Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airline RE-regulation; For Consideration  
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3263 times:

AA announced numerous cuts and a 15 dollar surcharge for the first checked bag. Indeed times are getting tough and the operating environment is getting rougher and rougher for airlines.

Some were very quick to suggest airline RE-regulation, citing de-regulation as the reason for airlines caring more about profits (gee, businesses not allowed to care about making money, oh dear!  Yeah sure ).

Ok, so maybe it might seem I'm against "re-regulation", not that it's really an issue on the horizon aside from a Congressional warning, but since I've pretty much only known the airline industry in its de-regulated form, I was wondering if members would like to shed light on:

A) the differences between a regulated and de-regulated industry
B) pro's and con's of each
C) Would it be possible to "re-regulate"?
D) More importantly, is it even worth it?
E) Effect on the customer if hypothetically that were to happen,
F) Effect on the LCC's that have become more prevalent since deregulation.

Remember, I've only known "deregulation" so pardon me if I've touched a hot topic and started a flame fest. I don't think I have though.  Smile

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 1209 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3225 times:

Regulation on the scale it existed in the 70s and before violates every part of democratic/free market American business policy. Regulation should only exist to ensure safety and consumer protection. Otherwise, business decisions should be left to the airlines.

User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3176 times:



Quoting Boeing4ever (Thread starter):
A) the differences between a regulated and de-regulated industry
B) pro's and con's of each
C) Would it be possible to "re-regulate"?
D) More importantly, is it even worth it?
E) Effect on the customer if hypothetically that were to happen,
F) Effect on the LCC's that have become more prevalent since deregulation

A. Too much to go ino here..youd could write a book on it.
B. Ditto
C. Not really
D. No Answer
E. Much higer fares. Probably 50% decline in traffic. No more FF miles. 737s back in cities like MGM, no RJs, independent regional airlines with no direct relartioship to Legacies.
F. They would change their business plan or go extinct. ie airlines would begin to compete on service once again, thus WN would have to become a full service airline or else shirk down to 25 planes and fly only within TX


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

You need to recognize that the airlines woes arent caused by deregulation. Airlines made $$$ in the mid/late 1980s and 1990s. It isnt that hard.....the airlines are hurting due to horrible fiscal and monetary policy by the US govt, that has caused the value of the USD to plummet. Thus causeing oil to be so expensive..oil at $70 means a profitable airline industry as was the case in 2006-07

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2826 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3160 times:



Quoting Boeing4ever (Thread starter):


Some were very quick to suggest airline RE-regulation, citing de-regulation as the reason for airlines caring more about profits (gee, businesses not allowed to care about making money, oh dear! Yeah sure ).

Bottom line (to give away what I write below) is that carriers did not make money before deregulation, they have not made money afterwords - with one very large and obvious exception. That one exception is Southwest which is tied neither to the legacy routes that were doled out as postal routes or too hubs that are again constrained by the same route system.

Quote:

Once proud Pan American World Airways has been steadily losing money since 1969, the victim of overstaffing, overcompetition and overbuying of costly jumbo jets. But nothing has threatened the airline's survival more than the quintupling of oil prices. Pan Am's fuel bill last year soared by $194 million and was the prime factor behind its $81.8 million deficit, the alltime highest for a U.S. airline.

Pan Am was the ultimate example of a route system that should have been making money - but didn't under deregulation. Reading the above, each of those criticisms is just as applicable today: Too much staff, too much competition, and too many planes.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Thread starter):
A) the differences between a regulated and de-regulated industry
B) pro's and con's of each
C) Would it be possible to "re-regulate"?
D) More importantly, is it even worth it?
E) Effect on the customer if hypothetically that were to happen,
F) Effect on the LCC's that have become more prevalent since deregulation.



Quoting Boeing4ever (Thread starter):

A) the differences between a regulated and de-regulated industry
B) pro's and con's of each
C) Would it be possible to "re-regulate"?
D) More importantly, is it even worth it?
E) Effect on the customer if hypothetically that were to happen,
F) Effect on the LCC's that have become more prevalent since deregulation.

