Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5604071/

Topic: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: usairways787
Posted 2012-11-04 18:53:02 and read 3102 times.

Before we get into this, this is something that a lot of guys and I work with were discussing. I'd like to point out these were just some points, and opinions we all shared, and it brought me to a lot more questions than answers. I did do a lazy search, and didn't find any conclusive recent topics.

Over the last decade the industry has faced more hurdles, and issues, than ever before. We've seen every single major U.S. Carrier file bankruptcy, consolidate, and cut work force by astronomical amounts. We've seen service standards decline, leadership fall, airlines just all out collapse, which brought me to one major question. Why not re-regulate the industry, and try to avoid much of the predicament we're in? Haven't more airlines come and gone after deregulation than ever before? How many more would it take for it to be seriously considered?

I will say recently things have started to turn around, however...with the recent mergers, acquisitions, reducing frequencies, smaller cities losing service, supersizing it would seem as if airlines are now the monoply, which would contradict the whole entire point of deregulation.

Which brings me to my next question, what would be the pluses of regulation, and what would be the cons? A lot of regulated industries, the railroad for example seem to be doing extremely well with regulation. I as a young employee have heard how much better it was back in the day, how good the benefits were, etc.

Like I said, there were merely opinions, and just breakroom talk, which brought up my curiosities.

US787

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-04 19:00:30 and read 3098 times.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
A lot of regulated industries, the railroad for example seem to be doing extremely well with regulation.

Umm . . . Amtrak?

There are actually a lot of similarities. A few really big railroads (UP, BNSF, NS) dominate US traffic. The difference is that they make money doing it.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
supersizing it would seem as if airlines are now the monoply, which would contradict the whole entire point of deregulation.

If consolidation is the problem, can't that be solved (or couldn't that have been solved) with different antitrust choices by the government rather than reregulation?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-04 19:02:22 and read 3083 times.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
Why not re-regulate the industry, and try to avoid much of the predicament we're in?

It doesn't avoid anything. The industry has never been safer and fares have never been lower.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
what would be the pluses of regulation,

Gravy train for airline employees and stockholders.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
and what would be the cons?

For passengers, basically everything would get worse.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
If consolidation is the problem,

It appears that consolidation is actually part of the solution rather than the problem.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: DCA2011
Posted 2012-11-04 19:07:01 and read 3069 times.

I'd suspect the biggest con would be the sheer politics of trying to get the airlines re-regulated. Any congressman who suggested it would be decried as a socialist, and frankly it would be political suicide.   

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-04 19:10:00 and read 3057 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
It appears that consolidation is actually part of the solution rather than the problem.

. . . if the sole goal is for airlines to make money. But the talk of re-regulation presupposes that other things, like service to smaller markets, affordable fares or safety are also important, does it not?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: silentbob
Posted 2012-11-04 20:29:29 and read 2902 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
For passengers, basically everything would get worse.

No, fares would go up and that's just about all that would be a negative. Carriers would have to compete on service instead of just trying to be cheaper.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-04 20:36:44 and read 2886 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
like service to smaller markets

Somebody's going to have to pay for that.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
affordable fares or safety

Safety has gotten higher and fares have gotten lower since deregulation.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-04 20:41:28 and read 2871 times.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
Why not re-regulate the industry, and try to avoid much of the predicament we're in?

I know we're supposed to keep politics out of this forum, but your entire topic is about politics, so let me put it this way: To re-regulate the industry would be to accept that government bureaucrats know more about the airline industry than those actually in the airline industry.

If you believe "government knows better" than you would be for re-regulation. I'm of the opinion that practically everything the Federal government of the USA gets involved in ends up much worse than if they had just stayed out of it to begin with.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-04 20:44:19 and read 2864 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 5):
Carriers would have to compete on service instead of just trying to be cheaper.

Passengers have been pretty clear that they are interested in price rather than service for coach class travel. They want cheap, airlines haven't cut service just because they felt like it. Hell, the legacies held out so long that it almost killed them, but now their service levels are virtually identical to airlines like Southwest. Coach class travel has become like gasoline.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Mcoov
Posted 2012-11-04 21:19:25 and read 2809 times.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
A lot of regulated industries, the railroad for example seem to be doing extremely well with regulation.

The railroads are not regulated, and have not been since 1980. In fact, regulation proved detrimental to the railroad industry between 1953 and 1980, as it prevented them from responding to changes in transport economics, such as the rise of the airlines, trucks, and the automobile. There are several books and films that cover this, mostly focusing on the Penn Central system and the creation of Amtrak in 1971 and Conrail in 1976.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-04 23:12:41 and read 2664 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 7):
To re-regulate the industry would be to accept that government bureaucrats know more about the airline industry than those actually in the airline industry.

A very narrow-minded point of view. Any "government bureaucrat" would naturally be part of the airline industry. The main difference is that their goal would not be to maximize benefits for an individual airline.

Even so, no I do not want the return of regulation.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 7):
If you believe "government knows better" than you would be for re-regulation. I'm of the opinion that practically everything the Federal government of the USA gets involved in ends up much worse than if they had just stayed out of it to begin with.

As the OP states the US airline industry has not shown to be very adept and the government have had to go in and clean up after them over and over again.

There was a time when industries had practically free rain and it wasn't very successful. Government involvement is the result of those failures. If we stopped preventing government involvement on ideology we would also see it much more efficient and be able to have a proper balance between industry and public interest.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 05:16:50 and read 2472 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
Safety has gotten higher and fares have gotten lower since deregulation.

On safety, correlation doesn't indicate causation.

Cars have gotten much safer in the same time period too.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-11-05 05:37:36 and read 2473 times.

What is needed is more deregulation. Deregulation of airports (along with their privatization), and ATC. Seems like the rest of the world is already on this path.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
I will say recently things have started to turn around, however...with the recent mergers, acquisitions, reducing frequencies, smaller cities losing service, supersizing it would seem as if airlines are now the monoply, which would contradict the whole entire point of deregulation.

There is lots and lots of competition. Just because M&As are happening doesn't mean this isn't a highly competitive industry. There was too much competition, and now we have a more balanced scenario which is rebalancing the bargaining power between consumers (the pax) and producers (the airlines). This was out of wack, with consumers having too much power, which is partly why airlines were doing so poorly.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
A lot of regulated industries, the railroad for example seem to be doing extremely well with regulation.

Railroads were deregulated along with the airlines. They were nearly all bankrupt before they were deregulated. Pax railroads did not survive regulation. I'd say railroads are far less regulated than airlines now, actually, because they own and operate their own infrastructure, unlike the airlines.

[Edited 2012-11-05 05:42:20]

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: EaglePower83
Posted 2012-11-05 06:00:42 and read 2472 times.

Slightly off topic;
It's probably in our interest to not re-regulate the industry unless there's some sort of emergency, and I don't think we're there just yet. Who knows, maybe the airlines will actually figure this out on their own?
It's no secret this industry is incredibly important to our world-commerce, and until that's under threat (I don't see it yet), then a deregulated industry is probably best.

But on the topic of "everything government touches is terrible" has always puzzled me.
It's my (possibly young, naieve idealist point of view) that government is representative of US.
We have a gift from our founding fathers that we ARE the government and have an opportunity to tailor it to our needs.
It just seems like we elect maybe not the best people for the job.
And if we could possibly elect the appropriate leades (whoever that may be), maybe they could appoint the properly skilled private citizens for the proper beaureau.
Example being an actual experienced emergency responder to head FEMA, or perhapse an airline ops exectutive to head the Airline industry if we ever venture down the road of regulation again.

Sincere apologies if this post is TOO politicial and I urge the moderators to do with it as they see fit.

-JB

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Aither
Posted 2012-11-05 06:08:00 and read 2474 times.

Chinese & Indian airlines are not doing better in their heavily regulated markets.

