Save G.A.

[Mr.Maximus]

SWA and Allegiant weren't monstrous international trunk carriers prior to deregulation. SWA was flying a few ratty 737s intra-Texas and Allegiant wouldn't exist for a few decades. The legacy carriers were fully mature businesses by the time deregulation came around. Asking them to simply "adapt" isn't realistic. There just isn't any way to adapt. In other words, you're asking for the impossible.


"There simply just isn't any way to adapt". That is the EXACT mentality that has lead the industry to it's present position.

Adaptation is at the core of what made America great. Adaptation is at the very core of the human race. Life, and within it - business, is ALL about adaptation.

"Asking for the impossible"? I'm sure glad the Wright Brothers felt otherwise when they were constantly told powered flight was simply not possible. I'm glad that America turned a deaf ear when the world said landing a man on the moon simply wasn't possible.

I could go on and on about the utter nonsense your above statement says - but I will not. You've said all I need to hear - and have no interest in having a discussion bordering the absurd. Good day.


Max

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Oookay.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

PCL, I generally like your posts <edited>. It was easily possible to adapt a Legacy carrier established pre-deregulation to operations post-deregulation. It wasn't impossible or even that difficult but nobody was willing to do it because it would have been in the temporary situation painful before the longterm benefits were gained.

They would have had to lay off quite a few pilots, get rid of unprofitable routes, trim overhead in other ways that they could -- in other words do the things they were forced to do in bankruptcy one at a time all at once.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

You make these things sound like easy steps to take. You forget that they are responsible to shareholders. How do you think UAL shareholders would have reacted in 1979 if UAL management had said "hey, sorry guys, but we're going to trim off 30% of our business. Don't worry, it may suck for you now, but you'll appreciate it two decades from now."? Like I said, easier said than done. Shareholders would have revolted, employees would have revolted, vendors would have revolted, etc... Not to mention that all of the airlines never would have gone along with it. What happens if UAL did as you suggest but DAL decides that that gives them a perfect opportunity to pick up UAL's former market share as they scale back? Not good to have a major competitor horning in on your fortress hubs when you have a major scale-back. Could be the end of your business for good.

The point is that these things are much more complicated than most pilots realize. It's easy to say "just adapt already," but it doesn't work that way.

 

[mikecweb]

So just to clarify, you like the idea of user fees to help the airline industry deal with it's financial troubles or the idea that it will reduce the GA market thus reducing the number of pilots.

 

[ozziecat35]

Reduce the tax burden on the airlines and shift some of it to the corporate and charter operators, for starters. Plus, it will reduce the number of people getting into aviation because the fees will raise the entry costs. Lower supply increases bargaining leverage.

I agree with Spira PCL, I'm normally impressed by your posts....but I think this time you're a little short sighted. If Joe Schmoe wants to become the next 747 captain for XYZ airline, according to your suggestion, it will be more expensive for him to get the required ratings / hours...all this leads to another pilot shortage...more outsourcing to regionals...regionals begin lowering their mins /standards AGAIN...then we're back to where we are right now....PFT's everywhere, and this whole process starts again. Talk about a cyclical industry indeed...

I'm all for CORPORATE aviation & 135 carriers shouldering a part of a fee, but a system would need to be developed to shield flight schools / student pilots from a huge increase in an already expensive education...no matter how you look at it....but hey, that's just my opinion...and I only have a PPL and an Instrument .... guess you can take my 2 pence with a grain of salt.

 

[SteveC]

Some other information on the debate:

Over the past five years, the airlines have received from the U.S. government a $5 billion bailout, a $10 billion loan guarantee program, war risk insurance, and a shift of some pension obligations to the government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which passed their responsibility for these pension plans onto the American taxpayer. Even though the airlines are now experiencing a recovery, they continue to seek ways to shed an additional $2-$3 billion by promoting user fees. All GA groups are united in the belief that user fees equate to bad government and any user fee scheme will inevitably trickle down and be imposed on every aspect of flying in the U.S.

