Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was 1978 Too Late For US Airline Deregulation?  
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Instead of 1978, should US airline deregulation have happened in the 50's or 60's?

There have been many writings lately that if deregulation was achieved way before 1978, legacy airlines would not have been facing high labor cost issues such as a $250,000-$350,000 a year 747 captains. Today, the pendelum has swung the other way and legacies are outrageously paying low compensation to many hard working pilots, FAs, mechanics, ground support staff etc.

Here are some quotes from a study produced by the Economics departmement at Columbia:

"When Roosevelt entered the White House, domestic air transport including mail and human bodies was divided up by four big corporations (United, TWA, Eastern and American), while Trippe's Pan Am owned the international routes."

"Needless to say, the interests of the rank-and-file flyer barely entered the picture. With guaranteed profits, it did not matter to the airlines whether those of modest means could afford a ticket."

"With such a cozy government-business relationship, it is perhaps difficult to see why the need for deregulation ever arose. Essentially this came about primarily as a result of overcapacity in the 1970s--to a large extent a function of investment in the ubiquitous Jumbo Jet--the Boeing 747--interacting with the energy crisis. This would necessitate full-bore competition to wring out excess investment."

"This imbalance between fares and costs encouraged the airlines to engage in inefficient service competition, particularly by offering high quality, high convenience service. This was especially true in long-haul markets; because costs fell nest rapidly in these markets, the CAB did not substantially alter the fare structure. Consequently, the percentage of seats the airlines filled (load factor) fell through most of the 1950s and the 1960s.

"By the end of the 1960s, the economy and air traffic growth faltered. In addition to the cyclical downturn, the long-term growth rate of air travel demand slowed, because the cost savings and added convenience from the switch to jet equipment .had largely been achieved. The carriers, however, had ordered many new aircraft in the mid-1960s. Excess capacity grew and the industry’s profitability declined. Consequently, the carriers asked the CAB for relief."

Here is the complete link
http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs...economics/airline_deregulation.htm


Only the paranoid survive
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineExarmywarrant From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 267 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4446 times:

With the possible exception of regulations directly affecting the safety of employees, there are very few regulations that should not be abolished. While sometimes well-intended, the law of unintended consequences means most of them have effects directly opposite their intent...

User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4439 times:

I wouldn't cite this particular document as compelling evidence. It's not a study produced by the Columbia economics department, but rather by a guy who works for Columbia (and, incidentally, administers the Marxmail mailing list.) That it itself doesn't take away from his point, of course, but this isn't anything close to an unbiased study.


New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 2):
I wouldn't cite this particular document as compelling evidence

This article is one of many writings that are coming out. There was an intersting letter to the Editor in last week's AW&ST on the exact same subject. There are three schools of thought. First school says it was a bad idea to deregulate by dwelling on service issues, bankruptcies, etc. The second school says it was right as productivity improved, fares dropped, and more people are employed as a result of it (airlines + aerospace). But the third school says, it could have come earlier, and like everything else, government inertia was to blame and delayed certain outcomes.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

It was probably the right time. Until the early to mid-1970's in the USA, there were 'fair trade' laws regulating that the producer of a product could tell the reseller or retailer the price it could sell it for, usually at the 'suggested retail price'. If they didn't follow those pricing rules, they no longer got any product. A series of state court decisions and then an US Supreme Court decision were made that said that this was in violation of the Anti-trust laws as price fixing.
During this time too, other laws to the benefit of consumers were created so it made sense that the continued regulation of airline flight fare reguation should fall as well. At first, it was as to USA domestic flights, international flights would take longer due to various agreements and treaties, and did so under the considerably pro-business Regean Administration.

The only real mistake was that their should have been greater requirements in terms of business plans, financing, staffing of new startup airlines. That could have slowed down the too many companies whom entered the airline business and allowed some breathing room for the legacies while lowering fare prices to the consumers.


User currently offlineFlyPIJets From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 925 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4395 times:

Quoting Exarmywarrant (Reply 1):
While sometimes well-intended, the law of unintended consequences means most of them have effects directly opposite their intent...

Well actually the "law of unintended consequences" holds that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, including unforeseen effects.

