if other airlines enter the markets with sufficient presence to counteract the price increase. In an empirical study of airline mergers and acquisitions up to 1992, Winston and Morrison suggest that being able to raise prices or stifle competition does not play a large role in airlines' merger and acquisition decisions. [Footnote 14] Cost reductions and the opportunity to obtain increased revenue could bolster a merged airline's financial condition, enabling the airline to better compete in a highly competitive international environment. Many industry experts believe that the United States will need larger, more economically stable airlines to be able to compete with the merging and larger foreign airlines that are emerging in the global economy. The airline industry is becoming increasingly global; for example, the Open Skies agreement between the United States and the European Union became effective in March 2008.[Footnote 15] Despite these benefits, there are several potential barriers to successfully consummating a merger. The most significant operational challenges involve the integration of workforces, aircraft fleets, and information technology systems and processes, which can be difficult, disruptive, and costly as the airlines integrate.[Footnote 16] * Workforce integration: Workforce integration is often particularly challenging and expensive and involves negotiation of new labor contracts. Labor groups--including pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics--may be able to demand concessions from the merging airlines during these negotiations, several experts explained, because labor support would likely be required for a merger or acquisition to be successful. Some experts also note that labor has often opposed mergers, fearing employment or salary reductions. Obtaining agreement from each airline's pilots' union on an integrated pilot seniority list--which determines pilots' salaries, as well as what equipment they can fly--may be particularly difficult. According to some experts, as a result of these labor integration issues and the challenges of merging two work cultures, airline mergers have generally been unsuccessful. For example, although the 2005 America West-US Airways merger has been termed a successful merger by many industry observers, labor disagreements over employee seniority, and especially pilot seniority, are not fully resolved. More recently, labor integration issues derailed merger talks--albeit temporarily-- between Northwest and Delta in early 2008, when the airlines' labor unions were unable to agree on pilot seniority list integration. Furthermore, the existence of distinct corporate cultures can influence whether two firms will be able to merge their operations successfully. For example, merger discussions between United and US Airways broke down in 1995 because the employee-owners of United feared that the airlines' corporate cultures would clash. * Fleet integration: The integration of two disparate aircraft fleets may also be costly. Combining two fleets may increase costs associated with pilot training, maintenance, and spare parts. These costs may, however, be reduced after the merger by phasing out certain types of aircraft from the fleet mix. Pioneered by Southwest Airlines and copied by other low-cost airlines, simplified fleets have enabled airlines to lower costs by streamlining maintenance operations and reducing training times. If an airline can establish a simplified fleet, or "fleet commonality"--particularly by achieving an efficient scale in a particular aircraft--then many of the cost efficiencies of a merger or acquisition may be set in motion by facilitating pilot training, crew scheduling, maintenance integration, and inventory rationalization. * Information technology integration: Finally, integrating information technology processes and systems can also be problematic and time- consuming after a merger. For example, officials at US Airways told us that while some cost reductions were achieved within 3 to 6 months of its merger with America West, the integration of information technology processes took nearly 2 ˝ years. Systems integration issues are increasingly daunting as airlines attempt to integrate a complex mix of modern in-house systems, dated mainframe systems, and outsourced information technology. The US Airways-America West merger highlighted the potential challenges associated with combining reservation systems, as there were initial integration problems. The Department of Justice's Antitrust Review Is a Critical Step in the Airline Merger and Acquisition Process: DOJ's review of airline mergers and acquisitions is a key step for airlines hoping to consummate a merger. For airlines, as with other industries, DOJ uses an analytical framework set forth in the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (the Guidelines) to evaluate merger proposals. Footnote 17] In addition, DOT plays an advisory role for DOJ and, if the combination is consummated, may conduct financial and safety reviews of the combined entity under its regulatory authority. Most proposed airline mergers or acquisitions must be reviewed by DOJ as required by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. In particular, under the act, an acquisition of voting securities or assets above a set monetary amount must be reported to DOJ (or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for certain industries) so the department can determine whether the merger or acquisition poses any antitrust concerns.