The industry has lost tons of money trying to figure out how to fight LCCs or new world carriers (middle east). Not sure all the answers were correct (Eg. increasing service/frequencies at any cost to grab a few points of market shares).

After these massive disruptions change is coming. But change is costly. Maybe now we are seeing the end of the tunnel with network carriers now focusing on the feeding, LCCs focusing on the regional point to point while on the long haul huge consolidations are going on, with mega airlines having more balanced operations per big regions of the world.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyPeoria
Posted 2012-11-05 06:16:28 and read 2473 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 13):
We have a gift from our founding fathers that we ARE the government and have an opportunity to tailor it to our needs.

If we are the government, then we govern ourselves without Washington's involvement.

Railroad and airline deregulation are similar in that they gave transportation providers pricing power. Prior to the October 1980 Staggers Act, railroads had to go to the Interstate Commerce Commission for rate changes. The federal agency generally kept rates equalized between origin and destination regardless whether shipments moved in single line (one railroad) or interline (multiple railroads).

It's my understanding that the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) pretty much had to same power over airline fares. Airlines interlined. i. e. reservationists created joint fares for passengers. Deregulation, code-sharing and frequent flyer programs allowed airlines to keep passengers from origin to destination.

In both cases, economies of scale was used to create more efficiency. Railroads used their pricing power to reduce interchange points. Airlines (at least) tend to using pricing to route passengers through hubs and discourage short-hauls.

[Edited 2012-11-05 06:29:23]

[Edited 2012-11-05 06:30:18]

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: HPRamper
Posted 2012-11-05 09:02:21 and read 2473 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
It doesn't avoid anything. The industry has never been safer and fares have never been lower.

Fares have been on the rise for years. Maybe we aren't at regulation levels, but I could fly transcon round trip for 250 bucks on a legacy carrier back in oh, 2003 or 2004. That has risen a lot faster than inflation. Now you are doing well to find a ticket for half that distance for the same price.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: JONC777
Posted 2012-11-05 09:49:56 and read 2474 times.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 16):

Hmmm there still out there friend paid $136 ow from bdl to sfo for travel in december, and thats after taxes.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 09:55:19 and read 2473 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
A very narrow-minded point of view. Any "government bureaucrat" would naturally be part of the airline industry. The main difference is that their goal would not be to maximize benefits for an individual airline.

No, a very realistic point of view. The bureaucrats that will be churning out thousands of pages of regulations, and the bureaucrats that will be applying these regulations will not be a part of the airline industry. They'll just be lawyers and office workers that could just as easily be regulating milk production.

The election tomorrow is really all about this in a broad sense. We have one candidate whose position is that government should play more of a role in the lives of the citizens and the operations of businesses and another candidate whose position is the opposite.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):

As the OP states the US airline industry has not shown to be very adept and the government have had to go in and clean up after them over and over again.

The government hasn't had to go in at all. The government chose to go in. If the government had not, the thinning of the herd would have occurred sooner and more naturally.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 13):

But on the topic of "everything government touches is terrible" has always puzzled me.
It's my (possibly young, naieve idealist point of view) that government is representative of US.
We have a gift from our founding fathers that we ARE the government and have an opportunity to tailor it to our needs.
It just seems like we elect maybe not the best people for the job.
And if we could possibly elect the appropriate leades (whoever that may be), maybe they could appoint the properly skilled private citizens for the proper beaureau.
Example being an actual experienced emergency responder to head FEMA, o

Well, I don't know how old you are and I don't want to make this personal at all.  

You're right - we don't elect the best people, primarily because the best people wouldn't want to subject themselves to the lies / smears / etc that go along with any campaign. Nobody in their right mind would want to go through all that!  

So what we're left with is not at all the cream of the crop as our elected officials, and then they appoint their cronies to head the various agencies in the bureaucracy who then hire people with no particular expertise in the agency's area to implement the regulations formulated by the higher ups.

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 15):

If we are the government, then we govern ourselves without Washington's involvement.

Agree 1000000%

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: LH707330
Posted 2012-11-05 10:25:57 and read 2474 times.

It might be argued that the US airline industry still has too much government interference. I think safety regs are a good thing, but as far as market forces go, the government should let it be. If we let all the legacy dinosaurs implode in the early 2000s after their market-share binge of the 90s and be replaced by leaner carriers, we'd probably be paying lower fares today. Creative destruction (and good bankruptcy laws) is one of the reasons the US has such a dynamic economy, let's not get rid of it....

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-05 10:39:09 and read 2474 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
No, a very realistic point of view. The bureaucrats that will be churning out thousands of pages of regulations, and the bureaucrats that will be applying these regulations will not be a part of the airline industry. They'll just be lawyers and office workers that could just as easily be regulating milk production.

You get the government you create. Allow them to be efficient and they will.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
The election tomorrow is really all about this in a broad sense. We have one candidate whose position is that government should play more of a role in the lives of the citizens and the operations of businesses and another candidate whose position is the opposite.

Only because too many people are binary. Reality is that there is a large area inbetween.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 18):
The government hasn't had to go in at all. The government chose to go in. If the government had not, the thinning of the herd would have occurred sooner and more naturally.

Right, who had to take over all the pensions?

[Edited 2012-11-05 11:27:36]

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: PPVRA
Posted 2012-11-05 10:41:45 and read 2471 times.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 16):
Fares have been on the rise for years. Maybe we aren't at regulation levels, but I could fly transcon round trip for 250 bucks on a legacy carrier back in oh, 2003 or 2004. That has risen a lot faster than inflation. Now you are doing well to find a ticket for half that distance for the same price.

As mentioned, it's due to oil prices. And the inflation rate does not include oil prices anymore (nor food or other basic materials).

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-05 10:42:27 and read 2473 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
On safety, correlation doesn't indicate causation.

No, but it means you can't play the "increase regulation, increase safety" card.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 16):
Maybe we aren't at regulation levels, but I could fly transcon round trip for 250 bucks on a legacy carrier back in oh, 2003 or 2004.

...and the airline lost money on it. So do you expect taxpayers to subsidize your cheap airfares? Especially considering those who also clamor for better service, despite the fact that few passengers seem willing to pay for it.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 10:54:42 and read 2475 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
but it means you can't play the "increase regulation, increase safety" card.

Why not? Certainly, in other industries, we have seen it.

You can't argue with a straight face that things like electronic stability control in cars decrease safety.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 11:07:43 and read 2471 times.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 19):
as far as market forces go, the government should let it be. If we let all the legacy dinosaurs implode in the early 2000s after their market-share binge of the 90s and be replaced by leaner carriers, we'd probably be paying lower fares today. Creative destruction (and good bankruptcy laws) is one of the reasons the US has such a dynamic economy, let's not get rid of it....

Yep.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
You get the government you create. Alloow them to be efficient and they will.

We don't "allow" the Federal government to be anything. The Federal government has become this entity that operates by its own rules and isn't accountable to anybody (not even itself).

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Right, who had to take over all the pensions?

Nobody "had" to do anything.

I understand your point of view. I just don't happen to agree with it.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: apodino
Posted 2012-11-05 11:12:27 and read 2639 times.

I think part of the problem is that the airlines need to do a better job of educating the public on the true cost of transporting them. I think the public has a right to know how the airlines keep costs down and if they are cutting corners on safety with outsourcing and all that. Of course, they keep this close to the vest, because of PR reasons. I have always believed honesty goes a lot further even if it sounds bad, than trying to cover up the bad.

