Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is Regulation Coming Back?  
User currently offlineBW424 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Sep 2008, 1435 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4814 times:

With the imminent merger of CO and UA, questions are being raised with respect to whether the industry should remain deregulated. The following press release states that Congress are considering the option of regulation once again. Many people on this forum have criticized deregulation for the erosion of employee benefits and job prestige. I haven't read of too many advocates of deregulation on this forum, but probably I haven't read enough. Anyway, here is the article below,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_go_co/us_united_continental

I know this has been discussed at length, but if this happens to pass, could we see the return of the "glory days", or is it too far gone to reprieve?

[Edited 2010-06-17 01:34:33]


It is what we think we know already that prevents us from learning.......
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMSYPI7185 From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting BW424 (Thread starter):
I know this has been discussed at length, but if this happens to pass, could we see the return of the "glory days", or is it to far gone to reprieve?

IMO it is too far gone. I am not so sure I would want to see regulation comeback. At one time I did, but the way things are with our politicians I am afraid it would be worse. To return to the "glory days" (which would be wonderful IMO) airfares would have to climb considerably, and I do not see this happening, or the gov't regulators allowing this to happen. If regulation affected only fares and etc..maybe, but not regulation like pre-1978. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but I am not sure what that would be. Right now I do not want gov't with their hands in anything more than they already are.

MD


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4738 times:

The mergers should mean less requirements for regulation. Reduced competition means in theory more money for the ailrines which in turn should mean less incentive to pay your employees pittance.

User currently offlineBW424 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Sep 2008, 1435 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4734 times:

Quoting MSYPI7185 (Reply 1):
To return to the "glory days" (which would be wonderful IMO) airfares would have to climb considerably, and I do not see this happening, or the gov't regulators allowing this to happen. If regulation affected only fares and etc..maybe, but not regulation like pre-1978. The answer is somewhere in the middle, but I am not sure what that would be.

I see your point. I can't see such a strictly regulated industry as pre-1978 if this were to pass though.
Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
The mergers should mean less requirements for regulation. Reduced competition means in theory more money for the ailrines which in turn should mean less incentive to pay your employees pittance.

Agreed. It's like the industry is naturally returning to an era where there were only a handful of major carriers that ruled their respective regions. However, with ULCCs, their might be a glass ceiling in some respects.



It is what we think we know already that prevents us from learning.......
User currently offlineCB97 From Canada, joined Mar 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4476 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
Reduced competition means in theory more money for the ailrines which in turn should mean less incentive to pay your employees pittance.

Any extra money will go to the shareholders and executives, airlines will still try to short the employees but they'll just come up with better excuses. Why give it to the people who deserve it when you can give it to yourselves?


User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4431 times:

Quoting BW424 (Reply 3):
It's like the industry is naturally returning to an era where there were only a handful of major carriers that ruled their respective regions. However, with ULCCs, their might be a glass ceiling in some respects.

I suppose in the end, the market will decide. As many folks out there are hunting for the lowest price, there's still quite a large number whose focus is convenience, service, and benefits (ie freq. flier miles, upgrades, etc).

Since very few (well, at this time, none) of the LCCs/ULCCs fly across the Atlantic or Pacific, it would be interesting to see the legacies focus more on those routes and offer them at a premium, all the while partnering up with the LCCs to form a strong domestic presence to feed the international routes. Yes, I'm a little biased, but for example, if a legacy partnered with B6 or WN, one could expect decent domestic (or Caribbean) travel experiences and connect internationally on DL, UA, or AA for an equally sound int'l product. Of course, that's assuming that one would compare Y class products favorably on said airlines...the lines tend to become more blurred when you're talking about C or F customers, however.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineDLX737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1930 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4411 times:

As a current and future employee of the aviation industry, I am excited for the possibility of regulation coming back if it means increased job security and more reasonable employee wages. However, as a consumer, I'm not overjoyed at the possibility of higher fares, less airlines, and overall less service. As a whole though, I think I would vote for regulation.

User currently offlinessides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

The genie is already out of the bottle on regulation. The number of passengers, aircraft and airlines has exploded since deregulation.

The only thing that I could see happening would be (1) more stringent capitalization requirements for new airlines (and maybe elimination on the foreign-owned airline in exchange?) and (2) reformation of the bankruptcy system making it more difficult for airlines to shed contractual obligations.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlinelowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4408 times:

Quoting BW424 (Thread starter):
could we see the return of the "glory days", or is it too far gone to reprieve?