Not directly opposite effects.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
Instead of 1978, should US airline deregulation have happened in the 50's or 60's?

Yes, sure. By the 1960's anyway. Just as airlines were staring to realize the hidden benefits of jets over piston. This would have been an ideal time. 'course hindsight is always 20/20.



DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, F28, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, IL-62, L-1011, MD-82/83, YS-11, DHC-8, PA-28-161, ERJ 135/145, E-1
User currently offlineExarmywarrant From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 267 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4389 times:

Quoting FlyPIJets (Reply 5):
Well actually the "law of unintended consequences" holds that almost all human actions have at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more than one effect, including unforeseen effects.

Not directly opposite effects.

I stand corrected. But my point was not to define the law, and I think my point still holds. The actual result of most regulation is not what was intended when the regulation was passed.


User currently offlineKevin777 From Denmark, joined Sep 2006, 1165 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

I think deregulation in the 1960s would have been an good idea; at least things (pilot wages, capacity increases etc.) wouldn't have gotten so much out of control, but I also think that had it been in most other industries, this deregulation would have occured in the 1960s. However, being the (wonderful..!) airline industry, the deregulation was to a huge degree postponed by the government because they wanted the U.S. airlines to built up huge fleets that could be used (and were used) for military purposes. The goverment was afraid that deregulation could weaken these fleets significantly, or at least, that airlines would hesitate to buy new aircraft if deregulation was on the way.

So, bottom line, I think that economically speaking deregulation "should" have happened in the 60s - however, with the cold war lurking everywhere and Vietnam, it might not have been such a bad idea to wait. Of course, in hindsight this argument might not be too good. Also, one could argue that deregulation, at least eventually, made the airlines stronger.

Kevin777



"I was waiting for you at DFW, but you must have been in LUV" CPH-HAM-CPH CR9
User currently offlineFlyPIJets From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 925 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4366 times:

Quoting Exarmywarrant (Reply 6):
The actual result of most regulation is not what was intended when the regulation was passed.

Again, I feel you are using hyperbole. More often than not regulation works as intended and fairly well. Look at FAR 91, if the actual result of most regulation is not what was intended, boy, I think airspace would be a lot more dangerous.

You may find exceptions (the law of unintended consequences says you should), but blindly living by principle, making decision based on hyperbole without some consideration and thought is about a good idea as over regulating the airlines.

I think the OP asked a pretty good question, though, I am unsure if they are looking for an answer or just try to stir debate. But, saying the all regulation has its bad side is a justification for lifting airline route regulation soon than was done, I don't get that.



DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, F28, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, IL-62, L-1011, MD-82/83, YS-11, DHC-8, PA-28-161, ERJ 135/145, E-1
User currently offlineJFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3599 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4344 times:

More and more I'm thinking that the US aviation industry should have never been deregulated.

And I say that knowing the consequences. I probably wouldn't be flying now. So deregulation was good for me as a professional pilot. But, if you look at the airline industry now vs 30 years ago, we have gone backwards not forward.

Yes. we made it more affordable so that EVERYONE can fly, but was it worth this:

1. No in-flight service
2. Cattle car treatment
3. Can't refund a flight
4. Can't change a ticket without a ridiculous fee
5. Terrible customer service
6. Smaller and smaller and smaller planes
7. Overcapacity and horrific delays at our nation's busiest airports
8. B.O.B. . . complete crap for purchase
9. Poverty-level compensation for all airline employees


So ask yourselves guys, was it worth it?? The masses now fly and we now have mass transit! Get your shorts and flip-flops on and join the heard.

You think Carter and Company would have ever pushed this plan if they thought Jumbo Jets with Piano bars and full meals in coach would have led to buying a snack box on a regional jet for a 3 hour flight??

PJ


User currently offlineNateDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 417 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4340 times:

It should have never been regulated in the first place.


Set Love Free
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 9):
Yes. we made it more affordable so that EVERYONE can fly, but was it worth this:

1. No in-flight service
2. Cattle car treatment
3. Can't refund a flight
4. Can't change a ticket without a ridiculous fee
5. Terrible customer service
6. Smaller and smaller and smaller planes
7. Overcapacity and horrific delays at our nation's busiest airports
8. B.O.B. . . complete crap for purchase
9. Poverty-level compensation for all airline employees

Short answer, yes, I still think it probably was worth it.