One thing I would propose though would be an ATC system that functions like Nav Canada does. My proposal would be for some of it to be funded by the FAA, some by the military, with the remainder by the Airlines and NBAA. But instead of the system being run entirely by the FAA, you give Airlines and GA some input into it. Because right now, most of the ATC decisions are not made by the Airlines, or in their interests, and I think if the people who actually used the system are involved in a lot of the input on how it works, the modernization would go a lot quicker because it would be less bureaucratic, and the system would function better overall. Of course, the Unions would fight this tooth and nail, and I suspect democratic politicians would as well.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: us330
Posted 2012-11-05 11:26:47 and read 2638 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 5):
No, fares would go up and that's just about all that would be a negative. Carriers would have to compete on service instead of just trying to be cheaper.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
Passengers have been pretty clear that they are interested in price rather than service for coach class travel. They want cheap, airlines haven't cut service just because they felt like it

In the U.S., it's pretty clear what the passengers want--cheap fares. Airlines have tried to get pax to pay a premium for better service (remember AA's MRTC?), but have ultimately discontinued it.

Reregulation should only be done if the industry is unable to fulfill its ultimate mission: getting passengers safely from point a to point b. The only instance where I could foresee the govt coming in and deciding to reregulate the airlines is if safety or maintenance standards decrease to such a level where the airlines can demonstrate that the fares they are forced to charge because of the market are unable to cover the cost of necessary maintenance and other safety/security measures.

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 16):
Fares have been on the rise for years. Maybe we aren't at regulation levels, but I could fly transcon round trip for 250 bucks on a legacy carrier back in oh, 2003 or 2004. That has risen a lot faster than inflation

Oil prices, and diminished capacity means fewer seats=less supply.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-05 11:35:33 and read 2686 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 24):
We don't "allow" the Federal government to be anything. The Federal government has become this entity that operates by its own rules and isn't accountable to anybody (not even itself).

Pft, that is just excuses for not dealing with the problems there are.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 24):
Nobody "had" to do anything.

Philosophically, maybe. In reality, they had to.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 24):
I understand your point of view. I just don't happen to agree with it.

The question is on what grounds you disagree, Who do you think will take care of all the unemployed people? Or do you suggest they should sleep under bridges and rely on food kitchens?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-05 11:48:08 and read 2672 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
Why not? Certainly, in other industries, we have seen it.

Safety of the aviation industry has gotten better since deregulation, not worse. How can anyone argue that increased regulation will increase safety? Decreased regulation doesn't mean better safety, but we know that more regulation doesn't lead to better safety.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
You can't argue with a straight face that things like electronic stability control in cars decrease safety.

You should also look at what direction the price of new cars has been going.

Quoting us330 (Reply 26):
The only instance where I could foresee the govt coming in and deciding to reregulate the airlines is if safety or maintenance standards decrease to such a level where the airlines can demonstrate that the fares they are forced to charge because of the market are unable to cover the cost of necessary maintenance and other safety/security measures.

The only thing the government should be regulating is safety. How airlines pay for the mandatory safety measures is their business.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 11:49:39 and read 2684 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Pft, that is just excuses for not dealing with the problems there are.

OK, go ahead and write your Congressional Rep and your two Senators and ask them to fix a problem (I'll let you pick which one - there's so many). Or better yet, why don't you go to DC and personally demand that they fix a problem (again, I'll let you pick which one).

I really don't want to come out and say your comment is silly, but....

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Philosophically, maybe. In reality, they had to.

No, they didn't. But I understand your point of view that the government had to intervene.

Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
The question is on what grounds you disagree, Who do you think will take care of all the unemployed people? Or do you suggest they should sleep under bridges and rely on food kitchens?

Let's just leave it at this point OK. Because now you're headed way outside the realm of this forum. People reading our exchange have been presented with sufficient info supporting my point of view, and sufficient info supporting your point of view. We'll let them make up their own minds.  

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Capt.Fantastic
Posted 2012-11-05 11:50:16 and read 2673 times.

How do the lost jobs and lost service factor into this equation? After mergers, airlines often dismantle hubs or substantially cut service. In some instances, local communities are hung out to dry, e.g. what AA did in St. Louis. Are there stipulations to mergers and acquisitions that can protect employees and infrastructure? I am not for re-regulation; however, after recent mega-mergers, it seems the prevailing airlines become garden variety corporations with very little distinguishing one from the other: Put simply, Delta has lost its Southern charm and United is no longer "the friendly skies".

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 11:57:09 and read 2673 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
How can anyone argue that increased regulation will increase safety?

This isn't a difficult question. The government can impose rules that airlines are unwilling to impose because of how much they cost, exactly like what has happened in the auto industry.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
but we know that more regulation doesn't lead to better safety.

How do we know that?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: zckls04
Posted 2012-11-05 12:01:52 and read 2663 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
Safety of the aviation industry has gotten better since deregulation, not worse. How can anyone argue that increased regulation will increase safety? Decreased regulation doesn't mean better safety, but we know that more regulation doesn't lead to better safety.

As mentioned before, correlation does not imply causation. If all other factors are equal, decreased regulation could mean worse safety, even if in over the last several years another factor has compensated for this (e.g. greater experience in the possible causes of crashes, advanced technology etc).

Sometimes you can have two or more factors effecting changes to a measurable statistic. This is why we do controls in scientific experiments- to ensure we are only examining the effect of one of them.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-05 12:09:06 and read 2662 times.

Quoting Capt.Fantastic (Reply 30):
How do the lost jobs and lost service factor into this equation?

You don't.

Quoting Capt.Fantastic (Reply 30):
In some instances, local communities are hung out to dry, e.g. what AA did in St. Louis.

They weren't hung out to dry. They had services that they could not support. Without high fares due to regulation to subsidize otherwise loss-making flights, they couldn't hang around. If people in St. Louis or anywhere else need to travel so much, airlines will take care of them.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 31):
The government can impose rules that airlines are unwilling to impose because of how much they cost, exactly like what has happened in the auto industry.

But how would these rules actually enhance safety in what is already a very safe industry? And who is willing to pay for it?

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 32):
Sometimes you can have two or more factors effecting changes to a measurable statistic. This is why we do controls in scientific experiments- to ensure we are only examining the effect of one of them.

So what evidence is there to indicate that increasing regulation will increase safety? What specific safety enhancements are airlines not implementing due to cost that should be mandated by the government? (And this ignores the fact that for a deregulated industry, airlines are tightly regulated)

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 12:14:11 and read 2673 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
But how would these rules actually enhance safety in what is already a very safe industry?

Technology could have prevented the OH accident in LEX. A more robust crew rest policy (and/or more experience) might have prevented the 9L accident in BUF. It's rare to read an NTSB aviation accident report and not see recommendations for rulemaking addressed to FAA and/or recommendations to the involved carrier that could also be imposed by FAA via rulemaking.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
So what evidence is there to indicate that increasing regulation will increase safety?

Has TCAS increased safety?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-05 12:20:08 and read 2663 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 34):
It's rare to read an NTSB aviation accident report and not see recommendations for rulemaking addressed to FAA and/or recommendations to the involved carrier that could also be imposed by FAA via rulemaking.

Just because the NTSB wants something doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do. They're just one voice, but it's also necessary to listen to the voices of those who have to pay for it. Either way, regulators already have the power to implement safety related regulation - they don't need further price controls to do that.

We don't need regulation on prices and routes to be safe.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 12:29:04 and read 2660 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
We don't need regulation on prices and routes to be safe.

I haven't argued otherwise, though reducing frequencies at some busy airports might arguably increase safety. I was simply addressing the point that regulation (in general) cannot enhance safety, which is nonsense.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-05 12:30:49 and read 2664 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 7):
I'm of the opinion that practically everything the Federal government of the USA gets involved in ends up much worse than if they had just stayed out of it to begin with.

Amen to that.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 13):
It just seems like we elect maybe not the best people for the job.
And if we could possibly elect the appropriate leades (whoever that may be), maybe they could appoint the properly skilled private citizens for the proper beaureau.