[Footnote 18] To analyze whether a proposed merger or acquisition raises antitrust concerns--whether the proposal will create or enhance market power or facilitate its exercise[Footnote 19]--DOJ follows an integrated five-part analytical process set forth in the Guidelines.[Footnote 20] First, DOJ defines the relevant product and geographic markets in which the companies operate and determines whether the merger is likely to significantly increase concentration in those markets. Second, DOJ examines potential adverse competitive effects of the merger, such as whether the merged entity will be able to charge higher prices or restrict output for the product or service it sells. Third, DOJ considers whether other competitors are likely to enter the affected markets and whether they would counteract any potential anticompetitive effects that the merger might have posed. Fourth, DOJ examines the verified "merger specific" efficiencies or other competitive benefits that may be generated by the merger and that cannot be obtained through any other means. Fifth, DOJ considers whether, absent the merger or acquisition, one of the firms is likely to fail, causing its assets to exit the market. The commentary to the Guidelines makes clear that DOJ does not apply the Guidelines as a step-by-step progression, but rather as an integrated approach in deciding whether the proposed merger or acquisition would create antitrust concerns. In deciding whether the proposed merger is likely anticompetitive DOJ considers the particular circumstances of the merger as it relates to the Guidelines' five-part inquiry. The greater the potential anticompetitive effects, the greater must be the offsetting verifiable efficiencies for DOJ to clear a merger. However, according to the Guidelines, efficiencies almost never justify a merger if it would create a monopoly or near monopoly. If DOJ concludes that a merged airline threatens to deprive consumers of the benefits of competitive air service, then it will seek injunctive relief in a court proceeding to block the merger from being consummated. In some cases, the parties may agree to modify the proposal to address anticompetitive concerns identified by DOJ--for example, selling airport assets or giving up slots at congested airports--in which case DOJ ordinarily files a complaint with the court along with a consent decree that embodies the agreed-upon changes. DOT conducts its own analyses of airline mergers and acquisitions. While DOJ is responsible for upholding antitrust laws, DOT conducts its own competitive analysis and provide it to DOJ in an advisory capacity. DOT reviews the merits of any airline merger or acquisition and submits its views and relevant information in its possession to DOJ. DOT also provides some essential data that DOJ uses in its review. In addition, presuming the merger moves forward after DOJ review, DOT can undertake several other reviews if the situation warrants. Before commencing operations, any new, acquired, or merged airlines must obtain separate authorizations from DOT--"economic" authority from the Office of the Secretary and "safety" authority from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Office of the Secretary is responsible for deciding whether applicants are fit, willing, and able to perform the service or provide transportation. To make this decision, the Secretary assesses whether the applicants have the managerial competence, disposition to comply with regulations, and financial resources necessary to operate a new airline. FAA is responsible for certifying that the aircraft and operations conform to the safety standards prescribed by the Administrator--for instance, that the applicants' manuals, aircraft, facilities, and personnel meet federal safety standards. Also, if a merger or other corporate transaction involves the transfer of international route authority, DOT is responsible for assessing and approving all transfers to ensure that they are consistent with the public interest.[Footnote 21] In Creating the Largest U.S. Passenger Airline, a United-Continental Merger May Face Integration Challenges and Analysis of Some Overlapping Markets: If not challenged by DOJ, the merged United-Continental would surpass Delta as the largest U.S. passenger airline. As table 1 indicates, combining United and Continental Airlines would create the largest U.S. airline based on 2009 capacity as measured by available seat miles, and a close second based on total assets and operating revenue. The combined airline would also have the largest workforce among U.S. airlines based on March 2010 employment statistics, with a combined 76,900 employees as measured by full-time-equivalent employees (table 2). The airlines' workforces are represented by various unions, and in some cases the same union represents similar employee groups, such as the union for the pilots (table 3). Finally, the combined airline would need to integrate 692 aircraft (table 4). The two airlines share some of the same aircraft types, which could make integration easier. Table 1: Total Assets, Operating Revenue, and Capacity of Major U.S. Airlines (2009): United-Continental; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 217,166,074; Total assets: $125,742,402; Total operating revenue: $28,720,624. Delta; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 197,701,800; Total assets: 195,546,148; Total operating revenue: 28,909,882. American; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 151,772,113; Total assets: 89,629,364; Total operating revenue: 19,898,245. Southwest; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 98,170,797; Total assets: 55,190,553; Total operating revenue: 10,350,338. US Airways; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 70,721,007; Total assets: 28,901,241; Total operating revenue: 10,780,838. Airtran; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 23,304,612; Total assets: 8,649,482; Total operating revenue: 2,341,442. Alaska; Capacity as measured by available seat miles (thousands): 23,148,960; Total assets: 18,045,385; Total operating revenue: 3,005,999. Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics Form 41 data. [End of table] Table 2: Full-Time-Equivalent Employees of Top U.S. Airlines (March 2010): Rank: 1; Airline: Delta; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 74.7. Rank: 2; Airline: American[A]; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 75.2. Rank: 3; Airline: United; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 43.7. Rank: 4; Airline: Southwest; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 34.6. Rank: 5; Airline: Continental; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 33.2. Rank: 6; Airline: US Airways; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 29.5. Rank: 7; Airline: JetBlue; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 11.2. Rank: 8; Airline: Alaska; Total full-time-equivalent employees (thousands): 9.2. Source: GAO analysis of Bureau of Transportation Statistics data. [A] Includes American Eagle. [End of table] Table 3: Union Representation for Various Employee Groups: United; Employee groups: Pilots: Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA); Employee groups: Flight attendants: Association of Flight Attendants (AFA); Employee groups: Mechanics: International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT); Employee groups: Public contact, ramp and stores, and other workers: International Association of Machinists (IAM); Employee groups: Dispatchers: Professional Airline Flight Control Association (PAFCA). Continental; Employee groups: Pilots: ALPA; Employee groups: Flight attendants: IAM; Employee groups: Mechanics: IBT; Employee groups: Fleet service: IBT; Employee groups: Ticket agents: Nonunion; Employee groups: Dispatchers: Transport Workers Union (TWU). Source: United Air Lines and Continental Airlines. Note: In addition, The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) represent more than 260 United engineers and related employees. [End of table] Table 4: United and Continental Aircraft Fleet: Aircraft: Boeing 737; United: [Empty]; Continental: 226; Merged: 226. Aircraft: Boeing 747; United: 24; Continental: [Empty]; Merged: 24. Aircraft: Boeing 757; United: 96; Continental: 61; Merged: 157. Aircraft: Boeing 767; United: 35; Continental: 26; Merged: 61. Aircraft: Boeing 777; United: 52; Continental: 20; Merged: 72. Aircraft: Airbus 319/320; United: 152; Continental: [Empty]; Merged: 152. Aircraft: Total; United: 359; Continental: 333; Merged: 692. Source: United Air Lines. [End of table] If not challenged by DOJ, the airlines would attempt to combine two distinct networks, United with major hubs, where the airline connects traffic feeding from smaller airports, in San Francisco (SFO), Los Angeles (LAX), Denver (DEN), Chicago O'Hare (ORD), and Washington DC Dulles (IAD) and Continental with hubs in Houston Intercontinental (IAH), Cleveland (CLE), Guam (GUM), and New York Newark (EWR), as shown in figure 2. Figure 4: United and Continental Domestic Route Maps (May 2010): [Refer to PDF for image: route maps] Route maps depict routes flown for: Continental (excluding Guam); United. Source: agpDat, Diio LLC. [End of figure] The amount of overlap in airport-pair combinations between the two airlines' networks is considerable if considering all connecting traffic; however, for most of the overlapping airport-pair markets there is at least one other competitor. Based on 2009 ticket sample data, for 13,515 airport pairs with at least 520 passengers per year, there would be a loss of one effective competitor in 1,135 airport- pair markets[Footnote 22] affecting almost 35 million passengers by merging these airlines (see fig. 3).[Footnote 23] However, only 10 of these airport-pair markets would not have any other competitors in it after a merger. In addition, any effect on fares would be dampened by the presence of a low-cost airline in 431 of the 1,135 airport pairs losing a competitor.