The airlines have falsely claimed that they pay more than 90 percent of all aviation taxes, while their operations make up only two-thirds of activity in the system. They have also said that they subsidize other users of the ATC system by about $3 billion annually. ATA’s proposal calls for a schedule of mandatory user fees or charges for “business aircraft” based on time in the system and number of departures – no matter the size of aircraft, number of passengers, or airports or airspace used. The airlines also want to remove Congressional oversight from the FAA funding process and essentially take over control of ATC by establishing a board that would be dominated by the airlines. In congressional testimony, the airlines have begun to refer to certain classes of airspace as “commercial airspace” as if the airlines have exclusive rights over other users.

AIRLINES DRIVE THE COST
The airlines’ hub and spoke operations have driven the design of our current air traffic control system which produces choke points. This is especially true at the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) 35 airports, which receive a majority of the FAA’s funds and resources. The OEP 35 airports are predominantly airline hubs that constitute the busiest and most congested airports in the system. At the OEP 35 airports, GA only accounts for six percent of total operations. In fact, when you compare the airlines’ top 20 busiest airports with GA’s 20 busiest, there is zero correlation. Not one of GA’s busiest airports is on the airline list. The ATC system is built for the airlines’ use. Airlines drive the cost of a system that was solely designed to meet their needs and they should continue to pay for the system commensurate with how costs are allocated to operate the system. In other words, the cost of moving an airliner with over 100 passengers between two hubs such as Los Angeles and New York during peak departure and arrival times does not equate to moving a GA aircraft, generally flying at different altitudes than the airliners, between reliever airports in the same cities.

GA has always contributed to the aviation trust fund through fuel taxes that are easily collected and efficiently administered. The amount of fuel purchased has a strong correlation to the time, distance and facilities used by GA aircraft. In contrast, a user fee scheme would require the creation of an inefficient government bureaucracy to bill and collect these fees. Contrary to what the airlines claim, a user fee scheme would actually make the system less financially stable and more vulnerable. During poor economic times when fewer people fly, user fees would have to be increased in order to make up for the reduction in flight operations since the cost of running the ATC system would not decline.

One point that the airlines and GA do agree upon is that our air traffic control system is in need of modernization. But why scrap the stable and reliable funding system that exists today for one that is vulnerable to economic changes and costly to manage? Despite the drastic highs and lows in our economy in the past ten years, the FAA’s budget has remained absolutely stable and in some years has even been increased by Congress above the President’s budget request. Scrapping the fuel tax and implementing user fees to pay for modernization is not the answer. A coherent modernization any plan must be developed that improves capacity, delineates projected costs, and estimates anticipated savings, before decisions can be made on financing a modernization plan. Just as no sensible person would hand a builder a stack of money before seeing the plans and price for a new home, the aviation industry should be told of a modernization plan and its time phased cost before financing can be discussed.

Information from NBAA.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

So just to clarify, you like the idea of user fees to help the airline industry deal with it's financial troubles or the idea that it will reduce the GA market thus reducing the number of pilots.

What I really like is re-regulation. That is the ultimate solution to the financial problems of the airlines, and it also gives us increased bargaining leverage.

Barring that, user fees that shift some tax burden to business aviation would provide a tax reduction to the airlines which would help them along, although nowhere near the benefit of regulation. It's a small patch on a big wound. But is is something. In addition, user fees on GA aircraft (a separate issue, one that has never been proposed in Washington) would reduce the supply of pilots and increase bargaining leverage. But that's not something currently being considered. User fees as proposed to this point would not affect real GA aircraft. AOPA and the NBAA love to use the term "general aviation" in this debate to get the Piper and Cessna pilots all worked up, but it's nothing but inaccurate rhetoric. Nobody has proposed user fees for GA aircraft.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Do you think Doctors are "pulling up the ladder" because they use the AMA to systematically limit supply of new doctors to hold their profession up?

And exactly how many doctors are members of the AMA? And how many are not? In other words what is the ratio/percentage of membership in the AMA? (I'll give you a hint, it is less than 20%.)

And why is this even being brought up in a discussion about aviation?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

And exactly how many doctors are members of the AMA? And how many are not? In other words what is the ratio/percentage of membership in the AMA? (I'll give you a hint, it is less than 20%.)

And why is this even being brought up in a discussion about aviation?

Membership isn't relevant. What's relevant is that the AMA has been able to limit the incoming supply of new doctors to make sure that there is never a "doctor surplus" in America as there is a pilot surplus. By controlling the supply, they can hold up their wages to the greatest extent possible.