A return to the "glory days" would mean that the majority of the users on this website would no longer be able to afford to use the airlines they love to discuss. I would also mean that many airline employees would be out of work. Doesn't sound so "glorious" to me.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineNASBWI From Bahamas, joined Feb 2005, 1316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 4406 times:

Quoting ssides (Reply 7):
(and maybe elimination on the foreign-owned airline in exchange?)

In theory that sounds fair, but in certain cases, foreign investment is need in order to create the jobs that our economy so desperately needs. Keep in mind that as it is, foreign ownership cannot exceed 49%.



Fierce, Fabulous, and Flawless ;)
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4312 times:

Quoting CB97 (Reply 4):
Any extra money will go to the shareholders and executives, airlines will still try to short the employees but they'll just come up with better excuses. Why give it to the people who deserve it when you can give it to yourselves?

It's a cute story, but why isn't it what happened during regulation in the United States? The return on investment on US airlines actually didn't change much as a result of deregulation. Rather, there was a massive wealth transfer from workers to passengers in the form of lower wages and benefits and lower fares.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting ssides (Reply 7):

The only thing that I could see happening would be (1) more stringent capitalization requirements for new airlines (and maybe elimination on the foreign-owned airline in exchange?) and (2) reformation of the bankruptcy system making it more difficult for airlines to shed contractual obligations.

Government regulations are not going to do anything to protect employees at the airlines. Managing labor is the responsibility of the airline, not the government. The government wants lower fares because that is good for the consumer.

The regulator's purpose is to be an advocate for the consumer. They want safe, reliable, and affordable transportation. As you have seen in most of the rulings regarding slots, the emphasis is on providing new entrants opportunities to serve markets so that fares stay low.

I would absolutely never want to see regulation again. The fact the airline industry has grown four times faster than the population growth rate means that more people are working for airlines and there are more people in the business. We could have a very happy industry with only 25% of the employees we have today or we can have everyone employed now. I think most prefer the later since that means they have a job.

If you want to work for an airline today and earn a stable and competitive salary, get a degree in engineering, IT, accounting, finance or an MBA and work in management. You still get to nonrev and fly all over the world and you also get a 9-5 job that pays you enough so you can afford to live a comfortable life and can spend some money on your two day trip to London.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1565 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting DLX737200 (Reply 6):
I am excited for the possibility of regulation coming back if it means increased job security and more reasonable employee wages.

It won't. It'll just force some airlines out of business, further reducing the number of pilots, FA's, mechanic and other employees. Everyone has this idea of regulation exactly like it was in 1978.

We don't know anything about what they might do, but I can assure you it won't look like it did prior to 1978.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlinessides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 12):
It won't. It'll just force some airlines out of business, further reducing the number of pilots, FA's, mechanic and other employees.

Exactly. Regulation might give the appearance of stability, but when you look back at the regulated era, flying wasn't near as common.

Re-regulation would significantly reduce aggregate demand for air travel, and airlines would have no choice but to downsize. Significantly, in some cases.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineisitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4145 times:

Well, you have the Dems as a majority in the house and senate. Why not?
The government got into health care and the auto industry. Lets get back into the airline ticket pricing biz.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1729 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

IIRC airline deregulation happened under Carter. In any event we need to be careful on this subject. It is not a matter of regulation or no regulation. Slot shortages also regulate after a fashion. Fares remain open, but even there the market provides some quasi-regulation. Everyone agrees that moderately larger planes and a little less frequency would improve things in certain crowded airports, but no one has come up with a politically possible way to do this by regulation. The only certainty is that some regulations will be added and others will be changed.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinetharanga From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 1865 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

I think blanket terms like "Regulation" are profoundly unhelpful, even meaningless, when referring to anything besides what existed in the US before 1978. In the case of history, we know the details of what all the regulations were, so it's OK to collectively refer to them as "Regulation" with a capital R.

But there are still regulations now, and there will be regulations in the future. When discussing how these will evolve going forward, I ask fellow anetters to be specific in terms of what regulations they are talking about.

If what you mean is route and fare control of the pre-1978 world, then I think this will never come back. We will continue going towards open skies globally, not the opposite direction of closed skies domestically.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

Quoting BW424 (Thread starter):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100616/ap_on_go_co/us_united_continental

I know this has been discussed at length, but if this happens to pass, could we see the return of the "glory days", or is it too far gone to reprieve?