Exactly. And good luck with the second sentence.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: yeelep
Posted 2012-11-05 13:14:46 and read 2640 times.

The whole argument about safety being affected one way or the other by deregulation is silly. The safety aspect of the airlines was never deregulated, its arguably more regulated today than ever before.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-05 13:16:58 and read 2640 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
You can't argue with a straight face that things like electronic stability control in cars decrease safety.

No, you can't, BUT, I don't believe that this is a government mandated feature, either.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-05 13:18:14 and read 2641 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 29):
I really don't want to come out and say your comment is silly, but....

I call a spade a spade. Your comment is silly.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 29):
sufficient info supporting my point of view

You make a statement and then run away. If the statement isn't worth defending, then don't make it.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: zckls04
Posted 2012-11-05 13:22:32 and read 2638 times.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33):
So what evidence is there to indicate that increasing regulation will increase safety? What specific safety enhancements are airlines not implementing due to cost that should be mandated by the government? (And this ignores the fact that for a deregulated industry, airlines are tightly regulated)

There may be no evidence at all- I'm merely pointing out the deductive flaws in the text I quoted. It could be that deregulation has been wonderful for safety, but the increase in aviation safety since deregulation is not evidence for it.

Personally, I think the current state of affairs is far better for the consumer than the previous regulated model, since safety is regulated anyway. Price and route regulation just means those living near a major airport are subsidizing those who aren't.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Polot
Posted 2012-11-05 13:31:16 and read 2636 times.

Quoting yeelep (Reply 38):
The whole argument about safety being affected one way or the other by deregulation is silly. The safety aspect of the airlines was never deregulated, its arguably more regulated today than ever before.

   Just because the government regulates things doesn't mean that rules that the airlines don't want will suddenly be implemented. Airline lobbyist won't go away if things were reregulated, in fact they would probably grow.

Quoting mayor (Reply 39):
No, you can't, BUT, I don't believe that this is a government mandated feature, either.

It is required as of the 2012 MY.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 14:10:32 and read 2636 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
I call a spade a spade. Your comment is silly.

OK.

Quoting cmf (Reply 40):
You make a statement and then run away. If the statement isn't worth defending, then don't make it.

No, I'm not running away. I am being exceedingly sensitive to the fact that this is NOT a political forum and the moderators don't take kindly to political battles being fought here. In addition, they don't take kindly to flame bait such as what you posted above. How you got a respect rating of 34 by making such statements as you have in this topic is beyond me.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-05 15:36:21 and read 2615 times.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
I will say recently things have started to turn around, however...with the recent mergers, acquisitions, reducing frequencies, smaller cities losing service, supersizing it would seem as if airlines are now the monoply, which would contradict the whole entire point of deregulation.

Which brings me to my next question, what would be the pluses of regulation, and what would be the cons? A lot of regulated industries, the railroad for example seem to be doing extremely well with regulation. I as a young employee have heard how much better it was back in the day, how good the benefits were, etc.

Like I said, there were merely opinions, and just breakroom talk, which brought up my curiosities.

US787

I f there were to be re-regulation in the industry, I would hazard a guess but you would probably lose your job. There would be no incentive to increase any service or levels of service because the airline would have a monopoly on which ever route you would choose. US, AA, B6, WN and AS may disappear, and you would only be left with a skeleton system with UA and DL serving the entire US with HA serving only Hawaii.

You cited that the railroads seem to be doing extremely well. You could not be more wrong. AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist. There is not one route that even breaks even. The NE Corridor routes don't even break even and they are the most revenue producing routes in the system. If it was not for deregulation, the airlines couldn't make any money either. They would be mandated to serve money losing routes that should be dropped, and there would no competition between the airlines so the fares would be astronomical in order to subsidize the money losing routes.

You want the pluses of deregulation, well uh I don't see much in terms of the consumer point of view, and the workers would be at the mercy of the government. Airlines would shut down rather than to try to make money at the cost of re-regulating the industry.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 15:50:15 and read 2614 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 44):
You cited that the railroads seem to be doing extremely well. You could not be more wrong. AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist. There is not one route that even breaks even. The NE Corridor routes don't even break even and they are the most revenue producing routes in the system.

Yep good points - and who runs Amtrak? The Federal government!

But I think he might have been referring to the freight railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF....

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: twincessna340a
Posted 2012-11-05 17:03:04 and read 2598 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 34):
Technology could have prevented the OH accident in LEX.

That accident was the result of several human factors failures. Comair was using a bad chart for KLEX, at the hold point the pilots failed to notice the red 26 hold sign, they violated sterile cockpit rule, they failed to notice they were 40* off on line-up, and the tower was understaffed and the controller on duty was performing non ATC tasks at the time. It had also almost happened twice before ('93 & '02), but the tower controllers luckily saw the mistakes. This time it was low IFR and while ASDE-X could have prevented the accident it is a) extremely expensive and b) requires the controller to be paying attention to it. I am originally from LEX, my uncle was supposed to be on that flight and my extended family knew people that were on it so I take this one a little personally.


Quoting cmf (Reply 27):
Pft, that is just excuses for not dealing with the problems there are.

The government has immunity from lawsuits: Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 34):
Has TCAS increased safety?

Yes. The Bashkirian Airlines/DHL mid-air over Germany wouldn't have happened if both crews used it properly along with the technological advances since then. I use Mode S when I can and find it very helpful.

Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Allow them to be efficient and they will.

Counter-example: The US Postal Service

Quoting apodino (Reply 25):
if they are cutting corners on safety with outsourcing and all that.

Contract MRO and other mx are subject to the same rules.

Quoting Capt.Fantastic (Reply 30):
Delta has lost its Southern charm

For the most part and I am a longtime Delta fan (spare the FA's in the SE at least IMHO despite how Delta management has treated them). They've even alienated people in ATL. As much as it saddens me to see AirTran go, the Southwest presence in ATL will hopefully give Delta the kick in the pants it needs. I say Bring Back the Widget!

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-05 18:44:38 and read 2586 times.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
That accident was the result of several human factors failures.

I agree. To be clear, I think the right solution to that crash lies in the human factors failures that you have identified (plus a few more). I was simply making the point that ASDE-X would also have prevented the accident.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-05 19:22:08 and read 2581 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 43):
No, I'm not running away. I am being exceedingly sensitive to the fact that this is NOT a political forum

Then you should not have done a political statement to begin with. But when you do it you must accept that it will be discussed. Making a statement and then state it can't be discussed is the equivalent of a hit and run.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
The government has immunity from lawsuits: Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

Which of course has nothing to do with if they are efficient or not.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
Counter-example: The US Postal Service

Please support.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 19:31:49 and read 2577 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Then you should not have done a political statement to begin with. But when you do it you must accept that it will be discussed. Making a statement and then state it can't be discussed is the equivalent of a hit and run.

OK, my mistake, sorry.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: HOMsAR
Posted 2012-11-05 19:33:29 and read 2580 times.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
Quoting cmf (Reply 20):
Allow them to be efficient and they will.

Counter-example: The US Postal Service

?? The USPS is hamstrung by tons of rules that basically prevent it from operating efficiently.

For one, the requirement that they serve every address in the US, and that a postage stamp cost the same no matter where you're mailing a letter from or to. Then there's the pension funding requirement, the fact that they need approval to make rate changes, etc. A lot of other changes, from what I understand, also need approval from outside the agency.

As for reregulation of the airline industry (others have already noted that commercial regulation and safety regulation are two different things; safety regulation still exists and has made the industry the safest it has ever been), I still haven't seen what it is supposed to accomplish.

Preventing the round of bankruptcies that happened? So what. Airlines got in trouble in part because of excessive labor costs. Unless labor costs would also be regulated (good luck getting anyone, on any side, to agree with that), that won't solve that problem.

