For or against re-regulation?

Mattio

Mattio

Well-Known Member
What opinions do you guys have on re-regulation of the airline industry?

I personally think that some regulation on pilot/mechanic pay rates and possibly fares should be imposed. All the companies compete for cheapest fares with the advent of orbitz, etc. and pilot/mechanic salaries and QOL go down to unreasonable levels which can't be good for safety... I know all of you are aware of this but what are your thoughts on re-regulation?
 
Totally for re-regulation. Especially after the new rules went in place which changed the environment we operate under.
 
Do you know if there's any sort of lobbying or movement right now that we can support (besides the standard call your local senators)?

And what do you mean by new rules?
 
Re-regulation is discriminatory.

What about people that won't be able to get their $39 PHX to LAS trips anymore?

;)
 
Don't forget that most website like Orbitz are owned by the airlines. So they aren't necessarily competing with them. Thought they want you to believe that.

I think re-regulation is needed, but right now in an environment when half of the population already believes that government is too big, I don't think you will see it.
 
You also need to realize that with so many people out of work, country wide, not necessarily just in aviation, and so many others on pay freezes, I don't forsee there being any support to give pilots, who are already seen as greedy, a pay raise.
 
The idea behind deregulation was not to help the pilots or the airlines. The idea was to give the general population access to airline travel, (something they did not really have due to high airfares) and to introduce competition into the marketplace. Both of these goals have been a achieved.
Also if you re-regulate airlines you have government bureaucrats making decisions on which airlines succeed and which ones fail. This will be determined not by the most efficient airlines but by those with the most political pull.
The airlines are already regulated where they should be (safety), let the market determine the winners and losers and the price of the tickets.
 
Re-regulate. I think it's the only way to save the 121 side of things. Ticket prices are too low to sustain the industry, and to provide the money for any advancement of the industry as a whole.

Flying should not be cheap, it should be affordable.

Currently: Saftey < Money

What needs to be: Saftey > Money

I bring up the recent cockpit fire, of what the media reported as an inoped item that was 3 years defered. Truth or not, who knows. But if the media is correct, wow! Three years to fix it?! Wow.
 
Blackhawk said:
The idea behind deregulation was not to help the pilots or the airlines. The idea was to give the general population access to airline travel, (something they did not really have due to high airfares) and to introduce competition into the marketplace. Both of these goals have been a achieved.
Also if you re-regulate airlines you have government bureaucrats making decisions on which airlines succeed and which ones fail. This will be determined not by the most efficient airlines but by those with the most political pull.
The airlines are already regulated where they should be (safety), let the market determine the winners and losers and the price of the tickets.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the Government has allowed the majors to operate too long while in bankruptcy. Since they are allowed to slash their prices while in bankruptcy, it drives the market to a price point that no company can sustain while making a profit. They either need to deregulate it more or regulate it all the way. The system now is terrible.
 
While I despise the thought of Uncle Sugar having his hands in anything more than he already does, with respect for the airlines, I think it may be the only way to sustain the industry, since it's pretty clear the current system isn't working.

On the flip side, if Uncle Sugar would completely de-regulate the industry, and simply allow the losers to fail and go out of business, that would work too. No bankruptcy protection, no bail outs. If your airline becomes insolvent, you're out of the game, and the remaining winners will pick up your market share and prices will reach true market value, which would be fair (notice I said "fair," not cheap) to the consumer, yet allow the airlines to actually turn a profit. If this is what had happened over the past 30 years, we'd probably be down to 5 airlines across the country by now, but those would be 5 quality companies (like Southwest). This is preferable to me, but I just don't ever see this happening.

It's also worth noting that a company like Southwest could not exist in a regulated environment. However, since I see it as being so unlikely that we'd get a truly free market to compete in, if Uncle Sugar is going to stick his hands in here and there and bail out airlines and allow them to operate while bankrupt, I vote for giving him MORE control to stop the race to the bottom (if it's not already there).
 
Patrick said:
It's also worth noting that a company like Southwest could not exist in a regulated environment. However, since I see it as being so unlikely that we'd get a truly free market to compete in, if Uncle Sugar is going to stick his hands in here and there and bail out airlines and allow them to operate while bankrupt, I vote for giving him MORE control to stop the race to the bottom (if it's not already there).
Click to expand...


I may have missed it, but did any airlines recive any bail out money?
 
mshunter said:
I may have missed it, but did any airlines recive any bail out money?
Click to expand...

Not this go-round, I think, but historically, they have.

From Wackypedia:

The Airline “Bailout”

Congress passed the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) in response to a severe liquidity crisis facing the industry in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Congress sought to compensate carriers for both the cost of the four-day federal shutdown of the airlines and the incremental losses incurred through December 31, 2001 as a result of the terrorist attacks. Congress expressly sought to preserve a viable, safe, and efficient air transportation system.[6]
In recognition of the essential national economic role of a healthy aviation system, Congress authorized partial compensation of up to $5 billion in cash subject to review by the Department of Transportation and up to $10 billion in loan guarantees subject to review by a newly created Air Transportation Stabilization Board (ATSB). The applications to DOT for reimbursements were subjected to rigorous multi-year reviews not only by DOT program personnel but also by the Government Accountability Office [7] and the DOT Inspector General.[8][9]
Ultimately, the federal government provided $4.6 billion in one-time, subject-to-income-tax cash reimbursements to 427 U.S. air carriers, including numerous charter and cargo carriers. (Passenger carriers operating scheduled service received approximately $4 billion, subject to tax.) [10] In addition, the ATSB approved loan guarantees to six airlines totaling approximately $1.6 billion. Data from the Treasury Department show that taxpayers eventually recouped the $1.6 billion and a profit of $339 million from the fees, interest and stock associated with loan guarantees.[11]
Click to expand...
 
MikeD said:
Re-regulation is discriminatory.

What about people that won't be able to get their $39 PHX to LAS trips anymore?

;)
Click to expand...

Is that what it takes to fill the seats? If they don't fill enough seats, they don't need as many flights. Fewer flights means they need fewer airplanes, and fewer airplanes means they need fewer pilots.
 
I cannot fathom why anyone would want re-regulation of the airlines.

All pilots can think is that the mandate of charging higher ticket prices would mean more stable companies and, thus, higher pay.

Why is it that nobody seems to see the immense risk of regulating pilot pay and work rules under this scenario??

Inviting the government in to decide who can do what, when, and for how much is a terrible idea for business, regardless of what that business is.
 
Completely against re-regulation. But completely support Airline Consolidation. I'm a big believer in the free market.
 
Definitely for re-regulation, but I don't expect to see it in the near future. Too much "get government out of everything" sentiment going around these days.

Also agree with the notion that if an airline goes bankrupt it's game over. No bailout, no operating in bankruptcy, no safety nets/do-overs for management, no nothing. Too bad, so sad,... now go away.
 
I'm not in favor of the old regulations from pre 1978. However I would be in favor of some additional regulations to help fix some of the issues post 1978.

I do believe we will start to see some of this as a result of 3407.

Congress is on "fatigue" which contributed to the 3407 crash.

Congress is on "poverty wages" which also contributed to the 3407 crash.

Those 3407 families have become a very powerful lobby in the aviation industry and my opinion is that they will be the reason these additional regulations being enacted.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top