 

[Maurus]

9/11 was just the straw the broke the camels back. The airlines were already having problems before 9/11 occurred, 9/11 just finished the job the airlines and the labor had started. This is especially true for United.

I believe regulation seemed to work only because it put boundaries on both the management and labor so that they couldn't get to where they are today. An airline where the employees and management get along will actually work. Southwest is the unionized example. Currently Skywest is growing and is a non-unionized example. The labor and management do seem to get along fairly well.

The companies that are struggling seem to have management and the labor always trying to wring each other's necks to see how much money will come out. This is what happened to United in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Eastern went down because of differences between the management and the unions in 1991. Deregulation only seemed good because both sides were a little more boxed in. Because of this power struggle between management and labor, I really do not believe the airlines can be fixed. It seems some other people are figuring out the problem.

I am not saying that management or the unions are totally at fault. They are equally at fault by continuously struggling within the airline industry. Looking at some quotes (pdf above) from different unions and such show how everything that happens just keeps going in a circle.

The more I keep reading into this stuff, the more these problems seem relevant. GA user fees will only be a temporary band-aid to a chronic problem. The government is already bleeding out money to the airlines, and it has yet to fix the problem.

Could the airlines work in a deregulated environment? Sure! They should have been the best companies from the get go. They have more than the basic knowledge of how airlines work. They already had a foothold in the industry cause of the routes they had before deregulation. They should have been able to try an advance instead of hold to their old regulated ways. Change can happen, some just don't believe it and don't act.

Nobody has proposed user fees for GA aircraft.

Look into the past of other countries. They started with business aviation and promised GA would be untouched only to get User fees a little further down the road. Implementing User fees to business aviation is just the start, and as the past has shown us the user fees will spread. Also have you taken a look at the FAA's bill in congress? There are user fees for general aviation along with extreme increases in taxes.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Maurus, your focus on labor as the cause of the problem is troubling. I think you should spend some time in this industry before you come to that conclusion.

 

[Airdale]

I think everyone is making good points on the subject. I hope user fees for the real GA aircraft never fall in place, but I do believe that Corporate operators should pay their share as well. I've been in and out of a few airports that had plenty of Corporate Jets in the system. HPN and LGA are two that quickly come to mind. Its only fair that they are paying the same airport and departure fees that the Airlines are paying.

I have to agree with PCL on a lot of things though. Mainly re-regulation. This industry is in a complete mess. The only way I see it being fixed is to go back to how it was. Obviously the airlines can't play nice together, so Uncle Sam needs to step in and lay down the law again. Then, maybe us Professional Pilots can collect a much deserved Professional Paycheck.

 

[Speed Pilot]

Bah. Capitalism is a wonderful thing. Either you make your business work and you succeed, or you can't and file bankruptcy and die. I'm tired of the government proping up failed businesses. They're failing for a reason. Let them die and let someone else who might know how to run a business have a go at it. Capitalism.

As for the user fee thing. The current tax system makes sense. Tax fuels. Fees for certain weight airplanes. If we move to a user fee system, which I don't want, I hope it stays proportional. NAS is a system for the general public. On a per flight basis more of the general public is on an airliner than on a business jet or a cessna 152. So tax the s#$% out of the airlines because that's how most of the general public is using the system.

 

[Sprint100]

I was for user fees for the longest time, but the more I read the more I see that they will not fix any of the problems that need to be fixed.

I was for it too, but after seeing the outright lies that were put out and the airlines thinking that was the fix all killed it for me. I don't mind paying a little extra to help out both sides of cause, but until the airlines can fix scheduling issues, pricing, etc. I say hecks no to user fees. I don't know anyone that likes to throw away money and it seems to me that user fees will be raised just so airlines can still go about these lousy business plans.
Re-regulation or fixed pricing from point A to point B works for me!!!

 

[Airdale]

Bah. Capitalism is a wonderful thing. Either you make your business work and you succeed, or you can't and file bankruptcy and die. I'm tired of the government proping up failed businesses. They're failing for a reason. Let them die and let someone else who might know how to run a business have a go at it. Capitalism.