A) Only the elite can fly in a regulated enviornment. Power corrupts, and between the CAB and the airlines, they worked hard to make sure that there was always enough grease in the palm of the hands in power.
B) None. The carriers struggled just as much pre-de-regulation as post. The only people it benefits are thoose with the means to pay any price for a ticket.
C) Yes. Never underestimate Congresses stupidity or greed. If enough Senators will make a buck, it will happen.
D) No.
E) They will stop flying if the price doubles overnight (deregulation had the effect of cutting prices in seconds).
F) As F9 can tell you right now, even being out of favor with the mayor of Denver can have a effect on them. This would destroy LCCs as they go against the well healed competitors. Note what American airlines was able to do to Southwest with a few large checks to Mr. Wright.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 3):
You need to recognize that the airlines woes arent caused by deregulation. Airlines made $$$ in the mid/late 1980s and 1990s.

Bear in mind that the boom in the 80s and 90s were made possible by the consolidation that hit in the middle of the 80s.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 3):
.the airlines are hurting due to horrible fiscal and monetary policy by the US govt, that has caused the value of the USD to plummet.

More then anything else it is due to the Arab states suddenly noticing that the United States is starting to take alternative fuels seriously, China's and India's demand and Putin's willingness to rattle sabers. OPEC's ministers actually came out and said that they could not justify increasing production while the United States persued alternative energy.

So yes, it's a government problem - but not the United States.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 1):
Regulation on the scale it existed in the 70s and before violates every part of democratic/free market American business policy.

And yet without it, we wouldn't even have commercial air travel today. Makes ya think, huh?

[Edited 2008-05-21 14:41:30]


I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Sorry, no business is entitled to exist - if it was, it should be owned by the government and run as a public service.

Business is harsh, competition takes no prisoners. Let the games begin.


User currently offlineSpacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3629 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3132 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 6):
Sorry, no business is entitled to exist - if it was, it should be owned by the government and run as a public service.

A-ha!

Why should transportation not be run as a public service?

Let's say every airline goes out of business and there are no more airlines in the US because it's just not possible to be profitable anymore. Hey, it might happen.

What then?

And which alternative is worse, re-regulation of the industry or a state-run airline? We're not there yet, but this is the choice you could be facing in 15-20 years.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3107 times:



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 7):
Why should transportation not be run as a public service?

Let's say every airline goes out of business and there are no more airlines in the US because it's just not possible to be profitable anymore. Hey, it might happen.

What then?

Then run it as a public service - I have no issues with that, my issue is with the suggestion that privately held, profit making business should be protected from competition. If there is to be protection, then there should be no profit - if there is profit in a protected system, then the people should be the ones to benefit from it.

There are many examples of transportation systems being run as a public service being head and shoulders above private offerings.


User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3078 times:



Quoting Boeing4ever (Thread starter):

A) the differences between a regulated and de-regulated industry

When commercial airlines first began to fly passengers, there were worries that airlines would scrimp on safety (IIRC) if they had to compete for routes. So the number of airlines flying a specified route was limited and there was a minimum fare airlines had to charge.

Since airlines had to compete on service, not fares, service was obviously very good. Of course, very few could afford to fly.

It would be very difficult to re-regulate the airline industry. It all depends on how it was done. In general, however, fares would go up. Under the regulations we had before, the number of flights in the country would drop. This would probably lead to job loss.

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 7):

Let's say every airline goes out of business and there are no more airlines in the US because it's just not possible to be profitable anymore. Hey, it might happen.

That wouldn't happen. If there was no airline flying passengers in the United States, it would be extremely, extremely profitable to start a commercial airline.


User currently offlineRbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Re-regulation is being talked about today because the airline industry has not had the spine to do what it needs to survive: reduce capacity and charge fares at a level that will cover their costs.

Even today, it is easy to find cross country RT for $200 all in from most good-sized markets. This is ridiculous. As a previous poster said, business is tough, competition is good. Let the shakeout begin.........


