Rick767 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 2662 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3662 times:
"Escaping a death spiral isn't about genius or improvisation or luck. It's about knowing what to do and doing it. The five-step protocol that pilots learn begins with "chopping the power" and ends with pushing the throttle to provide a surge that levels the plane."
How I laughed
Didn't read the rest of the article as I couldn't possibly take it seriously after that comment.
I used to love the smell of Jet-A in the morning...
Cx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6805 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Don't insurance companies have to guarantee that they have the means to cope with any payout, or have some sort of minimum cash reserves? This makes the industry reliable and the regulation ensures that companies who do not have the ability aren't out there to dissappoint. How about having a similar scheme for the airlines?
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3527 times:
I agree whole-heartedly with all except #5.
While I really dont have a problem with opening the USA/Euro domestic skies to foreign carriers.... I do find it rather astonishing that these guys truly believe that foreign airlines will come into this market with their thrills 'n frills... and expect those things to continue for them there, at a profit. Not gonna happen folks; WN, B6, FL, and all their ilk would have a field day ripping those foreign carriers to shreds. End of story!
J32driver From United States of America, joined May 2000, 399 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3437 times:
Not a bad article. I do take issue with the foreign carrier option though. How many of the foreign carriers get some form of government subsidy? My concern is that the nonsubsidized US carriers would have to compete with a subsidized foreign carrier.
737doctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1332 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
Reregulation is not the answer; industry regulation does not benefit the consumer. Survival of the fittest, I say.
As for the article, the first three points are good. The fourth one is dubious at best; if that's such a great idea, why is Southwest not on board with baseball-style arbitration? The last suggestion makes little sense to me...
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6210 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3337 times:
Wouldn't it be great to allow foreign carriers into the U.S.? First of all, it would increase competition over here. Secondly, U.S. arlines could enter foreign markets. In the end, this would probably be a good thing for U.S. carriers.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3222 times:
Just read the article myself. Regarding foreign carriers, why not? Who cares if the US airlines rip them to shreds ? (and that's not necessarily a given...there may be some surprises or lessons to be learned).
Of course, foreign carriers would theoretically have to play on a level playing field - they would be subject to the exact same regs as any other US carrier - that would include the subsidisation argument (i.e. there wouldn't be any...)
US carriers would be given the same opportunities in Europe - reciprocating the favour.
The only thing stopping such a move is fear of massive job fallouts from failures, consolidation and job shedding.
Isn't it already working with other industries i.e. don't BAA (British Airports Authority) own/run some airports ? I've even seen WHSmith's newsagents when passing through ORD - don't tell me they're not British!