1938年之民用航空法開始了四十年的美國客運航空事業經濟管制，該法授權民用航空局 (CAB) 對州際客運之航空事業實施經濟管制，包括經營執照之核發、航線之授權、票價之核定、投資報酬率等事項，均在CAB之嚴格管制下。該法除了對航空事業進行經濟管制之外，同時授予航空事業享有聯邦反托拉斯法之豁免權，使其行為在CAB之核准後得免於反托拉斯法之攻擊，而該法之立法理由除了保護初期航空產業之發展免於過度競爭之傷害之外，尚包括其他國家政策之目的。在CAB之管制下，航空事業所能經營之航線受到嚴格的限制，許多雙城市場航線均為獨占或寡占經營，CAB並以航線之授權達 成其補助航空事業財務狀況之目的，在此管制制度下之市場集中度相當高。此外，航空事業亦被限制進行票價競爭行為，其乃轉而進行其他項目之設備提升及航班載客量等「非價格」競爭，導致過度投資之情形並將其獲利耗盡。 CAB之管制態度並未隨著科技之進步及整體經濟的發展而有相應之調整，在其管制下之航空事業獲利能力低於未受其管制之加州及德州州內航空事業，然而平均票價卻又高於前述二州之州內航空，雖然主要航空 (trunk carrier ) 在1959年即已停止接受政府之補助而獨立經營，但CAB卻仍禁止其進行票價競爭，面對航空事業進行過度投資的非價格競爭，CAB卻又未能予以適當的規制，1976年之後由CAB自行發起之管制改革措施，仍未能將競爭全面引進航空事業，終於1978年由國會立法予以實施五年漸進式的解除管制，之後航空事業即進入全面競爭之市場結構，而反托拉斯豁免亦已不復存在。 解除管制後之航空事業經由競爭過程，票價已有預期的降低，在數家航空事業合併及破產後，其全國性的市場集中度及部份作為轉乘中心之機場，特定航空事業之占有率雖然提高，但在一般雙城市場則呈現下降，學者認為消費者實質上之選擇有所增加。此外在解除管制之後，航空事業之經營策略亦與管制下有所不同，例如轉乘中心航線網 (Hub-and-Spoke Network) 之建立、電腦訂票預售系統 (Computer Reservations System, CRS) 等新發展。雖然管制與解除管制之雙方辯論尚未停止，但一般成認為解除管制是 一個正確的選擇，而其他產業亦有參考航空事業之解除管制經驗進行各該產業解除管制之研究者。惟本文在此尚未能對其解除管制是否為一正確抉擇作論斷。

The domestic airline economic regulation began 1938 after the Congress enacted the Civil Aeronautics Act. To prevent the infant industry from excessive competition and promote the development of airline industry, the CAB was authorized not only to regulate entry the market, route authorization, and fare level, but also has the authorization to approve merger and other agreements among carriers. Although the Act did not prohibit airline competition; however, the CAB did not favor competition among carriers, especially price competition. The Act also granted antitrust exemptions for carries. Under the CAB's regulation, the market concentration in the city-apir market and in national market were very high, because the CAB did not issue any new certificates for trunk carrier from 1938 and authorize route very restricted. Most of the city-pair market were monopolistic before 1965 when the strengthen policy began. Since the carriers cannot compete in price under CAB's regulation, they shifted to compete in non-price categories, which caused excessive investment and reduced the profitability of the carriers. Compared with California and Texas intrastate airline carriers, the fare level was to high. Generally speaking, the CAB adopted an anti-competitive approach to regulate the airline industry since 1938, although it also adopted competitive regulation in some ways. The Congress enacted the Airline Deregulation At in 1978 and adopted a phase out approach to deregulate the industry. The antitrust exemptions did not exist since then and antitrust laws apply. The debates about regulation and deregulation have not yet, but it discontinued exhibits a pro-deregulation trend, because the competition did not ruin the airline industry. Deregulation experience has proven that competition could exist in airline industry, although there are some new problems. After 20 years since deregulation, the airline industry now is an oligopolistic structure and the market concentration is very high. In some airports, combined with the long-term exclusive use airport lease, the market is a monopolistic structure. Moreover, the carrier-owned-CRS now possessed some anti-competitive abilities and the DOT put the CRS under regulation. The antitrust enforcement on airline industry seems not as vigorous as on other industries. The development of airline industry is a good example to re-thinking the deregulation.