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3005 times:



Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Bottom line (to give away what I write below) is that carriers did not make money before deregulation

Excuse me but let me butt in and correct you. Regulation of the carriers was there to make sure they DID make a
profit. NW with their many strikes in the 60's and 70's made $$$. The mutual aid pact made sure of that. It was dissolved when Jimmy Carter signed the deregulation bill in 1978. In the 50's,60's and 70's even the regional carriers like North Central, Southern, Mohawk, Ozark, Air West(Bonanzo, West Coast and Pacific)made $$ flying into small berg USA because Uncles Sam paid them to do it....X dollars per pax boarded. Now think about it.....how much $$ can you make flying into Manistee Michigan, McCook Nebraska or Greeenville, Mississippi?

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
Pan Am was the ultimate example of a route system that should have been making money - but didn't under deregulation.

PanAms merger with National in 1980 was as most airline folks said, the dumbest stupidest airline merger in history.
Pan Am was hard pressed to make a profit afterwards. They should have merged with TWA. If so, they both would be around today and perhaps sucked up another carrier along the way.

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 4):
So yes, it's a government problem - but not the United States.

Naaw....its our governments problem why we have high oil prices today. We can't get to 70percent of our reserves because congress has put it off limits for exploration. The moose's and seals need a home you know. We must give in
and go broke doing it..........and we are, you know.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2092 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

De-regulation has not been a benefit to many travelers. While it has lowered costs, service declined with it. If oil prices, the improved efficiency of new aircraft and labor cuts since de-regulation are factored in, average fares would probably not increase as much as free marketers claim. A re-regulated flight would probably cause the cheapest tickets to increase in price and the most expensive ones to drop.

For those of us old enough to remember, the last decade before de-regulation was a golden age, with many comfortable widebody domestic flights. 747s had 9 abreast seating in Y with 36" or more pitch. DC-10s and L-1011s were 8 abreast with similar pitch. Food in coach was not good then either, but at least they had it. Entertainment was generally not as good but the technology of the time was limited. Lines were shorter and there were more staff to help. There were even more weather delays but there were more spare aircraft to compensate and there were fewer traffic delays.

Considering what we lost, the lower fares hardly make up for them.

Unfortunately, I do not think that re-regulation can happen. There is only room for one or two full service, premium carriers as is the case in just about every other country. The rest should be covered by LCCs and regional carriers.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2978 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 3):
Thus causeing oil to be so expensive..oil at $70 means a profitable airline industry as was the case in 2006-07

So you're saying $70 oil was not a crisis? Sure it was. But the airlines proved they could adapt to the enormous challenge of $70 oil. Yet, people still doubt that airlines can adapt. Why do you doubt it? They proved their abilities as recently as 2007. Have people forgotten already?


If oil remains at $120, you know what will happen in 2009? Capacity will decline. And airlines will still be slightly below break-even. What if oil went to $60? Airlines would grow. And the profit margin would be slightly better. But not much.

Evidence? History. 2000-2007. Oil increased, profits increased. Magic, huh? They dealt with the problem. Nobody EVER thought airlines could survive $70 oil but you know what, they did. They can also survive at $120 oil.


As for our country, and the "weak dollar," that was inevitable. It is useless to hand-wring about the fact that gravity pulls apples down from the tree, instead of up.


User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 42
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2971 times:



Quote:
F. They would change their business plan or go extinct. ie airlines would begin to compete on service once again, thus WN would have to become a full service airline or else shirk down to 25 planes and fly only within TX

First of all, as one of the resident WN apologists, I must remind the individual who posted the above captioned rremark that when it comes to the Y cabin....WN offers a product superior to that of any of the legacies.

As far as the topic goes.....if the government did decide to re-regulate the airlines, I expect that everyone would get "grandfathered in" flying the markets they currently fly.

The government does a lot of dumb things but they are generally not sufficiently stupid to penalize the nation's most profitable (and quite often only profitable) airline for being good at what they do. Thus you would be left with Southwest as the nation's largest passenger carrying airline in to perpetuity.

The government would set fares and they would probably rise, thus demand would fall, and a whole lot of folks in the airline industry would lose their jobs. And those people who lost airline industry jobs would end up being really mad that they have had to go to work in fast foods or at a convenience store.

What the government needs to do is adopt a hands-off policy and let a few airlines go out of business. The resulting loss of capacity would end up making the remaining airlines a whole lot healthier.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2971 times:

Re-regulate the airline industry, you will crash the industry to the point where its not even feasible to even have any air service any longer. It would be a complete mess beyond repair.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21534 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Why not let the GD market WORK for C's sake! It is the cause celebre of socialists that as soon as a market actually begins correcting, they want to jump in and stop it, take it over. The housing market, the stock market, the airline market, it doesn't matter.