Look at it this way: there are remedies to most of your complaints. Want inflight service? Buy a first-class ticket (many of which these days are probably around the inflation adjusted prices of coach tickets in the regulated days.) By doing that, you can directly address problems 1 and 8. By buying an unrestricted ticket -- again, probably around the inflation-adjusted price of a regulated ticket -- you can fix 3 and 4.

Granted the cattle car treatment is unpleasant, but anyone flying often enough to be seriously aggravated by it will probably be entitled to frequent flier perks that alleviate the issue substantially. And when I experience terrible customer service, well, I fly a different airline. Same if one airline uses an RJ on an route I'm going to fly and the other flies a mainline jet.

Fixing problem 7 would just make the price issue worse -- if we cut down flights enough to alleviate airport overcrowding with present demand levels, prices are going to rise dramatically. And problem 8? Has airline food ever been good? Perhaps the greatest tragedy of deregulation is that it's deprived an entire generation of professional comedians the opportunity to ridicule omlettes of the skies.

Now, problem 9. In a lot of ways, I'm very sympathetic to this complain. I feel sorry for the feeder pilot working shitty hours and making $22,000 a year. And I can't imagine how difficult it is for flight attendants and gate agents to do nothing all day but deal with passengers -- it's amazing that so many of them are as cheerful as they appear to be. But on the other hand, come on. The airline industry is one of the most heavily unionized industries left in the country. If you believe you're being unfairly compensated, do something about it within the industry, or get another job. I'm sorry, like I said, I'm genuinely sympathetic, but ... Well, I don't see an immediate reason why customers should have to bear the costs of artifically inflated wages.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlineWDBRR From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Deregulation caused the demise of Eastern, PanAm, TWA and others.

read somewhere that in the future, airline employees will be paid the
same as workers at McDonalds and the jobs will be plentiful with a
high turnover rate.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4242 times:

Well explained N844AA. As for Item 9, it is good to know that employees can be compensated fairly and treated respectfully thanks to examples like Southwest. I hope legacies will come around that issue as unhappy employees in a service industry can easily create unhappy customers.

But I also believe that bankruptcy OVER-protection has deprived true market forces in recent years to weed out the bad, in order to allow more of the good. This policy has made many to believe that deregulation was a bad thing.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6362 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 11):
If you believe you're being unfairly compensated, do something about it within the industry, or get another job. I'm sorry, like I said, I'm genuinely sympathetic, but ... Well, I don't see an immediate reason why customers should have to bear the costs of artifically inflated wages.

Obviously it has been very, very hard for the long time employees and they have fewer options to do something about it. Unfortunately, it is a simple case of supply and demand... there are just too many people that want a career with the airlines. Just imagine if there were way fewer pilots paying their way through flight training... wages would go up and airlines might even have to resort to poaching pilots. But hard times is not unique to aviation. As has been mentioned in past threads, just take a look at Michigan and the automotive industry. The state has been having 6 straight years of job losses (currently over 370,000 unemployed) and will lose another 62,700 jobs next year.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16335 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

Quoting WDBRR (Reply 12):
Deregulation caused the demise of Eastern, PanAm, TWA and others.

No, it was bad management and militant unions that caused the demise of these airlines. Not deregulation. If anything, it was regulation that kept these carriers artificially afloat longer than necessary.

Quoting WDBRR (Reply 12):
read somewhere that in the future, airline employees will be paid the same as workers at McDonalds and the jobs will be plentiful with a high turnover rate.

If that's what the market place dictates, then that will be the most efficient model and best solution for consumers. The market place will always dictate the most efficient solution for any industry.

Regarding the 1978 period, the oil shock caused hardship and raised costs significantly for all carriers; hence deregulation enabled them to utilize those assets in the best markets. It was only natural that some carriers would succeed, some would fail, others would merge and many new carriers would emerge.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2986 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

In a debate like this, there's often a fairly predictable dialog from those with ideological beliefs on deregulation in general, both pro and con. Rather than jump into the part of it, I'd like to point out a few items to keep in mind when considering the specifics of airline deregulation in the 50's and 60's.