There was also the issue of too much capacity, but the market sorted itself out (in part, through those same bankruptcies).

On board "service" isn't good enough anymore? Buy an F ticket. Airlines have tried competing on service, and they have generally failed. Reason? The bulk of the travelers don't care about the service so much. They'd rather keep the fares lower, and take the money that they saved and spend it on something else. If you're one of the relatively few who want the better service and don't mind paying more for it: Buy an F ticket.

Regulating fares would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster and I can't for a minute begin to think of what that would accomplish. Regulating in terms of route authorities...why? What does that solve, other than making it actually harder for airlines to compete (and therefore making it less likely that an airline would have to care about being competitive on service or fares, since they know nobody else can come in and take away their passengers).

This would be a solution looking for a problem.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyPeoria
Posted 2012-11-05 19:35:23 and read 2578 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
Quoting brilondon (Reply 44):You cited that the railroads seem to be doing extremely well. You could not be more wrong. AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist. There is not one route that even breaks even. The NE Corridor routes don't even break even and they are the most revenue producing routes in the system.
Yep good points - and who runs Amtrak? The Federal government!

But I think he might have been referring to the freight railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF....

I second N62NA,

A major [freight] railroad has not entered bankruptcy for over two decades. The industry is quite prosperous, mainly because they have market pricing power for the services they offer. Even better, they maintain their own physical plant.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-05 19:41:02 and read 2565 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Then you should not have done a political statement to begin with. But when you do it you must accept that it will be discussed. Making a statement and then state it can't be discussed is the equivalent of a hit and run.

Then you should accept, that if discussed, and it is OFF topic, it will most likely be removed. Just an FYI.

Quoting cmf (Reply 48):
Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
Counter-example: The US Postal Service

Please support.

I don't think it's necessary to list the shopping list of problems that the USPS has or has had, to anyone on here.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-11-05 19:51:36 and read 2565 times.

Okay what you all need to do, is not worry about so much regulation, but things that continually distort the market.

Firstly, no more chap 11 refinancing for airlines. All risk sharing partners. That is, Management, the company itself with its equity, shareholders and those who extend credit to it must realise if they don't act sensibly, they will all lose out, there is no plan b or get out of jail card. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART!? Why, because when carriers compete, a carrier that is will managed, has staff that are reasonable about their expectations for their job etc, has to compete against one that is not, which suddenly blows its capital, the well managed carrier is damaged competing against the not so well managed carrier. This then weakens the carrier that should be the surviving entity in the marketplace, because it is now competing with a company that should have been dead. THAT IS NOT THE FREE MARKET!

It also means, union leaders can start wars with management instead of working with them to a sensible point both thinking they will screw the other over. ALSO not the free market. Normally if you had too many carriers this process would knock a few out, and those with the healthier business models, corporate culture and better aligned to the market would then expand and this would be effective consolidation. It would also mean prices would better reflect the cost of capital, because creditors would be less likely to lend to riskier ventures if they honestly thought they would completely blow there money with no Chap 11 style refinancing and turn arounds. It's likely in any given market, you'd basically be left with a few big carriers with a few smaller ones keeping prices in check.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-05 19:58:10 and read 2564 times.

Quoting mayor (Reply 52):

Then you should accept, that if discussed, and it is OFF topic, it will most likely be removed. Just an FYI.

Thanks for probably conveying that far better than I did.

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 51):
A major [freight] railroad has not entered bankruptcy for over two decades. The industry is quite prosperous, mainly because they have market pricing power for the services they offer. Even better, they maintain their own physical plant

Yep. I wonder if there's any lessons that the freight railroads have learned that could be transferred over to the USA pax airlines?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: yeelep
Posted 2012-11-05 20:15:02 and read 2562 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 53):

Thank you. Someone has finally put in words what I have always thought, but knew I couldn't convey properly.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-11-05 22:33:45 and read 2561 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Cars have gotten much safer in the same time period too.

That's due a great deal to tougher safety regulations imposed upon them.

Quoting apodino (Reply 25):
One thing I would propose though would be an ATC system that functions like Nav Canada does. My proposal would be for some of it to be funded by the FAA, some by the military, with the remainder by the Airlines and NBAA. But instead of the system being run entirely by the FAA, you give Airlines and GA some input into it. Because right now, most of the ATC decisions are not made by the Airlines, or in their interests, and I think if the people who actually used the system are involved in a lot of the input on how it works, the modernization would go a lot quicker because it would be less bureaucratic, and the system would function better overall. Of course, the Unions would fight this tooth and nail, and I suspect democratic politicians would as well.

The FAA and airlines work together constantly for developing new ideas for managing the airspace. They partnered with Delta big time in Atlanta to maximize arrival and departure flow into ATL. They are currently working with United on developing GPS flight plans.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
Safety of the aviation industry has gotten better since deregulation, not worse. How can anyone argue that increased regulation will increase safety? Decreased regulation doesn't mean better safety, but we know that more regulation doesn't lead to better safety.

Almost all safety measures have come about due to the unsafe act being discovered after something horrendous happening and the being followed by a DOT regulation to implement the new measures. The airline industry is one of the most regulated industries in the country.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
while ASDE-X could have prevented the accident it is a) extremely expensive and b) requires the controller to be paying attention to it.

Cost shouldn't be the determining factor on implementing a safety measure. It should be its effectivness in preventing the unsafe action.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-06 03:42:16 and read 2558 times.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
The USPS is hamstrung by tons of rules that basically prevent it from operating efficiently.

USPS is a perfect example of hamstrung. Sadly, few people are aware.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
I still haven't seen what it is supposed to accomplish.

There is no doubt regulation would be able to deal with some of the fundamental problems this vital industry has proven to be very poor at handling themselves. Nor should there be any doubt it creates a new set of unwelcome problems, problems we got rid of by deregulating. The solution isn't to go back to what didn't work before.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
Preventing the round of bankruptcies that happened? So what. Airlines got in trouble in part because of excessive labor costs. Unless labor costs would also be regulated (good luck getting anyone, on any side, to agree with that), that won't solve that problem.

Airlines got in trouble by being stupid. Labor cost has become the scapegoat. It wasn't the problem. The problem was what let labor cost, and many other things get out of hand - management failure.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
There was also the issue of too much capacity, but the market sorted itself out (in part, through those same bankruptcies).

Is it sorted out? Seems to me they are, generalised, standing with a lot of wrong equipment.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
Reason? The bulk of the travelers don't care about the service so much.

Oversimplified.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
This would be a solution looking for a problem.

Wrong solution is more accurate.

Quoting mayor (Reply 52):
Then you should accept, that if discussed, and it is OFF topic, it will most likely be removed. Just an FYI.

It has been more than 24 hours since he made the statement so I think it is reasonable to expect that discussing the regulators ability to efficiently regulate is on topic, as I think it should be.

Quoting mayor (Reply 52):
I don't think it's necessary to list the shopping list of problems that the USPS has or has had, to anyone on here.

HOMsAR listed the type of issues holding USPS back, not allowing them to be efficient. Which is the point. That you fail to list problems and instead make references to some flimsy, all known truth that you can't even list isn't support for your view.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 53):
That is, Management, the company itself with its equity, shareholders and those who extend credit to it must realise if they don't act sensibly, they will all lose out, there is no plan b or get out of jail card.

Well stated.   

While regulation would help with some of these issues it also would make others worse and thus isn't the solution.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 56):
Cost shouldn't be the determining factor on implementing a safety measure. It should be its effectivness in preventing the unsafe action.

Cost should be one of the elements in determining effectiveness.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: HOMsAR
Posted 2012-11-06 04:51:48 and read 2555 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 57):
Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
There was also the issue of too much capacity, but the market sorted itself out (in part, through those same bankruptcies).

Is it sorted out? Seems to me they are, generalised, standing with a lot of wrong equipment.