What is going on right now is HEALTHY. Stop proposing to mess with it. Some airlines will fold. The industry will adjust. Jobs will be transferred from dead airlines to stronger ones (after all, we still have to fly X number of people around somehow). This is what happens in free markets.

This is a critical time in this industry, as we are on the cusp of a sea change in how things run and who is on top, and trying to reregulate or socialize the system at this point to prevent it is the worst kind of meddling.

Get over it.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlightopsguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2964 times:



Quoting Rbgso (Reply 10):
Even today, it is easy to find cross country RT for $200 all in from most good-sized markets. This is ridiculous. As a previous poster said, business is tough, competition is good. Let the shakeout begin.........

About the same as the transcon fare in 1950.

I recall that the CAB set fares so as to have the carriers receive about a 15% ROI. Route applications could take years to be vetted, and had to demonstrate a "public good", which did not include the price of the fare. There were two or three fares, F, Y, and on some carriers, K (economy which meant you got NO food or beverage service). Roundtrip was double the one way fare.

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 11):
Regulation of the carriers was there to make sure they DID make a
profit. NW with their many strikes in the 60's and 70's made $$$. The mutual aid pact made sure of that. It was dissolved when Jimmy Carter signed the deregulation bill in 1978

NWA actually made more money during their many strikes. I once met Don Nyrop in the early 70's, and he was a very powerful figure who even took the doors off the lav stalls at the NWA HQ so the employees didn't spend too much time away from their desks. It was a different time.



A300-330 BAC111/146/J31/41 B99/1900 CV580 B707-777 DC8/9/10 L188/1011 FH227/28/100 SB340 DO228 EMB2/170 CR2-900 SH330-60
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2943 times:

Not going to happen--too much inefficient flying, increasing costs to society. Free markets should be allowed to do it's job--companies who can't adapt their business models to compete will die--that's the way it should be.


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23056 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

I've responded to a couple of specific things below, but I would like to say (generally) that it's a fallacy to assume that ANY scheme of regulation would look like what we had in the 70s. There are strong arguments for re-regulation, but the marketplace is quite a lot different from what it was 50 years ago.

Quoting TxAgKuwait (Reply 14):
First of all, as one of the resident WN apologists, I must remind the individual who posted the above captioned rremark that when it comes to the Y cabin....WN offers a product superior to that of any of the legacies.

Sorry, Tx. Singing flight attendants alone arguably make the product inferior. Superiority is a matter of how you measure it (I certainly do fly WN, but to say that their Y product is unquestionably superior is just wrong)

Quoting Jhooper (Reply 18):
Free markets should be allowed to do it's job--companies who can't adapt their business models to compete will die--that's the way it should be.

If no one can make money flying to cities with less than, say, 300,000 people, is that OK?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

How about fixing and updating our infrastructure for starters..that would probably knock-off a few billion in losses right there.

Its sad the United States has one of the most antiquated aviation infrastructure in the civilized (and "western" world).



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2856 times:



Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
De-regulation has not been a benefit to many travelers.

It has been a benefit to the vast majority of travelers. Do you think the average American would fly with any degree of frequency if our system was regulated? Prices during regulation were very, very high when adjusted for inflation.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
While it has lowered costs, service declined with it.

That's obviously what the market demanded. People have chosen to fly WN and the copy-cat carriers.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
A re-regulated flight would probably cause the cheapest tickets to increase in price and the most expensive ones to drop.

How do you figure?

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):

Considering what we lost, the lower fares hardly make up for them.

To you. If you miss the days of good service so much, why don't you just fly First Class?


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Interesting comments so far. I've struck gold.  Smile

A point was made that if re-regulation were to occur, it would not look like what we had in say the 1970's...that that would be near impossible.

So that brings up a new question...what would re-regulation look like if implemented in today's operating environment?

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2767 times:



Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
Considering what we lost, the lower fares hardly make up for them.

I echo what Aa757first just said. If you flew often back in those days, you likely can afford to fly first class.