[Footnote 24] The combination of the two airlines would also create a new effective competitor in 173 airport-pair markets affecting almost 9.5 million passengers. Figure 3: Change in Effective Competition from United-Continental Combination (2009): [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Change in number of competitors: 2-1; Number of competitors decreased: 10 markets. Change in number of competitors: 3-2; Number of competitors decreased: 120 markets. Change in number of competitors: 4-3; Number of competitors decreased: 454 markets. Change in number of competitors: 5-4; Number of competitors decreased: 387 markets. Change in number of competitors: 6-5; Number of competitors decreased: 143 markets. Change in number of competitors: 7-6; Number of competitors decreased: 21 markets. Change in number of competitors: 1-2; Number of competitors increased: 13 markets. Change in number of competitors: 2-3; Number of competitors increased: 61 markets. Change in number of competitors: 3-4; Number of competitors increased: 73 markets. Change in number of competitors: 4-5; Number of competitors increased: 22 markets. Change in number of competitors: 5-6; Number of competitors increased: 4 markets. Source: GAO analysis of DOT Origin and Destination Ticket Data. Note: All origin and destination airport pairs with at least 520 passengers. A competitor holds at least 5 percent of market share. [End of figure] In examining nonstop overlapping airport pairs between United and Continental, the extent of overlap is less than for connecting traffic. However, the loss of a competitor in these nonstop markets is also more significant because nonstop service is typically preferred by some passengers. For example, based on January 2010 traffic data, the two airlines overlap on 12 nonstop airport-pair routes, which are listed in figure 4.[Footnote 25] For 7 of these 12 nonstop overlapping airport-pair routes (generally between a United hub and a Continental hub), there are currently no other competitors. However, of these 7 airport-pair markets, all but the Cleveland-Denver market may have relevant competition between other airports in at least one of the endpoint cities. For example, passengers traveling from San Francisco (SFO) to Newark (EWR) could consider airlines serving other airports at both endpoints--Oakland or San Jose instead of SFO and John F. Kennedy (JFK) or LaGuardia instead of EWR. Figure 6: Total Passengers on Overlapping Nonstop Airport Pairs (January 2010): [Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] Route: Honolulu to Los Angeles International; American: 26% (37,034); Continental: 5% (7,116); Delta: 23% ; (32,966); Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 19% (27,495) United: 27% (36,674). Route: Denver International to George Bush Intercontinental (Houston); American: 0; Continental: 54% (49,141); Delta: 0; Frontier: 16% (14,603); Hawaiian: 0; United: 30% (27,827). Route: Newark Liberty International to O’Hare International (Chicago); American: 27% (20,598); Continental: 33% (25,538); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 40% (31,154). Route: George Bush Intercontinental (Houston) to San Francisco International; American: 0; Continental: 90% (51,549); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 10% (5,997). Route: Newark Liberty International to San Francisco International; American: 0; Continental: 74% (40,395); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 26% (14,072). Route: Cleveland to O’Hare International (Chicago); American: 30% (14,225); Continental: 23% (10,788); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 47% (22,153). Route: Denver International to Newark Liberty International; American: 0; Continental: 54% (21,297); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 46% (17,811). Route: Newark Liberty International to Dulles International (Washington DC); American: 0; Continental: 40% (6,264); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 60% (9,436). Route: Dulles International (Washington DC) to George Bush Intercontinental (Houston); American: 0; Continental: 43% (6,157); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 57% (8,166). Route: Cleveland to Denver International; American: 0; Continental: 52% (6,848); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 48% (6,374). Route: Cleveland to Dulles International (Washington DC); American: 0; Continental: 15% (1,215); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 0; United: 85% (6,844). Route: George Bush Intercontinental (Houston) to O’Hare International (Chicago); American: 13% (9,951); Continental: 64% (48,597); Delta: 0; Frontier: 0; Hawaiian: 23% (17,666); United: 0. Source: DOT T-100 data. [End of figure] If not challenged by DOJ, the combined airline could be expected to rationalize its network over time, including where it maintains hubs. Currently, the two airlines do not have much market share that overlaps at their respective hubs (see table 5). However, it is uncertain whether the combined airline would retain eight domestic hubs. There is considerable overlap between markets served by United out of Chicago (ORD) and Continental out of Cleveland (CLE). For example, 52 out of 62 domestic airports served by Continental from Cleveland are also served by United from Chicago (ORD). Table 5: Passenger Market Share at Hub Airports (2009): Continental hub airports: Houston (IAH); Continental share: 72%; United share: 5%; Total: 77%. Continental hub airports: Newark (EWR); Continental share: 68%; United share: 5%; Total: 73%. Continental hub airports: Cleveland (CLE); Continental share: 53%; United share: 6%; Total: 59%. United hub airports: Washington Dulles (IAD); United share: 51%; Continental share: 1%; Total: 52%. United hub airports: Chicago (ORD); United share: 38%; Continental share: 4%; Total: 42%. United hub airports: San Francisco (SFO); United share: 33%; Continental share: 6%; Total: 39%. United hub airports: Denver (DEN); United share: 