--Air travel was significantly more dangerous then, both in actual numbers and in popular perception. When air travel was more the realm of the wealthy or famous (as it was back then) crashes didn't "hit home" as much with the general public. Assuming roughly the same rate of accidents, crashes would be in the headlines far more often simply because there would likely be so many more flights (if dergulation spawned passengers and flights to skyrocket). Would this have stunted demand, and if so how much?

--Air travel does not funciton in a bubble. Deregulation's effects which increased travel so greatly came into its own during the booming 1980's. How would this have played out in the 50's or 60's?

--The interstate system was far, far less developed in the 50's and 60's. Ease of ground travel has made short-hop air travel somewhat obsolete today. But the flip side is that many smaller communities have lost air service and instead funneled their passengers to other airports. For example, would Southwest-style service work in Omaha if it didn't draw so many passengers away from places like Lincoln, Des Moines, and Sioux City?

--Increases in air travel in the 80's and 90's correspond with big increases in dual-income families with few or zero children, and big increases in single people. Prime candidates for air travel. Compare this to the 50's and 60's when the baby boom found many people in families with one income and multiple children. How would that have influenced outcomes?

I'm not necessarily saying all these things mean dergulation wouldn't have worked, or would have worked more poorly if it was implemented 20 years earlier. Rather, I think it would have played out somewhat differently, and it's not accurate to simply take the benefits measured in the 80's and 90's and project them to the 50's and 60's. I think these sorts of factors need to be considered with speculating on this.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting NateDAL (Reply 10):
It should have never been regulated in the first place.

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, regulation was introduced to help start the industry as yields and markets were to a great extent guaranteed in order to attract investment in civil aviation and airlines. IMO, they let it drag on too long, there were too few airlines, therefore the few employees in the industry had enormous negotiating power. Management carried on as routes and ticket prices were set by the CAB, and this resulted in complacency. This is why most all of the pre-deregulation airlines disappeared or are paying for it today.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5562 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

The author complains that the elitist airlines do nothing for the little guy and then sneers at Juan Trippe for letting people fly on credit.

This little piece is a poorly-written (The first four words "Looking back in retrospect" are a giggle.) bunch of unsupported opinions. How do you write about the period prior to 1978 and never cite anything written prior to 1982?

I'd give it a D+, provided the author is not an economics major.

[Edited 2006-09-28 19:44:43]


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineN844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 14):
Obviously it has been very, very hard for the long time employees and they have fewer options to do something about it. Unfortunately, it is a simple case of supply and demand... there are just too many people that want a career with the airlines

Yep, and I'm genuinely sorry for the long-time employees who have seen their incomes squeezed and their pensions terminated. That sucks, and eliminating the pensions is just unfair. But like you said, it's simply supply and demand, as the NW mechanics found out.  Sad

If airline employees are really and truly not fairly compensated, or otherwise treated unfairly at work, then I'm grateful that so many of them have the ability to do something about it. But if they just would like to be paid more ... well, yeah, who wouldn't? It seems to me like the choice is letting the market set employee wages, or passing on artificially inflated wages to airline passengers. I don't know of any compelling reason why the latter would be justified in this case.



New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6362 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4039 times:

Quoting N844AA (Reply 19):
Yep, and I'm genuinely sorry for the long-time employees who have seen their incomes squeezed and their pensions terminated. That sucks, and eliminating the pensions is just unfair.

Yes, and that is why I think that there are so many pilots now supporting efforts to change the retirement age to 65 from 60. I can't imagine being just a couple of years away from retirement and counting on a nice pension to suddenly getting zip. If they change the regs at least they could have 5 more years to build up a bit of a nest egg. Of course, everyone else is against it but that is just self-interest cloaked in older pilot "health concern issues."