And I believe the millions of passengers that could never have afforded to fly during the regulated days would disagree with your comment. My father, for example, didn't take his first commercial flight until 1970, when he was 24 years old (and that one was paid for by the Army). He didn't fly on his own dime until he was 30. I, on the other hand, took my first flight at age 10, and I was old by my generation's standards for "first flights."



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineTxAgKuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 42
Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2754 times:



Quote:
Sorry, Tx. Singing flight attendants alone arguably make the product inferior. Superiority is a matter of how you measure it (I certainly do fly WN, but to say that their Y product is unquestionably superior is just wrong)

I'm not terribly interested in or worried about singing flight attendants (or singing nuns, for that matter, with apologies to Debbie Reynolds).

To me it is all about customer service and comfort. I have spent plenty of time on board AA's MD80s....once MRTC went away, so did any advantage of American might have had. I'm not a big guy but I have fairly long legs and cramming me into 30" pitch on DL or US is absolutely miserable. I don't even want to discuss my opinion of the Barbie Dream Jet experience.

I get on a 1 hr flight on WN....I get served a beverage and usually a refill. I climb on somebody else's 1 hr flight, I usually get an apology on the PA system that "due to the short duration of our flight there will be no beverage service."

ELP to DAL or DFW is roughly an hour and a half. WN's flight attendants get a drink service out, then hit me up a couple of times to see if I want a refill. On AA, they push the cart down the aisle one time, I get a thimble sized cup of coke, and then they park the cart and pick up the service items. After that, they hide in the galley discussing how badly they've been messed with by AA's management.

And don't think I am picking on AA. I actually prefer them to US or DL.

I get on a WN flight of > 2 hrs duration I can put myself into a diabetic coma, if I so choose, with snack pack after snack pack. On the legacies, I am fortunate to get 1 bag containg 6 pretzels, all of which appear to have passed their "best by" date.

When I land at Love Field, I can have bag in hand, catch shuttle to the Avis lot, get car, and be on Stemmons Expwy not more than 20 minutes after wheels down. At other WN stations I have noticed that the baggage guys tend to move with a ssimilar ense of urgency.

On American at DFW I have waited, on occasion, for an hour to reclaim a checked bag. Then I ride the train. Then I catch a bus to a rental car terminal that serves every terminal, every flight at DFW. I wait for what seems like forever. Normally my drive-away time at DFW has to be planned for 1 1/2 to 2 hrs after scheduled arrival.

Singing flight attendants aside, It has been my experience on roughly 60 flights per year that WN offers a better product in terms of comfort, reliability, and courtesy, Those have nothing to do with songs or cute safety briefings. Although I did enjoy the safety briefing I heard on a recent DAL-AMA-DEN trip where the male FA was on the microphone and two females were doing the demonstration and he introduced one as the Captain's current girlfriend and the other as his soon-to-be ex wife.

One man's meat is another man's poison, I suppose.