From the article:

"At a hearing on the merger, Reps. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Jerry Costello, D-Ill., chairman of the panel's aviation subcommittee, expressed concern about the impact the proposed deal could have on consumers and airline workers."

Oberstar is as clueless about the aviation market as Barney Frank is about the housing market.....  



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Quoting BW424 (Thread starter):
could we see the return of the "glory days"

If by "glory days" you mean high fares and half empty planes.

As far as I am concerned, the government should regulate safety and certain other things like slots at congested airports and the passenger bill of rights. Beyond that, hand's off.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJPuentes From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 48 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

Quoting CB97 (Reply 4):
Any extra money will go to the shareholders and executives, airlines will still try to short the employees but they'll just come up with better excuses. Why give it to the people who deserve it when you can give it to yourselves?

Not to be mean or nothing but, the only reason shareholders put money into something is because they expect it to good, If Employees want in on the extra cash they can purchase stock, the shareholders are risking their money to try to make money, plus they are already giving a job to employees, they don't tell you before they hire you that if they start making a lot of money they will share (by the way, travel benefits I wished I had, also counts as sharing wealth) it with you.

Understand What I'm telling you?

But yeah regulation is going to get rid of a lot of jobs, prices would shoot up and Bus fares would also Go up.
Its a Loose/Loose situation. I am A strong believer in Deregulation, Its all about supply and demand, If you want to travel in luxury and have the money, why no just charter an airplane, many rich people do it, and its way better than the airlines in Golden days of airlines!



If you can't convince them, confuse them
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3866 times:

BW424: This is one of the most-discussed topics at Airliners.net, with a lengthy thread at least every two weeks if not every week. A search would get you pretty much anything this thread will produce, excepting particulars of the news story that you used to start the thread. All of the same viewpoints--both pro- and anti-Deregulation--get re-hashed every time. I for one usually contribute, because this is an important topic, and as a supporter of Deregulation I like to support my team.  

Cubsrule has offered one faulty argument in several Deregulation threads now. Deregulation has not resulted in a "massive wealth transfer" from employees and shareholders, to passengers. What Deregulation meant was that air travelers--whose "wealth" is theirs to decide to spend, and no one else's--now have some say in the cost of the product they buy, as they well should. If the product is too expensive, they don't buy it. If it is within their budget range, they do. Money that never leaves someone's wallet is in no way "transferred" from anyone else; that language is wrongly used here.

The freest-possible (since of course there is no such thing as a totally free market) interplay of investors/ managements, labor, and consumers, determines the value of the product, and each party serves as a check on the others. Before Deregulation, managment/ investors and labor pretty much autonomously determined the (then very expensive) cost of air travel. They simply went to the CAB for a price increases as wanted, and passengers had no say in the matter.

But a freer-market system, which is proper economic form to determine the value and cost of air travel, found that the product was overvalued and overpriced. Investors/ managements, the provider of capital, thought it worth their while to keep investing in the industry as new entrants arrived and prices dropped. The language of "overcapacity" that is often used here is thus inaccurate. Those who fund the industry seem to keep funding it, whether carriers are profitable or not. They are free to stop investing any time they want. Anyone who thinks there's "too much capacity" should talk with them.

Similarly, the often-made statement that "passengers don't pay the true cost of flying, etc." is also inaccurate. Passengers pay the prices set by airline managements. It is not their job to do airline revenue-management departments' work. If anyone thinks passengers aren't paying enough, they are free to write a check (or whatever means is acceptable) to the airline for more money with their airfare. It is right and good that passengers have the Internet and various tools of comparison, so that they may find the best deal according to the criteria (price, schedule, FF program, amenities, etc.) that best serve their travel needs.

All of the above is intended with full respect for all people involved in aviation. There is nothing "anti-employee" or "anti-management" about anything I have written. Everyone has their fair role in the system. Employees, for example are free to strike within legal limits, or seek work in another industry, if they do not think they are paid enough. Supply and demand--that is a great power. Managements don't want strikes, and the record shows they'll go to great lengths most (if not all) of the time to avoid them.

Regarding the news story: sounds like a clueless bunch in Congress. Reregulating prices wouldn't protect consumers; it will just gum up the whole works for all parties involved and increase the costs of air travel for all. As several have noted, though, this is just grumbling--there is pretty much no chance of serious price re-regulation. Also, Tilton's statement that low-fare carries drive prices "artificially low" is self-serving BS. LCC's can make money on lower fares than UA can, and Tilton, as might be expected, doesn't like that fact.

However, contra Jacobin777, the Congrescritters are right to worry about the impact of any legacy airline merger on employees and consumers. Mergers are about one thing and one thing alone: slashing capacity, which means fewer employees, fewer planes, fewer hubs, and higher prices. LCC's aren't everywhere, and can't exercise their impact on fares where they don't fly.

Passengers actually have the least power of anyone involved, and it is quite fair that antitrust law be judiciously enforced to prevent market failures. My guess is that UA-CO will be approved with some minor divestiture requirements on international routes. But, given this administration's demonstrated interest in domestic competition, anything's possible.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 20):
Cubsrule has offered one faulty argument in several Deregulation threads now.

Jim, you can call it what you want, but the data don't lie. The relative wealth of shareholders in the airline industry hasn't changed much in the past forty years. Meanwhile, average wages and average fares have dramatically fallen. Your point that it isn't, strictly speaking, a wealth transfer is a valid one, but that doesn't change what deregulation did to return on investment (as a proxy for shareholder wealth), wages (as a proxy for worker wealth), and fares (as a proxy for consumer 'wealth').

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 20):
Before Deregulation, managment/ investors and labor pretty much autonomously determined the (then very expensive) cost of air travel. They simply went to the CAB for a price increases as wanted, and passengers had no say in the matter.

Why didn't investors make more money, then?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15781 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting JPuentes (Reply 19):
If Employees want in on the extra cash they can purchase stock, the shareholders are risking their money to try to make money,

Well, it seems more and more common among Americans to seemingly believe that companies are run for the benefit of the employees.

Quoting JPuentes (Reply 19):
why no just charter an airplane, many rich people do it, and its way better than the airlines in Golden days of airlines!

And there is the deal with this whole argument. The people who want deregulation back want the glory days back, but don't want to pay for it. Sadly, they will pay for it either way, so I suggest that they pony up for business or economy plus and leave options for the passengers who don't care. If they want the extras, they can have the extras. One of the main changes is that that level is no longer necessarily the lowest.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4507 posts, RR: 34
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
Why didn't investors make more money, then?

That's a very good question. I for one don't know the answer, but suspect that a combination of poor management and the less-developed, pre-Bob-Crandall and pre-computers state of revenue management had something to do with it.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
Jim, you can call it what you want, but the data don't lie. The relative wealth of shareholders in the airline industry hasn't changed much in the past forty years. Meanwhile, average wages and average fares have dramatically fallen. Your point that it isn't, strictly speaking, a wealth transfer is a valid one, but that doesn't change what deregulation did to return on investment (as a proxy for shareholder wealth), wages (as a proxy for worker wealth), and fares (as a proxy for consumer 'wealth').

I guess that I'm wary of language like "wealth transfer" because it ascribes a responsibility to consumers that they don't have. Managements and managements alone set fares; the only fares we have available to pay are those shown on the screen. But absolutely, average wages and fares have fallen, and investors still are taking an especially big chance when investing in this particular industry.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 20):
However, contra Jacobin777, the Congrescritters are right to worry about the impact of any legacy airline merger on employees and consumers. Mergers are about one thing and one thing alone: slashing capacity, which means fewer employees, fewer planes, fewer hubs, and higher prices. LCC's aren't everywhere, and can't exercise their impact on fares where they don't fly.

To a certain extent then, consolidation will help the carriers-which means less regulation in theory.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 20):
Passengers actually have the least power of anyone involved, and it is quite fair that antitrust law be judiciously enforced to prevent market failures. My guess is that UA-CO will be approved with some minor divestiture requirements on international routes. But, given this administration's demonstrated interest in domestic competition, anything's possible.

Pax can (and do) "vote" however with their wallets....

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Well, it seems more and more common among Americans to seemingly believe that companies are run for the benefit of the employees.

Which is unfortunate. Yes the employees are important to a company-but they shouldn't be in most cases, especially in a publicly traded company, be the reason for a companies existence....maybe in a socialistic govt./country....