29%; Continental share: 4%; Total: 33%. United hub airports: Los Angeles (LAX); United share: 17%; Continental share: 6%; Total: 23%. Source: GAO analysis of DOT Origin and Destination ticket data. [End of table] Both United and Continental have extensive world wide networks and serve many international destinations. Between the two airlines, over 100 international cities are served from the United States. The two airlines do not directly compete on a city-to-city route basis for any international destinations. Nevertheless, for international routes, airlines aggregate traffic from many domestic locations at a hub airport where passengers transfer onto international flights. In other words, at Newark, where Continental has a large hub, passengers traveling from many locations across the United States onto Continental's international flights. Likewise, United aggregates domestic traffic at its Washington Dulles hub for many of its international flights. Hence, a passenger traveling from, for example Nashville, may view these alternative routes to a location in Europe as substitutable. Continental and United serve many of the same international destinations in Europe and the Americas from their Newark and Dulles hubs, respectively. These destinations include Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfort, London, Montreal, Paris, Rome, Sao Paulo, and Toronto. Similarly, both airlines also serve many international destinations from their Midwest hubs--most notably United's hub at Chicago and Continental's hub at Houston. Such destinations include Amsterdam, Cancun, Edmonton, London, Paris, San Jose Cabo, Tokyo, and Vancouver. In total, according to current schedules, they serve 30 common international destinations, representing 65 percent of their total international seat capacity. Whether service to international destinations from different domestic hubs will be viewed as a competitive concern will likely depend on a host of factors, such as the two airlines' market share of traffic to that destination and whether there are any barriers to new airlines entering or existing airlines expanding service at the international destination airports. To compete internationally, both Continental and United are part of the Star Alliance, one of the three major international airline alliances.[Footnote 26] In 2009, Continental left the SkyTeam Alliance and joined the Star Alliance. As part of joining this alliance, the Star Alliance members, including Continental, applied for antitrust immunity, which allows the member airlines to coordinate schedules, capacity, and pricing in selected markets. DOT has authority to approve these antitrust immunity applications,[Footnote 27] but DOJ may also comment if it has antitrust concerns. On June 26, DOJ filed comments that objected to immunity for the alliance in some markets and requested some conditions, called carve-outs, in which the immunity would not be granted. On July 10, 2009, DOT approved the Star Alliance application for antitrust immunity but with special conditions, including carve-outs.[Footnote 28] Among the markets not granted immunity were New York-Copenhagen, New York-Lisbon, New York- Geneva, New York-Stockholm, Cleveland-Toronto, Houston-Calgary, Houston-Toronto, New York-Ottawa, and U.S.-Beijing.[Footnote 29] Contact and Acknowledgments: For further information on this testimony, please contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834. Individuals making key contributions to this statement include Paul Aussendorf (Assistant Director), Amy Abramowitz, Lauren Calhoun, Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Delwen Jones, Mitch Karpman, Heather Krause, Sara Ann Moessbauer, Dominic Nadarski, and Josh Ormond. [End of section] Related GAO Products: Airline Industry: Airline Industry Contraction Due to Volatile Fuel Prices and Falling Demand Affects Airports, Passengers, and Federal Government Revenues. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-393]. Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2009. Airline Industry: Potential Mergers and Acquisitions Driven by Financial Competitive Pressures. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-845]. Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008. Commercial Aviation: Bankruptcy and Pension Problems Are Symptoms of Underlying Structural Issues. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-945]. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2005. Commercial Aviation: Preliminary Observations on Legacy Airlines' Financial Condition, Bankruptcy, and Pension Issues. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-835T]. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2005. Airline Deregulation: Reregulating the Airline Industry Would Likely Reverse Consumer Benefits and Not Save Airline Pensions. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-630]. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2005. Private Pensions: Airline Plans' Underfunding Illustrates Broader Problems with the Defined Benefit Pension System. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-108T]. Washington, D.C.: October 7, 2004. Commercial Aviation: Legacy Airlines Must Further Reduce Costs to Restore Profitability. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-836]. Washington, D.C.: August 11, 2004. Transatlantic Aviation: Effects of Easing Restrictions on U.S.