25 Cubsrule : Like I said, I fly WN and I like WN (and if MDW weren't so darn far from most of the places I want/need to go in Chicago or they flew to CLT, I'd fly
26 EXAAUADL : No it was not...By 2007 the US economy had adjusted to $70 oil...even at $130 oil, the US economy can adjust by 2010. Donot forget this is not the fi
27 EXAAUADL : That was cuz of the mutual aid pact and the fact that NWA pacific flights were operated during most strikes
28 Isitsafenow : ...................and big fat checks they got from United because before hub n spoke, NW biggest competitor in routes was United. safe
29 AirNZ : IMO yes, if that's the way it has to be. However, what would your proposals be, or why do you think it would be wrong? And which everyone has the per
30 AirFrnt : Might I recommend that you take a look at the book "hard landings?" It might help with your misconception here. Please check the date on my article a
31 BSBIsland : Brazil is one of the few cases in the world in which authorities temporarily re-regulated the market after years of economic liberalization. Alleging
32 Gsosbee : Yes and no. The legacy airlines business model of today is basically the same as it was before deregulation (i.e. beat the competitor on costs). They
33 Bobnwa : I believe when the mutual aid pact was in existence, the competitor across the Pacific was Pan AM, not United.
34 Cubsrule : I don't have any specific proposal in mind, but if fuel gets expensive enough, small markets are going to hurt the most. Maybe that's all right, but
35 SEPilot : That's your opinion; many do not share it. I, for one, appreciate the low fares and am willing to dispense with amenities. Government intervention in
36 Isitsafenow : I have that book along with a few gadzillion others about the industry. The one you referred to is like most books written by someone with an ax to g
37 SEPilot : The trouble with Pan Am went way beyond overstaffing and too many jumbos. Pan Am was more than most companies the personal toy of its creator-Juan Tr
38 LongbowPilot : Another mans pleasure is a another man's pain. WN is the cattle car of the sky, where the people play aisle hockey to get a seat and bum rush the doo
39 DCA-ROCguy : Interesting comments so far. I've struck gold. Actually, you've simply posted about a favorite Airliners.net chestnut, which has been discussed thorou
40 Crewchief : One point no one has brought up: regulating prices, routes, aircraft sizes, frequencies and the like will not solve today's problem. That problem is f
41 LTBEWR : There are 2 areas of some return of or new regulations - consumer protection and operations. I don't believe any of them are particularly onerous as t
42 Flighty : I don't think you have thought that through. Hedging is a really complex game among the airlines. If they are required to hedge, that does not change
43 EA CO AS : And many did it the quick, easy way in the form of Chapter 11 reorganization, which allowed them to not only tell shareholders, "Hey, y'know that mon
44 Crewchief : I don't doubt the complexity at all. But the fundamental problem for airlines today is that the their future costs are much more volatile than their
45 AirNZ : Oh! I wasn't implying that it's alright and without a thought, but was just asking what proposals you might have had. I can understand the feelings y
46 Cubsrule : I don't know; I guess it depends on one's idea of the purpose of air travel. If air travel is basically public transportation, then it seems that som
47 Ssides : And not only did those airline screw over their employees and investors, they did the same for all involved in the entire industry. It is entirely un
48 Cubsrule : Why should some abstract notion of 'fairness' drive airlines? Shouldn't the goal be to make as much money as possible?
49 Ssides : I disagree with your first point -- IMHO, extra consumer "protection" legislation tends to harm the customer in the long run by denying airlines the
50 Cubsrule : Why do you assume that a private entity is capable of handling ATC better than the FAA? The FAA does an abysmal job at present, but why is privatizat
51 Flighty : My feeling is that I agree with you. It might be good to hedge a little. It's true that locking in your fuel prices will allow you to cut / grow the
52 Ssides : A private entity would have much more incentive to invest in updated technology than the FAA currently does. It could make decisions regarding person
53 SEPilot : As one who argues vehemently for privatizing wherever possible, on this one I have to argue against it. Yes, the FAA is vastly inefficient and behind
54 Cubsrule : If the FAA were adequately funded, it would invest in the technology you seek. It's more a question of who ought to pay than who is most efficient. I
55 Ssides : The funding adequacy you talk about is one of the many political considerations I am referring to when arguing for privatization. If the system were
56 Cubsrule : It would be initially easier to come by, but private investors tend to want some sort of return... again, it's a question of who funds the system.
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...
Senators Suggest Re-regulation Of Airline Industry posted Wed Jan 24 2007 21:59:59 by Ssides
Airline Failure: Good For Industry In Long-term? posted Sun Apr 27 2008 12:26:29 by Tuiflyer
Congress To Airlines:Re-regulation Possible. posted Thu Apr 10 2008 08:27:44 by FXramper
Official:Boeing Re-Schedule For 787 First Flight posted Wed Jan 16 2008 06:12:22 by OyKIE
Airline Alliances Aim For New Efficiencies posted Mon Sep 17 2007 20:58:41 by RJpieces
Would An Airline Swap Classes For Spouses? posted Thu May 10 2007 09:57:23 by EYKD
Is BMI Just A Feeder Airline At LHR For Star? posted Mon Jan 22 2007 12:01:13 by Gilesdavies
SN Brussels Airlines@LHR After Airline Re-location posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:33:22 by 8herveg
Airline De-Regulation posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:18:53 by Cba
Changes To Airline Ticketing Policies For UK Bust posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:45:33 by QXatFAT