Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Reregulation Of The Airline Industry?  
User currently offlineusairways787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 290 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

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

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

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

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

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

US787


"Pre departure walk around complete, all doors closed, ready for pushback"
97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

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

Umm . . . Amtrak?

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

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

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



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, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3261 times:

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

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

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

Gravy train for airline employees and stockholders.

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

For passengers, basically everything would get worse.

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

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



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDCA2011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

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


Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

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

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



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3080 times:

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

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


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

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

Somebody's going to have to pay for that.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 4):
affordable fares or safety

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



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3049 times:

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

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

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


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

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

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



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2987 times:

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

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


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2842 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

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

On safety, correlation doesn't indicate causation.

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



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineEaglePower83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

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

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

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

-JB


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

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

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

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



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineFlyPeoria From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 452 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4147 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

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

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


User currently offlineJONC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 16):

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


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

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

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

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

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):

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

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

Quoting EaglePower83 (Reply 13):

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

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

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

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

Quoting FlyPeoria (Reply 15):

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

Agree 1000000%


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 848 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

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

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2652 times:

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

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

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

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

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

Right, who had to take over all the pensions?

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

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

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

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



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

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

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

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

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



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

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

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

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



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

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

Yep.

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

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

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

Nobody "had" to do anything.

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


25 apodino : I think part of the problem is that the airlines need to do a better job of educating the public on the true cost of transporting them. I think the pu
26 us330 : In the U.S., it's pretty clear what the passengers want--cheap fares. Airlines have tried to get pax to pay a premium for better service (remember AA
27 cmf : Pft, that is just excuses for not dealing with the problems there are. Philosophically, maybe. In reality, they had to. The question is on what groun
28 BMI727 : Safety of the aviation industry has gotten better since deregulation, not worse. How can anyone argue that increased regulation will increase safety?
29 Post contains images N62NA : OK, go ahead and write your Congressional Rep and your two Senators and ask them to fix a problem (I'll let you pick which one - there's so many). Or
30 Capt.Fantastic : How do the lost jobs and lost service factor into this equation? After mergers, airlines often dismantle hubs or substantially cut service. In some in
31 Cubsrule : This isn't a difficult question. The government can impose rules that airlines are unwilling to impose because of how much they cost, exactly like wh
32 zckls04 : As mentioned before, correlation does not imply causation. If all other factors are equal, decreased regulation could mean worse safety, even if in o
33 BMI727 : You don't. They weren't hung out to dry. They had services that they could not support. Without high fares due to regulation to subsidize otherwise l
34 Cubsrule : Technology could have prevented the OH accident in LEX. A more robust crew rest policy (and/or more experience) might have prevented the 9L accident
35 BMI727 : Just because the NTSB wants something doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do. They're just one voice, but it's also necessary to listen
36 Cubsrule : I haven't argued otherwise, though reducing frequencies at some busy airports might arguably increase safety. I was simply addressing the point that
37 gegarrenton : Amen to that. Exactly. And good luck with the second sentence.
38 yeelep : The whole argument about safety being affected one way or the other by deregulation is silly. The safety aspect of the airlines was never deregulated,
39 mayor : No, you can't, BUT, I don't believe that this is a government mandated feature, either.
40 cmf : I call a spade a spade. Your comment is silly. You make a statement and then run away. If the statement isn't worth defending, then don't make it.