See but therein lies the problem. The customers don't want to pay the correct price for a ticket and the Airlines won't raise the fares when Southwest or an operation like Skybust comes along with ridiculous fares. The Airline Industry, which is essential to the economy (hence the reason the government won't let companies like United, Delta and Airways tank), should not be a Capitalism operation. Otherwise things will never get fixed. There is no business model in today's economy, short of having someone else pay for your fuel, that an Airline can be successful and profitable while the pilots are getting paid fairly.

Capitalism as you put it, is the reason why I won't break $25k this year flying 86 pax around. I'll be lucky if I break $30k next year. Screw Capitalism. I want to make money, not sacrifice MY paycheck just so Suzy Q can fly to Florida for $100.

 

[Maurus]

Maurus, your focus on labor as the cause of the problem is troubling. I think you should spend some time in this industry before you come to that conclusion.

I didn't single out labor. It is going both ways.The more I research I see the struggle and how the ups and downs continue because of the struggle. There is a tension between management and labor that needs to be resolved, but no one wants to fix it. Getting quotes from the labor side like these are what is frightening.

Capitalism as you put it, is the reason why I won't break $25k this year flying 86 pax around. I'll be lucky if I break $30k next year. Screw Capitalism. I want to make money, not sacrifice MY paycheck just so Suzy Q can fly to Florida for $100.

Well you did chose your route of employment knowing what your would be getting into

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

See but therein lies the problem. The customers don't want to pay the correct price for a ticket and the Airlines won't raise the fares when Southwest or an operation like Skybust comes along with ridiculous fares. The Airline Industry, which is essential to the economy (hence the reason the government won't let companies like United, Delta and Airways tank), should not be a Capitalism operation. Otherwise things will never get fixed. There is no business model in today's economy, short of having someone else pay for your fuel, that an Airline can be successful and profitable while the pilots are getting paid fairly.

Capitalism as you put it, is the reason why I won't break $25k this year flying 86 pax around. I'll be lucky if I break $30k next year. Screw Capitalism. I want to make money, not sacrifice MY paycheck just so Suzy Q can fly to Florida for $100.

:yeahthat: Amen, brother!

 

[Seggy]

See but therein lies the problem. The customers don't want to pay the correct price for a ticket and the Airlines won't raise the fares when Southwest or an operation like Skybust comes along with ridiculous fares. The Airline Industry, which is essential to the economy (hence the reason the government won't let companies like United, Delta and Airways tank), should not be a Capitalism operation. Otherwise things will never get fixed. There is no business model in today's economy, short of having someone else pay for your fuel, that an Airline can be successful and profitable while the pilots are getting paid fairly.

Capitalism as you put it, is the reason why I won't break $25k this year flying 86 pax around. I'll be lucky if I break $30k next year. Screw Capitalism. I want to make money, not sacrifice MY paycheck just so Suzy Q can fly to Florida for $100.

:yeahthat: Post of the year.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I didn't single out labor. It is going both ways.The more I research I see the struggle and how the ups and downs continue because of the struggle. There is a tension between management and labor that needs to be resolved, but no one wants to fix it. Getting quotes from the labor side like these are what is frightening.

Again, you should spend some time in this industry before you start assigning blame for the current situation. But as for those quotes, there is nothing "frightening" about them. Budgets shouldn't be balanced on the backs of the employees. Pilots make about 35-40% of what they did in the days of regulation. I think we've given up far more than enough. We do deserve some of our money back.

Use the profit to open up a new hub or two so that congestion which has been another big topic could be addressed.

Opening a new hub costs billions of dollars. Even a small focus city costs hundreds of millions to get up and running. There was a reason that AirTran wanted to buy Midwest rather than building a new mini-hub from scratch. Buying Midwest would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in start-up costs for a new hub in the midwest.

Also take a look at who the creator of the PDF file I linked in my last post and tell me what his previous role was in the 1990's, and then tell me how he currently stands on this problem.

I'm well aware of Mr. Babbitt and his company Eclat Consulting. In fact, I know Randy and have met him on numerous occasions. Suffice it to say that most people within ALPA consider him to be a traitor and a greedy POS who will pander to any group to make himself more money. He's currently employed by Pinnacle Airlines as a consultant to help management with negotiating the contract with the pilots. Anything that comes from him is tainted.