Perhaps "in the process of sorting itself out" is a better way to state it. Right now, they have a lot of equipment they'd rather not have (50-seat RJs, for example), but over time, those will go away with them having learned their lesson (hopefully).

Quoting cmf (Reply 57):
Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 50):
Reason? The bulk of the travelers don't care about the service so much.

Oversimplified.

Less simplified:

In general, travelers don't care enough about better service to be willing to pay enough extra to make it cost-effective for the airline to provide.

There are exceptions. United ps (and the AA and DL competitive equivalents) on the NY-California markets are an example of where airlines are competing on service. There's enough premium demand to justify it. This shows that airlines are willing to provide good service where it pays off. But you're not going to get that kind of service on CLE-PHX or CLT-SEA or whatever, because too much of the market would go with a cheaper option, and whoever offered better service would get their butts handed to them financially. YX was an airline that had a market niche for a while, but once the economy turned south, they could no longer afford to stay in business.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-11-06 05:19:58 and read 2554 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 56):
That's due a great deal to tougher safety regulations imposed upon them.

In some cases yes, in some cases no. For instance, the side impact regulations don't really require side torso air bags, and it's probably possible to be in compliance without one, so that's a counterexample. In the auto industry, some heavy handed regulation plus some voluntary action seems to strike a good balance.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-06 06:38:45 and read 2552 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 57):
It has been more than 24 hours since he made the statement so I think it is reasonable to expect that discussing the regulators ability to efficiently regulate is on topic, as I think it should be.

Just because it hasn't been removed doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be or shouldn't be. However, I doubt if the moderators have the time to read EVERY statement made on these forums and, instead, rely on the members to report problems. N62NA realized this and instead of "running away", as you so misguidedly accused him, chose to not add to the argument, in the direction it was going.


Now, back to the TOPIC, reregulation of the airlines.



I guess I'd long for the days when we used to compete on service and not necessarily on price, but to do that, we'd HAVE to re-regulate. It would be nice to be able to simplify the fare structure, under re-regulation, but to do that would probably lead to charges of collusion and eventually, the government would be clamoring for de-regulation, again.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2012-11-06 08:12:26 and read 2547 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 1):
There are actually a lot of similarities. A few really big railroads (UP, BNSF, NS) dominate US traffic. The difference is that they make money doing it.

The railroads have been consolidating for decades, and the airlines are catching up. It seems that the larger consolidated airlines (DL, UA, etc) are finally starting to make money even in a tough environment. I guess time will tell if the trend lasts.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2012-11-06 09:41:58 and read 2539 times.

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 13):
Example being an actual experienced emergency responder to head FEMA, or perhapse an airline ops exectutive to head the Airline industry if we ever venture down the road of regulation again.

It's difficult to implement correctly. How do you make sure that your former airline executive doesn't let his sympathies for his former colleagues guide his judgement? Another risk is the so-called revolving door, which we already see today at places like the Securities & Exchange Commission where the people in charge of enforcing rules are not as tough as they could be, and a few years later get rewarded with posh, highly-paid, positions at one of the companies they were monitoring... You could hire only former CEOs to avoid any revolving-door issue, but what if they're not interested? The moment you start going down the corporate ladder, you risk dealing with people who may be tempted by a stint in government as a step to the top job.

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 15):
If we are the government, then we govern ourselves without Washington's involvement.

It's a nice philosophical statement, but it is totally out of the realm of the possible.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 44):
There would be no incentive to increase any service or levels of service because the airline would have a monopoly on which ever route you would choose.

Not necessarily. You assume that re-regulation would bring us back to the years of the Civil Aeronautics Board, but it doesn't have to be so. There are many other options if we were to try and increase government intervention in the airline industry. For example, an easy way to force the airline to compete on service is to set a minimum fare-per-mile that is high enough to afford most carriers a decent profit. With basically a floor they cannot go under, what do the airlines have left they can compete on if not service?

I think it would be a huge mistake to bring back the CAB, but somewhere between that and the present situation may not be all that bad. Customers do accept already that some services are subject to price control, that is the case of the insurance industry in several states, so while they claim all they care about is low prices (a lie if there ever was one, why do complaints about bad service keep increasing then?), they are not revolting in the streets, or at the ballot box, when DirtCheapInsurance can't be that...

Quoting brilondon (Reply 44):
You could not be more wrong. AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist. There is not one route that even breaks even. The NE Corridor routes don't even break even and they are the most revenue producing routes in the system.

That is the perfect case for over-regulation, and more a symptom of how dysfunctional and parochial the government is than anything else. If Amtrak was allowed to shed long-distance and one-off routes, it would be profitable, there's ton of literature, from government itself and from private consulting groups, proving it, but because politicians are allowed to hold their vote to support Amtrak hostage to their pet train service, it cannot.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 46):
The Bashkirian Airlines/DHL mid-air over Germany wouldn't have happened if both crews used it properly along with the technological advances since then.

Nor would it have happened if other, old-world, technology, like the phone and basic management skills, had worked.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-06 09:53:49 and read 2541 times.

Quoting mayor (Reply 60):
Just because it hasn't been removed doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be or shouldn't be. However, I doubt if the moderators have the time to read EVERY statement made on these forums and, instead, rely on the members to report problems. N62NA realized this and instead of "running away", as you so misguidedly accused him, chose to not add to the argument, in the direction it was going.

Why do you play moderator? Instead discuss the topic that was brought up. No regulation will not fail because it is regulated by the federal government.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-06 09:58:03 and read 2540 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
But I think he might have been referring to the freight railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF....

Well then we are talking about two different operations. I was comparing the national passenger railroad to passenger carrying airlines, not the likes of CSX compared to say Lufthansa, Gemini Air Cargo, and maybe the freight operations of several airlines. You take the passengers out of the comparison then airlines would be able to make money and this discussion would be mute.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 62):
Not necessarily. You assume that re-regulation would bring us back to the years of the Civil Aeronautics Board, but it doesn't have to be so. There are many other options if we were to try and increase government intervention in the airline industry. For example, an easy way to force the airline to compete on service is to set a minimum fare-per-mile that is high enough to afford most carriers a decent profit. With basically a floor they cannot go under, what do the airlines have left they can compete on if not service?

That is what I took from the OP when I read his post and took it to mean that it was passenger airlines that he was talking about.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 62):
That is the perfect case for over-regulation, and more a symptom of how dysfunctional and parochial the government is than anything else. If Amtrak was allowed to shed long-distance and one-off routes, it would be profitable, there's ton of literature, from government itself and from private consulting groups, proving it, but because politicians are allowed to hold their vote to support Amtrak hostage to their pet train service, it cannot.

If Amtrak shed its self of the long distance trains and the unprofitable services it is in, than you would just have a commuter railroad which already exists with out Amtrak. State sponsored rail travel is the norm and Governments will always have to subsidize the rail service. The US is just too big and distances too great between cities to have a profitable rail service.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-06 10:40:16 and read 2538 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
Why do you play moderator?

I'll stop when you do.

Quoting cmf (Reply 63):
Instead discuss the topic that was brought up.

Did you miss this?

Quoting mayor (Reply 60):

I guess I'd long for the days when we used to compete on service and not necessarily on price, but to do that, we'd HAVE to re-regulate. It would be nice to be able to simplify the fare structure, under re-regulation, but to do that would probably lead to charges of collusion and eventually, the government would be clamoring for de-regulation, again.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2012-11-06 10:51:13 and read 2539 times.

Regulation will come through concentration. There is no reason why the US should have more than one network carrier in 20 years.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyPeoria
Posted 2012-11-06 11:56:59 and read 2538 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 54):
Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 51):
A major [freight] railroad has not entered bankruptcy for over two decades. The industry is quite prosperous, mainly because they have market pricing power for the services they offer. Even better, they maintain their own physical plant

Yep. I wonder if there's any lessons that the freight railroads have learned that could be transferred over to the USA pax airlines?