- European Markets. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-835]. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004. Commercial Aviation: Despite Industry Turmoil, Low-Cost Airlines Are Growing and Profitable. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-837T]. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2004. Commercial Aviation: Financial Condition and Industry Responses Affect Competition. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-171T]. Washington, D.C.: October 2, 2002. Commercial Aviation: Air Service Trends at Small Communities since October 2000. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-432]. Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2002. Proposed Alliance Between American Airlines and British Airways Raises Competition Concerns and Public Interest Issues. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-293R]. Washington, D.C: December 21, 2001. Aviation Competition: Issues Related to the Proposed United Airlines- US Airways Merger. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-212]. Washington, D.C: December 15, 2000. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] Pub. L. No. 95-504, 92 Stat. 1705. [2] A list of related GAO products is attached to this statement. [3] Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, an acquisition of voting securities and/or assets above a set monetary amount must be reported to DOJ (or the Federal Trade Commission for certain industries) so the department can determine whether the merger or acquisition poses any antitrust concerns. 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(1). Both DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission have antitrust enforcement authority, including reviewing proposed mergers and acquisitions. DOJ is the antitrust enforcement authority charged with reviewing proposed mergers and acquisitions in the airline industry. [4] GAO, Airline Industry: Potential Mergers and Acquisitions Driven by Financial and Competitive Pressures, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-845] (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008); and Commercial Aviation: Airline Industry Contraction Due to Volatile Fuel Prices and Falling Demand Affects Airports, Passengers, and Federal Government Revenues, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-393] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2009). [5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-845]. [6] GAO, Aviation Competition: Issues Related to the Proposed United Airlines-US Airways Merger, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-212] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 15, 2000) p. 10, footnote 6. [7] PBGC was established under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and set forth standards and requirements that apply to defined benefit plans. PBGC was established to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans and to insure the benefits of workers and retirees in defined benefit plans should plan sponsors fail to pay benefits. PGBC operations are financed, for example, by insurance premiums paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusted by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans. [8] The six airlines receiving loan guarantees were Aloha, World, Frontier, US Airways, ATA, and America West. [9] GAO, Commercial Aviation: Bankruptcy and Pensions Problems Are Symptoms of Underlying Structural Issues, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-945] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2005). [10] Collectively, U.S. airlines reduced domestic capacity, as measured by the number of seats flown, by about 12 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009. As we reported in April 2009, to reduce capacity, airlines reduced the overall number of active aircraft in their fleets by eliminating mostly older, less fuel-efficient, and smaller (50 or fewer seats) aircraft. Airlines also collectively reduced their workforces by about 38,000 full-time- equivalent positions, or about 9 percent, from the first quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2010. In addition to reducing capacity, most airlines instituted new fees, such as those for checked baggage, which resulted in $3.9 billion in added revenue during 2008 and 2009. [11] Respondents were travel managers responsible for negotiating and managing their firms' corporate accounts. [12] See Severin Borenstein, "Airline Mergers, Airport Dominance, and Market Power," American Economic Review, Vol. 80, May 1990, and Steven A. Morrison, "Airline Mergers: A Longer View," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, September 1996; and Gregory J. Werden, Andrew J. Joskow, and Richard L. Johnson, "The Effects of Mergers on Price and Output: Two Case Studies from the Airline Industry," Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 12, October 1991. [13] See Severin Borenstein, 1989, "Hubs and High Fares: Dominance and Market Power in the U.S. Airline Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, 20, 344-365; GAO, Airline Deregulation: Barriers to Entry Continue to Limit Competition in Several Key Markets, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-97-4] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 1996); GAO, Airline Competition: Effects of Airline and Market Concentration and Barriers to Entry on Airfares, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-91-101] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 16, 1991). [14] See Steven A. Morrison, and Clifford Winston, "The Remaining Role for Government Policy in the Deregulated Airline Industry." Deregulation of Network Industries: What's Next? Sam Peltzman and Clifford Winston, eds. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press, 2000 pp. 1-40. [15] Open Skies seeks to enable greater access of U.S. airlines to Europe, including expanded rights to pick up traffic in one country in Europe and carry it to another European or third country (referred to as fifth freedom rights). Additionally, the United States will expand EU airlines' rights to carry traffic from the United States to other countries. [16] Airlines also face potential challenges to mergers and acquisitions from DOJ's antitrust review, which is discussed in the next section. [17] The Guidelines were jointly developed by DOJ's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission and describe the inquiry process the two agencies follow in analyzing proposed mergers. The most current version of the Guidelines was issued in 1992; Section 4, relating to efficiencies, was revised in 1997. DOJ has proposed some changes in the Guidelines to better reflect its merger review process and the public comment period on these changes has been extended to June 4, 2010. [18] See 15 U.S.C. § 18a(d)(1). Both DOJ and FTC have antitrust enforcement authority, including reviewing proposed mergers and acquisitions. DOJ is the antitrust enforcement authority charged with reviewing proposed mergers and acquisitions in the airline industry. Additionally, under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, DOJ has 30 days after the initial filing to notify companies that intend to merge whether DOJ requires additional information for its review. If DOJ does not request additional information, the firms can close their deal (15 U.S.C. § 18a(b)). If more information is required, however, the initial 30-day waiting period is followed by a second 30-day period, which starts to run after both companies have provided the requested information. Companies often attempt to resolve DOJ competitive concerns, if possible, before the second waiting period expires. Any restructuring of a transaction--e.g., through a divestiture--is included in a consent decree entered by a court, unless the competitive problem is unilaterally fixed by the parties before the waiting period expires (called a "fix-it first"). [19] Market power is the ability to maintain prices profitably above competitive levels for a significant period of time. [20] United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Washington, D.C., rev. Apr. 8, 1997). [21] 49 U.S.C. § 41105. DOT must specifically consider the transfer of certificate authority's impact on the financial viability of the parties to the transaction and on the trade position of the United States in the international air transportation market, as well as on competition in the domestic airline industry. [22] It is generally preferable, time permitting, to assess city-pair, rather than airport-pair, changes in competition. Some larger U.S. cities (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C.) have more than one commercial airport that can compete for passenger traffic. DOJ generally considers the relevant market to be a city-pair combination. [23] For this airport-pair analysis, we considered any airport-pair market with less than 520 annual passengers to be too small to ensure accuracy. We defined an effective competitor as having at least 5 percent of total airport-pair traffic. This is the same minimum market share that we have previously applied to assess whether an airline has sufficient presence in a market to affect competition. See GAO-08-845, p. 21 and 42. [24] We defined low-cost airlines as JetBlue, Frontier/Midwest, AirTran, Allegiant, Spirit, Sun Country, and Southwest. [25] In March 2010, Continental initiated nonstop service between Los Angeles (LAX) and Kahului Airport (OGG) in Hawaii, which is also served by United. This compares to 12 nonstop overlaps (7 highly concentrated) in the Delta-Northwest merger. [26] An airline alliance is an agreement between two or more airlines to cooperate on a substantial level. The three largest passenger airline alliances are the Star Alliance, SkyTeam and Oneworld. Alliances provide a network of connectivity and convenience for international passengers. Alliances also provide a marketing brand to passengers making interairline codeshare connections within countries. [27] 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308, 41309. [28] Department of Transportation, Joint Application of Air Canada, et al., Final Order, to Amend Order 2007-2-16 under 49 U.S.C. §§ 41308, 41309, DOT-OST-2008-0234 (July 10, 2009). [29] In addition, the order modified and placed conditions on pre- existing carve outs for this alliance. [End of section] GAO's Mission: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select "E-mail Updates." Order by Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: Congressional Relations: Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, D.C. 20548: Public Affairs: Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7149: Washington, D.C. 20548: