From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article
, a few highlights:
In his July column in the airline's NWA WorldTraveler in-flight magazine, Anderson urged federal leaders to consider four strategies to reduce prices, including encouraging "our OPEC allies to increase production."
"We at Northwest Airlines believe that prices should typically be dictated by the market, and we believe that airlines, like other industries, must try to solve their own problems before turning to the government for help," Anderson wrote. "But fuel that costs $41 a barrel isn't just an ordinary market fluctuation, and it isn't just a problem affecting the airlines. It's a threat to the entire economy."
Poster's sidebar: doesn't running a large fleet of fuel-inefficient DC-9's contribute to a free market that substantiates $41 barrel costs??? Why yes it does...
Anderson said Northwest's fleet revitalization has helped the airline cope with high fuel prices because some of the new aircraft use as much as 50 percent less fuel than older jets. That's the case with twin-engine Boeing 757-300s, which have replaced DC-10-40s with three engines.
Anyway, while I like how NWA is operated and I subsequently think that Richard is doing a good job, he must know that government intervention in this case would benefit his airline far more than the others. Combined with their enthusiasm for the ATSB denial of loan guarentees to UA
citing targeted subsidization, I've gotta believe that this would more or less be the exact same thing benefitting his airline. For example, how would TZ
benefit much from this having aggressively revamped their fleet to save on fuel costs?
Somehow I don't see this going very far...
I plan on living forever. So far, so good...