One maybe interlining. Lots of freight originates on one railroad and is destined to another whether unit train (single commodity) or "loose car" shipments (lots of handling enroute). That's something that has continued post-deregulation because railroads own and maintain most track mileage in this country. Mergers have significantly reduced the number of Class I railroads, but interlining with each other (and Class II and III lines) is necessary. There is no open access. Railroad physical plant is expensive, but already in-place (no need for new, with some exception). They can't just come and go in markets as they please...like the airlines.

This private ownership serves as a protector of markets, and is in some ways monopolistic (except where alternate forms of surface transportation are available). I guess the airline industry has managed to do this through "fortress hubs." But I have to wonder if U. S. airlines have just gotten too big trying to be everywhere, causing overcapacity in many instances. Perhaps interlining (even with competitors) is an alternative to mergers, even with competitors. I can see few opportunities for this, however.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-06 12:16:17 and read 2533 times.

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 67):
One maybe interlining.

I would think that would be similar to codesharing in many ways, no?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-06 12:35:21 and read 2534 times.

Quoting mayor (Reply 65):
Did you miss this?

It has nothing to do with the governments ability to regulate.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-11-06 15:07:11 and read 2531 times.

Hmm,
Something interesting that got brought up here is the idea of a floor price. Whilst that is in some ways 'a kind of protectionism' I think its worth exploring.

Firstly it wouldn't stop some carriers going broke, as some may still do things like add excessive frequencies knowing
the aircraft would go out with empty seats. However there is also something in this in that it will discourage $150 type fares to fly a 5 hr flight. It's well known these are below cost anyway and are merely filling seats that would otherwise be empty and they rely heavily on the ability of frequent travellers paying 10 times that amount to make it possible. It's likely some of this kind of thing would end.

Another thing you could do is mandate minimum service standards. The Russians have done exactly this. You must be served something onboard. You could also extend this over distances. For example, flights of 1 hr or less, minimum service standards are coffee. 1-2.5 hrs coffee and light snack. above 2 hrs full service etc. There could be grounds for this on the back of there is no alternative inflight but to consume what is provided, ie - you can't walk down the street and go elsewhere for your snack etc.

I really think consolidation is the key here. It should give airlines more market power, allow them to use more sensible aircraft for a given route (ie - no routes 10x daily CRJ type behaviour when several 4 or 5 mainline jets would do this far more efficiently). And also perhaps there are too many hubs. Every Mayor wants their city to be a hub because it attracts businesses to locate there. But the reality is, long haul travel to short haul travel is best done over a smaller amount of hubs with larger aircraft. Does the east coast of the USA really need hubs in NYC, PHL and IAD all being so close to each other?

If you look in europe this is clearly already happening. Several groups dominate each area and outside that, the rest are in trouble.

But back to regulation. Because of safety, and restrictions with things like airport capacity airlines will always have a lot more regulation than a lot of other industries. You can't just 'build your own airport' where ever you like etc so these things must also be taken into consideration. They are grounds for regulating things like minimum aircraft size in a given market.

I think another thing the American consumer is going to have a hard time with, but as the cost of operating has increased, they are going to have to get used to the idea that eventually the cost of tickets must rise with it.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-06 15:09:23 and read 2534 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
It has nothing to do with the governments ability to regulate.

And yet, the entire thread isn't necessarily about their ability, either. My post WAS about regulation, whether it was about the governments ability to regulate or not. As I recall, the original premise of this thread was whether the airline industry should re-regulate or not.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2012-11-06 15:20:03 and read 2538 times.

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 67):
Perhaps interlining (even with competitors) is an alternative to mergers, even with competitors. I can see few opportunities for this, however.

Virtually all major carriers (excluding the many LCCs that don't interline) already have interline agreements with almost all other major carriers worldwide. Tens of thousands of interline tickets that include competitors' services are sold every day and have been since the earliest days of commercial aviation. There are agreed industry rules on how fares are prorated when more than one carrier is involved, and countless special prorate agreements that override the industry rules which are coordinated by IATA.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: mayor
Posted 2012-11-06 15:30:00 and read 2541 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 70):

I believe DL already does the minimum service standards, in a way, but using miles instead of time.


Another idea that might work for fares is have the company divided up into fare "zones", much like domestic cargo is. For example, say you were flying from zone A to zone E........the fare could be a flat rate.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: ADent
Posted 2012-11-06 15:40:24 and read 2538 times.

If you want to regulate you can do some things:

Set a minimum fare - $30 + $.08/mile (indexed for fuel costs and industry average crew costs). This would ensure some money for maintenance and prevent fare wars driving out new entrants (though it would make new entrants hard to get traction).

Require salaries of flight crew based on the number of seats. No more seniority based salaries. This would not burden an airline with lots of senior crews.

Require benefits to be contribution based (ie 401k like, not a traditional pension) - all benefits costs terminate at retirement. This would prevent old airlines from getting saddled with high retiree costs.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: dlramp4life
Posted 2012-11-06 23:16:42 and read 2526 times.

When it comes to safety and security there is government regulation... FAA, TSA, OSHA etc.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyDeltaJets
Posted 2012-11-07 00:25:38 and read 2533 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 74):
Require salaries of flight crew based on the number of seats. No more seniority based salaries. This would not burden an airline with lots of senior crews.

I dont think its fair that a person flying a 777 for 1 year should make more than a 757 pilot of 20 years just because his plane is bigger. Experiance should have some determining factor.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-07 04:37:42 and read 2523 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 74):
Require salaries of flight crew based on the number of seats. No more seniority based salaries. This would not burden an airline with lots of senior crews.

Absolutely not. Workload is not based on number of seats on the plane as staff is going up with seats.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: FlyPeoria
Posted 2012-11-07 07:37:24 and read 2518 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 72):

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 67):
Perhaps interlining (even with competitors) is an alternative to mergers, even with competitors. I can see few opportunities for this, however.


Virtually all major carriers (excluding the many LCCs that don't interline) already have interline agreements with almost all other major carriers worldwide. Tens of thousands of interline tickets that include competitors' services are sold every day and have been since the earliest days of commercial aviation. There are agreed industry rules on how fares are prorated when more than one carrier is involved, and countless special prorate agreements that override the industry rules which are coordinated by IATA.

I realize that, but code-sharing and frequent flyer programs are designed to fly passengers from origin to destination on a single carrier (are carriers within an alliance). Prior to deregulation in 1978, when Trunk airlines' route networks were more regional (or linear like AA, TW and UA), it was more common for passengers to fly on more than one carrier from origin to destination, especially if the trip started and ended in a smaller city served by Local airlines.

I think the industry is what it is. Code-sharing, market-based fares and frequent-flyer programs are good things.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-07 08:09:53 and read 2521 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 77):
Absolutely not. Workload is not based on number of seats on the plane as staff is going up with seats.

Irrelevant. Advancement should be the driver of compensation.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 76):
I dont think its fair that a person flying a 777 for 1 year should make more than a 757 pilot of 20 years just because his plane is bigger. Experiance should have some determining factor.

It's absolutely fair. Advancing means more compensation. The notion of getting paid more and more to do the same job is inane.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-07 08:35:48 and read 2518 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 79):
Advancement should be the driver of compensation.

Not sure I like advancement as description but it is part of what sets compensation. As is workload, and conditions.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 79):
It's absolutely fair. Advancing means more compensation. The notion of getting paid more and more to do the same job is inane.

Why is flying a 777 an advancement over flying an 757?

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: commavia
Posted 2012-11-07 08:41:35 and read 2523 times.

It's rather simple. All of these debates that occasionally pop up here and elsewhere on this topic ultimately all come back to the same bottom line: if you want fares to go up (or go up more and/or faster), then reregulate, otherwise, don't.