41 zckls04 : There may be no evidence at all- I'm merely pointing out the deductive flaws in the text I quoted. It could be that deregulation has been wonderful f
42 Post contains images Polot : Just because the government regulates things doesn't mean that rules that the airlines don't want will suddenly be implemented. Airline lobbyist won'
43 N62NA : OK. No, I'm not running away. I am being exceedingly sensitive to the fact that this is NOT a political forum and the moderators don't take kindly to
44 brilondon : I f there were to be re-regulation in the industry, I would hazard a guess but you would probably lose your job. There would be no incentive to incre
45 N62NA : Yep good points - and who runs Amtrak? The Federal government! But I think he might have been referring to the freight railroads: CSX, Norfolk Southe
46 twincessna340a : That accident was the result of several human factors failures. Comair was using a bad chart for KLEX, at the hold point the pilots failed to notice
47 Cubsrule : I agree. To be clear, I think the right solution to that crash lies in the human factors failures that you have identified (plus a few more). I was s
48 cmf : Then you should not have done a political statement to begin with. But when you do it you must accept that it will be discussed. Making a statement a
49 N62NA : OK, my mistake, sorry.
50 HOMsAR : ?? The USPS is hamstrung by tons of rules that basically prevent it from operating efficiently. For one, the requirement that they serve every addres
51 FlyPeoria : I second N62NA, A major [freight] railroad has not entered bankruptcy for over two decades. The industry is quite prosperous, mainly because they hav
52 mayor : Then you should accept, that if discussed, and it is OFF topic, it will most likely be removed. Just an FYI. I don't think it's necessary to list the
53 Lufthansa : Okay what you all need to do, is not worry about so much regulation, but things that continually distort the market. Firstly, no more chap 11 refinanc
54 N62NA : Thanks for probably conveying that far better than I did. Yep. I wonder if there's any lessons that the freight railroads have learned that could be
55 yeelep : Thank you. Someone has finally put in words what I have always thought, but knew I couldn't convey properly.
56 FlyDeltaJets : That's due a great deal to tougher safety regulations imposed upon them. The FAA and airlines work together constantly for developing new ideas for m
57 Post contains images cmf : USPS is a perfect example of hamstrung. Sadly, few people are aware. There is no doubt regulation would be able to deal with some of the fundamental
58 HOMsAR : Perhaps "in the process of sorting itself out" is a better way to state it. Right now, they have a lot of equipment they'd rather not have (50-seat R
59 Cubsrule : In some cases yes, in some cases no. For instance, the side impact regulations don't really require side torso air bags, and it's probably possible t
60 mayor : Just because it hasn't been removed doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be or shouldn't be. However, I doubt if the moderators have the time to re
61 MountainFlyer : The railroads have been consolidating for decades, and the airlines are catching up. It seems that the larger consolidated airlines (DL, UA, etc) are
62 blueflyer : It's difficult to implement correctly. How do you make sure that your former airline executive doesn't let his sympathies for his former colleagues g
63 cmf : Why do you play moderator? Instead discuss the topic that was brought up. No regulation will not fail because it is regulated by the federal governme
64 brilondon : Well then we are talking about two different operations. I was comparing the national passenger railroad to passenger carrying airlines, not the like
65 mayor : I'll stop when you do. Did you miss this?
66 Burkhard : Regulation will come through concentration. There is no reason why the US should have more than one network carrier in 20 years.
67 FlyPeoria : One maybe interlining. Lots of freight originates on one railroad and is destined to another whether unit train (single commodity) or "loose car" shi
68 N62NA : I would think that would be similar to codesharing in many ways, no?
69 cmf : It has nothing to do with the governments ability to regulate.
70 Lufthansa : Hmm, Something interesting that got brought up here is the idea of a floor price. Whilst that is in some ways 'a kind of protectionism' I think its wo
71 mayor : And yet, the entire thread isn't necessarily about their ability, either. My post WAS about regulation, whether it was about the governments ability
72 Viscount724 : Virtually all major carriers (excluding the many LCCs that don't interline) already have interline agreements with almost all other major carriers wo
73 mayor : I believe DL already does the minimum service standards, in a way, but using miles instead of time. Another idea that might work for fares is have th
74 ADent : If you want to regulate you can do some things: Set a minimum fare - $30 + $.08/mile (indexed for fuel costs and industry average crew costs). This wo
75 dlramp4life : When it comes to safety and security there is government regulation... FAA, TSA, OSHA etc.
76 FlyDeltaJets : I dont think its fair that a person flying a 777 for 1 year should make more than a 757 pilot of 20 years just because his plane is bigger. Experianc
77 cmf : Absolutely not. Workload is not based on number of seats on the plane as staff is going up with seats.
78 FlyPeoria : I realize that, but code-sharing and frequent flyer programs are designed to fly passengers from origin to destination on a single carrier (are carri
79 gegarrenton : Irrelevant. Advancement should be the driver of compensation. It's absolutely fair. Advancing means more compensation. The notion of getting paid mor
80 cmf : Not sure I like advancement as description but it is part of what sets compensation. As is workload, and conditions. Why is flying a 777 an advanceme
81 commavia : It's rather simple. All of these debates that occasionally pop up here and elsewhere on this topic ultimately all come back to the same bottom line: i
82 brilondon : This is not for regulators to decide. Regulation of the industry is more for where an airline will be able to fly to and who can compete for passenge
83 HOMsAR : Don't most airlines' contracts already factor in a combination of airplane size and seniority to determine pilot wages? In other words, a 747 pilot w
84 gegarrenton : Because the community of pilots has pushed it that direction by having the most senior pilots snap up those routes which the bigger planes fly. That'
85 brilondon : I am not saying that. I was pointing out that a PILOT with seniority can choose which route he wants to fly and be compensated accordingly. A middle
86 gegarrenton : Flying a 744 or a CRJ 100 are not the same level job.
87 tdscanuck : True. Flying a CRJ-100 is actually considerably harder. Tom.
88 brilondon : True, but neither is a mid level manager and a ditch digger, which is what was the comparison in a previous post.
89 Post contains images cmf : So it is a preference, not an advancement. All those additional takeoffs and landings per day doesn't make it easier.
90 gegarrenton : Well, I see we have deviated into the absurd again.
91 tdscanuck : At least we held out to ~90 posts this time.
92 ThirtyEcho : Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation would love to see re-regulation.
93 N62NA : Though admittedly I was a kid / teenager up to deregulation, knowing what I know today about the "efficiency" and "widsom" of the Federal government,
94 BMI727 : ...if they weren't buying the ticket.
95 Post contains images gegarrenton : Making progress!
96 Post contains images lightsaber : Airlines are still one of the most regulated industries out there! In many ways more so than pharma. Look at the fines paid for poor record keeping on
97 PITingres : Who cares? Anybody who flew extensively pre-deregulation was either bloody rich, or had someone else paying for it. (Or worked for an airline.) That'
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...
Future Of The Airline Industry posted Sat Jul 19 2008 04:02:33 by Boeing909
The Oscars Of The Airline Industry Award posted Tue Feb 28 2006 02:52:11 by TinkerBelle
Successes And Failures Of The Airline Industry posted Thu Mar 3 2005 18:24:22 by JetBlast
The Future Of The Airline Industry posted Thu May 13 2004 13:57:58 by EAL757
Golden Age Of The Airline Industry posted Wed Mar 10 2004 23:06:34 by Nycfuturepilot
The State Of The Airline Industry posted Tue Nov 25 2003 05:29:20 by FrequentFlyKid
The Sorry State Of The Airline Industry... posted Wed Apr 16 2003 16:21:12 by USAJPNflyer
The Future Of The Airline Industry posted Tue Feb 19 2002 03:02:29 by BA
The Fate Of The Airline Industry... posted Thu Nov 29 2001 05:04:29 by AA@DFW
A View Of What's Happening In The Airline Industry posted Tue Sep 25 2001 21:54:06 by Pe@rson