|Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 206):|
So you are ok with the government regulating car prices? Auto transportation is vastly more important than air travel, so the government should set car prices?? Food is common good and essential to survival (unlike air travel which is a luxury). Should the government set the price of the apple I'm eating?
Both cars and food are industries with plenty of competition and variety in prices and availability. Air travel has far, far fewer options and far greater susceptibility to market failure. One can buy a used car for a reasonable price. One can't buy a used airline ticket, for instance.
|Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 206):|
I don't think cost discipline is the problem. Costs are plenty low. Outside of the pilots (whose jobs require considerable training), most airline employees are barely middle class and plenty of regional/contractor employees make welfare wages. So if you think airline employees are overpaid, you must want employees to live in poverty to subsidize your inability to buy tickets.
As I said, exactly which legacy or big-LCC that merged opted for the lower-cost contracts of the two? And which legacy employees live in poverty? I for one am more concerned about all the talk I've read here about unions wanting to essentially go back to before 2003. I have absolutely not argued that anyone should live in poverty. And as far as my own ability to buy tickets, how would you know about that, since I haven't discussed it? For the record, I buy the tickets for the trips that fit my life and means just fine, but I don't like overpaying.
As Commavia correctly said, there should be a fair spreading of value among stakeholders. My only disagreement is whether we are currently in that situation; I don't think we are.
|Quoting mayor (Reply 195):|
And I suppose you don't blink an eye at a car that costs $20k today that cost $10k a mere 15 years ago?
There are so many options in new and used cars available, across a vast span of price range, that there isn't any comparison.
|Quoting alfa164 (Reply 207):|
Owning a big-screen TV is part of the common good; do you think the manufacturers - and retail stores - owe us a lower price because it is beneficial to us? And "transportation" is far different from "airline travel"; sorry, but when entitlement generation may believe they are owed jet transport at whatever price they deem desirable... they are wrong.
Same with TVs as with cars....so many options available in screen sizes across a wide price range, that even if TVs were a common good in the same way transportation--including air transportation--is, there isn't any comparison.
Being able to do business, visit loved ones, and maybe occasionally see someplace else, seems to me not a luxury. It is part of the common good, and hardly an 'entitlement' mentality.
|Quoting ual777 (Reply 204):|
It is in the public's interest to have a healthy industry with well-compensated pilots. It helps attract the best and brightest to the field and helps ensure we have the safest transportation possible. It also isn't fair to have to play career roulette.
If I had a dime for every time a union pilot said at this site that travelers would be endangered if they weren't paid what they want, I'd be very wealthy. I wonder if UA
union leadership said that in 2000 before holding one of the world's largest airports hostage through thunderstorm season to extort a 37 percent raise? The safety statistics speak for themselves. Also, if pilots could change employers without going to the bottom of a seniority list, like most professionals can do in their fields, their jobs would not be career roulette. Collective bargaining is a two-edged sword.