"Up the Irons!"
25 frmrCapCadet : Jim, I enjoyed your post and am mostly in agreement. I see the problems facing Legacies differently. I think the reason they did not make the transit
26 IADCA : "Wealth transfer" is really just an economics term. You can call the phenomenon anything you like, but I don't see how it gives consumers any respons
27 JPuentes : Yup, My brother works at a Wal Mart Distribution Center and he said that when he heard that the economy was going downhill he purchased stock, now Wa
28 ltbewr : Many here and elsewhere would like to see more consumer friendly regulation for airline customers like we see in Europe, more transparancy as to the r
29 Boeing1970 : I'd be for it is the intent was to do the following: 1. Control the schedules of congested airports and apportion access to everyone. Have an auction
30 Post contains images ItalianFlyer : I saw this in the "USAToday" and laughed my *** off. I think we can all agree that the airline industry is the most regulated 'unregulated' industries
31 SCL767 : Unfortunately this is not the case in the Eastern Caribbean where many pax traveling on "inter-island" routes have no other choice but to fly on one
32 silentbob : I think the more accurate term would be more government interference in the commercial aviation industry. There will be new laws passed that increase
33 BMI727 : You can already get whatever seat pitch and service level you want. You just have to pay for it. It seems to me that is the recurring theme: pro-regu
34 frmrCapCadet : For 15% more space you typically pay 100-200% more. At least most times I have looked. Classic flying was 6 abreast, 34 inch. Now 28 or 29 to 31 inch
35 Boeing1970 : Between large cities and on a handful of airlines yes. In markets where I actually have to fly, not hardly. No, I'm sure you don't have a bag big eno
36 BMI727 : Well, that sucks for you. Of course, you can drive to a hub where you can get the service you'd like. I don't see how the government should force air
37 Jacobin777 : ..but that's not what the majority of most markets are....
38 SCL767 : I agree, IMO that specific market is one of the most "backwards" in the America's. That's why I used that example.
39 Post contains images Jacobin777 : It could be the market for multiple carriers just isn't there....truth be told, I have no clue. Off for the evening...
40 ericaasen : I started my own thread on this, not searching first, bad me. Anyways here's what I think. The airlines do NOT need to be regulated! Obestar wants to
41 AirNZ : As any government most certainly should do.
42 CitrusCritter : Right, and that is anti-competitive. Losing another major airline is anti-competitive and bad for consumers. However, the Big 3 autos could not muscl
43 DAL763ER : I hope you are joking when you say you would like the industry to be regulated again. What for? So Y tickets cost the same as F/J tickets? I understan
44 Jacobin777 : The cat is already out of the hat. The approval of DL-NW giving DL such a large footprint in many cities/routes would be unfair. There is more than e
45 ebj1248650 : What you say makes sense in principle, but I suspect the greater income would mean putting just that much more toward the bottom line to satisfy the
46 CitrusCritter : Am I reading this right, that you're suggesting that people in small cities shouldn't expect airline competition because they live in small cities, a
47 frmrCapCadet : If you are willing to accept one-stop smaller cities are increasingly going to be able to offer great service to anywhere in the world.
48 exFATboy : I don't see the US ever going back to full regulation in the sense of the pre-1978 sense, where domestic routes, prices, etc. were set by the governme
49 CitrusCritter : I don't see where financial stability is necessarily an input into deciding whether a merger is pro-competitive or anti-competitive. Certainly that c
50 Cubsrule : Most B6 people seem to think that FL, not DL, was the problem for B6 in ATL. That's sort of ironic; I think AA at DFW has actually gotten in to more
51 BMI727 : I still think that this whole thing with people wanting a return to regulation is about wanting something for nothing. They do neglect to remember tha
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...
Is Dinar Coming Back? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 05:26:37 by 717fan
Is BA Coming Back To SAN posted Tue Mar 30 2004 02:11:57 by BRINK777
Is AccessAir Coming Back? posted Fri Jan 14 2000 03:36:09 by Matt D
Is Tu-144 Coming Back? posted Wed Aug 29 2007 03:01:29 by Victor009
When Is Skybus' Flight Status Coming Back? posted Tue Jun 12 2007 21:47:15 by Gregarious119
LH At DEN, Is The 744 Coming Back? posted Thu May 5 2005 02:20:00 by DLKAPA
Is Sun Country Coming Back To SFO....again? posted Tue May 25 2004 22:45:08 by As739x
Is Allegro Really Coming Back? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 20:24:10 by Hugojimenez
So Is The Fokker 70/100 Coming Back! posted Fri Feb 20 2004 12:04:51 by Applepie81
Is Virgin Ever Coming Back To YYZ? posted Thu Oct 30 2003 02:47:16 by AC330