I agree with your post in rebuttal to the anti-deregulation post, adn there are a few additional points that coudl be added to bolster your case. It seems that for too many anti-deregulation supporters it is an emotional argument understandably seen through very narrow lens, as reply 9 demonstrates. As you pointed out, some of his points are false and few others are truly valid, or have limited applicability. But at the end of the day, the remaining valid problems/issues are actually due to too much government/political interference that is still getting in the way of the air transportation system. Deregulation is still not complete. The sad thing is that it wouldn't be very difficult to fix the impediments to an efficient system.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2009 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3981 times:

The person who wrote the article stating that the airlines should have deregulated in the 50's or 60's because the legacy carriers labor costs would have been lowered must be a disciple of Grover Norquist and others who think that Ronald Reagan was the 2nd coming of the Messiah. Why is it that some people are always worried about how much other people earn? Why is it that these same people always talk about overpaid workers? IMHO, it is because they think that they are "better" than the masses who they think should live below the poverty line in order to provide them a service at lower prices so they will have more money to spend on expensive homes, boats, and other luxuries. I am not poor. In fact, I own a luxury home, and a boat, but I do not begrudge what other people are paid. Pilots at Delta and American and United were not over paid in 2000, nor were flight attendants, or mechanics, or rampers, or gate agents. I guess these people I refer to above would rather live in a society like Mexico or Argentina. Deregulation made it possible for airlines to over expand, offer more seats than there was demand for, and then in an attempt to fill these seats, drop prices on certain flights well below the cost of providing them, in order to attempt to fill those seats. This resulted in huge operating losses, and guess who had to pay? The airlines couldn't lower their cost of fuel, or their cost of aircraft substantially. They couldn't go to the city of Chicago and say, "Mayor Daley, we are losing millions, waive our rent and landing fees," so the employees took the hit. After all, they were told, either take a 30 or 40 percent wage decrease, or you will be out of a job. And since these employees had mortgage payments, and car payments, they gave in. But if you notice recently, even with high fuel prices, the airlines have started to turn a profit, but it isn't the lower salaries that are responsible for the billion dollar turnarounds, but rather the increase in revenues. They raised their prices. Some of the overcapacity was removed and suddenly, they can fill their planes without offering RT JFK-LAX for $199.00. Of course we hear the same arguments about the American Auto Industry and other manufacturing industries, that is, that their downfall is because of labor costs that are too high. In the auto industry, the reason that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are in trouble is market share, and their vehicles are not any more expensive nor do they have lower profit margins than their foreign competitors. Toyota, Nissan, and Honda build vehicles in the USA and pay their workers high wages, provide benefits, etc., but they build cars that people want. One can buy a Chevrolet Impala for less than a Honda Accord V-6. The Impala has more room, gets better fuel economy, but what vehicle sells more to individual consumers (forget the rent a car fleets)? Everyone knows the answer, and it's not because GM has unfunded pension liabilities, it's because they lost the market for those of us between 20-60 to their foreign competitors, whose cars, for the most part, we like or liked better. It was management that killed Detroit, not the UAW.

There is nothing valuable in paying flight attendants $18,000.00 per year, or pilots double that. Does anyone think you can live on that kind of pay and maintain more than a subsistence level of living? We don't pay our teachers much more but that if for another board.

Deregulation did lower fares considerably, but at what cost.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2827 posts, RR: 42
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

Regulation was at the airlines own insistance back in the 30s. It occured because they didn't want to compete. This has had dramatically bad reprocussions throughout the entire industry. If Pan Am had been able to get domestic routes back in the 30s, or if United had been able to travel to LHR during the 60s, the aviation industry today would be much much healthier then it is currently.

There is a lot of whining here about the old golden days of flying, the days when only elite people could afford to pay and fly.

For example:

Quoting JFKLGANYC (Reply 9):

1. No in-flight service
2. Cattle car treatment
3. Can't refund a flight
4. Can't change a ticket without a ridiculous fee
5. Terrible customer service
6. Smaller and smaller and smaller planes
7. Overcapacity and horrific delays at our nation's busiest airports
8. B.O.B. . . complete crap for purchase
9. Poverty-level compensation for all airline employees

Ignoring that points 1-4 are all the result on Bob Crandall at AA prior to regulation, I am not sure what your beef is. 5 is subjective (I get great service from the LCC carriers, which were never under regulation, and horrible service from the legacies). 6 is market realities. Remember that with the exception of the 747, most early traffic was DC-8/DC-9, 737/727/707. The 737s and A320s around today are not smaller then that. 7 has always been a problem, even under regulation. 8 sounds like a personal problem. 9 is a rhetorical point. (I would very gladly trade my salary right now for a pilot's salary in just about any carrier).