For all the constant complaining here no A.net about the allegedly deplorable state of "service" in the U.S. airline industry, money - as usual - speaks louder than words. And American consumers have spoken loudly - time and again - in saying with their money that they would rather save a few books than have better "service" (however that is subjectively defined from person to person).

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-07 09:03:25 and read 2516 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 74):
Require salaries of flight crew based on the number of seats. No more seniority based salaries. This would not burden an airline with lots of senior crews.

This is not for regulators to decide. Regulation of the industry is more for where an airline will be able to fly to and who can compete for passengers on such a route. Regulating that would reduce the competition and drive up the costs of the fares because the airline would apply for such a route.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 79):
It's absolutely fair. Advancing means more compensation. The notion of getting paid more and more to do the same job is inane.

Yes, and Karl Marx would agree with you. Unfortunately this is not how the world works. Generally, when you get to pilot a larger aircraft you generally have been through the uncertainty of furloughs and other pitfalls of being a commercial pilot. You should be able to choose what routes you get to fly on based on seniority and get certain benefits and rewards of company loyalty.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: HOMsAR
Posted 2012-11-07 09:06:42 and read 2513 times.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 76):
Quoting ADent (Reply 74):
Require salaries of flight crew based on the number of seats. No more seniority based salaries. This would not burden an airline with lots of senior crews.

I dont think its fair that a person flying a 777 for 1 year should make more than a 757 pilot of 20 years just because his plane is bigger. Experiance should have some determining factor.

Don't most airlines' contracts already factor in a combination of airplane size and seniority to determine pilot wages?

In other words, a 747 pilot will make more than a 737 pilot of the same experience, and someone (within the same type) will make more the longer they've been around.

Seniority already solves both problems, because, in general, the largest types are flown by the most senior pilots.

Beyond that, if a 20-year-seniority pilot wants to fly a 737 or 757 instead of a 777 (assuming he had the seniority to bid the 777), then that's his choice. If he can't bid a 777, that means that it's already being flown by someone more senior.

But, all of that is negotiated by airline management and pilots unions, and I really want to know why on earth any regulator should get involved with that.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-07 09:25:57 and read 2519 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 80):
Why is flying a 777 an advancement over flying an 757?

Because the community of pilots has pushed it that direction by having the most senior pilots snap up those routes which the bigger planes fly.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 82):
You should be able to choose what routes you get to fly on based on seniority and get certain benefits and rewards of company loyalty.

That's asinine. A middle manager who makes more in a construction company can't just go and decide they want to shovel things and expect to get paid the same.

Quoting HOMsAR (Reply 83):
Beyond that, if a 20-year-seniority pilot wants to fly a 737 or 757 instead of a 777 (assuming he had the seniority to bid the 777), then that's his choice. If he can't bid a 777, that means that it's already being flown by someone more senior.

It's his choice to take a pay cut in that instance.

By stratifying job levels in a company you promote advancement, it's the only way a company can function properly.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-07 13:40:51 and read 2509 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 84):
That's asinine. A middle manager who makes more in a construction company can't just go and decide they want to shovel things and expect to get paid the same.



I am not saying that. I was pointing out that a PILOT with seniority can choose which route he wants to fly and be compensated accordingly. A middle manager is changing his role in the company if he then wants to dig ditches and thus his role would be different. A pilot would still fly the aircraft whether he is the captain of a 744 or a CRJ 100.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-08 06:37:30 and read 2503 times.

Flying a 744 or a CRJ 100 are not the same level job.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-08 09:03:43 and read 2505 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 86):
Flying a 744 or a CRJ 100 are not the same level job.

True. Flying a CRJ-100 is actually considerably harder.

Tom.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: brilondon
Posted 2012-11-08 09:10:13 and read 2504 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 86):
Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 86):
Flying a 744 or a CRJ 100 are not the same level job.

True. Flying a CRJ-100 is actually considerably harder.

True, but neither is a mid level manager and a ditch digger, which is what was the comparison in a previous post.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: cmf
Posted 2012-11-08 16:23:09 and read 2495 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 84):
Because the community of pilots has pushed it that direction by having the most senior pilots snap up those routes which the bigger planes fly.

So it is a preference, not an advancement.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87):
True. Flying a CRJ-100 is actually considerably harder.

  

All those additional takeoffs and landings per day doesn't make it easier.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-09 07:57:40 and read 2488 times.

Well, I see we have deviated into the absurd again.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-11-09 20:42:55 and read 2485 times.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 90):

Well, I see we have deviated into the absurd again.

At least we held out to ~90 posts this time.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: ThirtyEcho
Posted 2012-11-09 20:55:51 and read 2483 times.

Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-11-09 21:14:09 and read 2481 times.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 92):
Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.

Though admittedly I was a kid / teenager up to deregulation, knowing what I know today about the "efficiency" and "widsom" of the Federal government, I would definitely NOT want to see re-regulation happen.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2012-11-09 21:28:24 and read 2481 times.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 92):
Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.

...if they weren't buying the ticket.

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: gegarrenton
Posted 2012-11-10 06:51:50 and read 2474 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 91):
At least we held out to ~90 posts this time.

Making progress!  

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2012-11-10 07:23:33 and read 2474 times.

Airlines are still one of the most regulated industries out there! In many ways more so than pharma. Look at the fines paid for poor record keeping on maintenance. It is just that fares are no longer regulated.

Regulated fares means the industry cannot adapt to fast growing trends. For example, if IT moved from San Jose to Austin, we would see the California senators blocking new service to Austin to slow the trend. Today, that means that business would move to Korea, Thailand, or Malaysia instead. The USA is no longer the dominant manufacturer in the world so policy mistakes have a far faster and greater negative impact.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 92):
Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.

   Those who want that level of service would be buying business class domestically (its cheaper, in real dollars, than coach under regulation). Today's front cabin is far superior to coach under regulation.

Why is everyone complaining that there is a cheaper option? If people didn't want it, they wouldn't take it. What is killing airlines is that premium passengers have moved to chartered jets. They won't be coming back. Certainly not under regulation where new route expansion is hindered.

I couldn't afford to fly on Thanksgiving under regulated prices. Service was a little better, but not that much and I would rather save a few hundred dollars towards Christmas presents. You are ignoring the price elasticity of the market.

Regulation has nothing to do with airport expansion (including ground transportation). Airports are the worst part of air travel today and it is the government inhibiting growth that is the issue.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
what would be the pluses of regulation,

Gravy train for airline employees and stockholders.

Quoting usairways787 (Thread starter):
and what would be the cons?

For passengers, basically everything would get worse.

   Regulation would boost fares that would cut demand which is a certain way to push this economy further into recession.

Quoting DCA2011 (Reply 3):
I'd suspect the biggest con would be the sheer politics of trying to get the airlines re-regulated. Any congressman who suggested it would be decried as a socialist, and frankly it would be political suicide.

   Only a few airlines would want regulation anyway.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
Passengers have been pretty clear that they are interested in price rather than service for coach class travel. They want cheap, airlines haven't cut service just because they felt like it.

   Customers want choice. Those who want service pay for the front cabin which, as I noted earlier, is CHEAPER than coach under regulation!

Quoting Mcoov (Reply 9):
In fact, regulation proved detrimental to the railroad industry between 1953 and 1980, as it prevented them from responding to changes in transport economics

Again, I agree. Said early and well.

Regulation would destroy the economy. Airlines need to be managed more rationally. When? Who knows. But they are regulated for safety and that is what matters.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?
Username: PITingres
Posted 2012-11-10 07:43:15 and read 2470 times.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 92):
Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.

Who cares? Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation was either bloody rich, or had someone else paying for it. (Or worked for an airline.) That's a very small sample of the population.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/