The point about 747s made above in important. We don't tend to focus on it now, because of the 747s iconic status, but the 747 did as much as deregulation to kill off large portions of the American Airlines.

I think this is all a reflection of some elitist twinging. In reality the regulation days made travel international almost impossible, and made flying from LA to NY amazingly expensive.

Quoting WDBRR (Reply 12):
Deregulation caused the demise of Eastern, PanAm, TWA and others.

Arguably Regulation did. Pan Am and TWA didn't have route structures that were competitive with the rest of the American carriers. Even if the market had n't deregulated, PanAm would have eventually been killed off by BA, or EK, or one of the newer international carriers that had more robust (and viable) routes.

Also, it's important to note that these companies survived a long time out of Deregulation, and it was due to failures of management and their employees (via the unions) that these companies died.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6362 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 22):
I think this is all a reflection of some elitist twinging. In reality the regulation days made travel international almost impossible, and made flying from LA to NY amazingly expensive.

Actually, the more I think about the crying for the "old days" and people making out gripe lists blaming deregulation (that have no to little foundation), the more I have to laugh!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3921 times:

Quoting Milesrich (Reply 21):
There is nothing valuable in paying flight attendants $18,000.00 per year, or pilots double that.

Agree with your statement, but disagree that deregulation was to blame. First of all, Southwest pays their 737 crews higher than legacy carriers flying the same type. Therefore deregulation did not result in below-par living standards for ALL hard working airline personnel. Second the greater number of seats that you mentioned actually stimulated demand and allowed for market forces to shape the industry and not political policy. Yes, there was over expansion in the late 90's and corrections had to be made, but that is no different than any other industry where capacity sometimes outweighs demand. Unfortunately too many hard working legacy airline employees had to share the brunt while their CEOs left with golden parachutes.



Only the paranoid survive
25 Newark777 : That's capitalism for you. The strong companies survive, and the weak disappear. Yes, it was worth it. Harry
26 Milesrich : WN's 737 flight deck crews only make more than the legacy carrier's crews do now because the legacy carrier's pilots have taken 50% pay cuts. Read the
27 Zippyjet : This would be a yes and no answer: The No's Towards the middle and late 60s I remember as a kid "crowded skies" and circling around the airport as a s
28 WesternA318 : Youre right about Eastern and Pan Am for these reasons, but TWA was a whole other problem. We had a Corporate Raider take us over, take us private, t
29 SonOfACaptain : That, and the WN pilots getting raises... -SOAC
30 Zippyjet : Again, both these arguments are on the mark. The 80s was the decade of greed. Much like today also with the Republicans in power, the greedy and corp
31 Aa757first : 1. More frequent flights. 2. Introduction of the frequent flier mile system. 3. PTVs at every seat and similar inventions 4. Lower fares. 5. More con
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are The 320/737 Too Big For US Network Carriers... posted Fri Jan 27 2006 18:28:47 by Boeing7E7
Question For US Airline Pilots........ posted Tue Mar 22 2005 01:04:19 by Chicago757
Too Late For Airbus In Japan? posted Thu Feb 10 2005 13:08:57 by Scbriml
Becoming A Pilot-is It Too Late For Me? posted Wed Jan 5 2005 02:35:56 by Gmunich
Is The New CEO To Late For US Air posted Tue Apr 20 2004 05:48:07 by GREATANSETT
A3XX Too Large For US Companies posted Wed Oct 11 2000 09:42:15 by OO-VEG
Is Scotland Too Small For Its Own Intl Airline? posted Mon Apr 3 2006 12:15:16 by Oly720man
US Airline Industry Finally Rebounding For Good? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 05:50:02 by AviationAddict
US Airline Pilots Working For Non-US Airlines?How? posted Sat May 7 2005 03:47:49 by Shawn Patrick
US Airline Losses For 2004- 9.21 Billion. posted Wed Feb 2 2005 15:46:17 by Juventus