A return to regulation?

[tonyw]

You want to know the number one reason I'm in favor of re-regulation?

We'd get rid of some of the jokers flying right now.

I really don't want to be stuck sitting next to some tool who hasn't showered the whole weekend in Vegas and who put his smelly dirty clothes in a plastic grocery bag that he shoved under the seat.

And I don't want to deal with stupid bimbos who have to cause drama by claiming they're too pretty to fly.

If the fares charged went up, I would avoid a lot of these people.

And we'd reduce the lines at the airport. Less passengers means less people to process.

Yes, I am being selfish. So sue me.

 

[Fly4Pay]

Doesn't work in this business. The hit to the economy would be astronomical if a company like United went tango uniform.

Your inflated sense of our industry's importance is impressive.

The government is not going to allow legacy carriers to cease to exist. They're too big nowadays and too essential to the economy.

Not really... the world didn't fall apart when Eastern went under. Besides, if there is demand for airline service, other airlines will just pick up the slack. If the supply goes down, demand goes up, and so do prices, and so does the motivation to do business.

If it comes right down to it, the government will just approve massive multi-billion-dollar bailouts. That just exacerbates the problem rather than fixing it, but without regulation, that's really the only choice they have.

Unfortunately, you're partly right on this one--the government will probably use yet another expense to spend money that's not theirs to bail out people who made dumba$$ business/investment decisions. That's as bad as regulation or worse.

As for it being the only choice government has, that part's not right. They can also stay the heck out of things that are not their responsibility or concern.

 

[WestIndian425]

I am a pro-business, small government type of guy, but, even I will admit that there are things that the government should take care of & not the private industry, but, I would not support to the return of the regulated airlines.

You mentioned what does the government do right? Look at the airport, the roads, the ports, these are things controlled by the government & they seem to work.

Sometimes it is easier to look for bad things & overlook the good things

:yeahthat: I totally agree. I'm doing my best to understand the points that PCL and even Velo brought up earlier, but I'm just not convinved this is the way to go.

You want to know the number one reason I'm in favor of re-regulation?

We'd get rid of some of the jokers flying right now.

I really don't want to be stuck sitting next to some tool who hasn't showered the whole weekend in Vegas and who put his smelly dirty clothes in a plastic grocery bag that he shoved under the seat.

And I don't want to deal with stupid bimbos who have to cause drama by claiming they're too pretty to fly.

If the fares charged went up, I would avoid a lot of these people.

And we'd reduce the lines at the airport. Less passengers means less people to process.

Yes, I am being selfish. So sue me.

:yup::laff::yup::laff: By chance are you referring to the "Southwest" effect?

 

[WalterSobchak]

Yeah, I'm sure the last 30 years has just been an anomaly.

Doesn't work in this business. The hit to the economy would be astronomical if a company like United went tango uniform. The government is not going to allow legacy carriers to cease to exist. They're too big nowadays and too essential to the economy. If it comes right down to it, the government will just approve massive multi-billion-dollar bailouts. That just exacerbates the problem rather than fixing it, but without regulation, that's really the only choice they have.

:yeahthat: The government wants to fix a problem as opposed to preventing it.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Your inflated sense of our industry's importance is impressive.

Ask some economists. The entire economy implodes if commercial aviation collapses.

Not really... the world didn't fall apart when Eastern went under. Besides, if there is demand for airline service, other airlines will just pick up the slack. If the supply goes down, demand goes up, and so do prices, and so does the motivation to do business.

EAL was slowly whittled down over a period of five years while that POS Lorenzo transferred assets to CAL through the Texas Air holding company. By the time EAL went Chapter 7, most of its assets had already been transferred and the airline was a shadow of its former self. Big difference between that and a 500 airplane airline disappearing practically overnight, which is a real possibility with oil at these prices. Oil is at $113/bbl as I type this. According to most analysts, NO airline makes money above $110/bbl, even SWA. Most airlines can't make a profit above $95/bbl. We're heading towards some serious problems here.

As for it being the only choice government has, that part's not right. They can also stay the heck out of things that are not their responsibility or concern.

You and I disagree on what is the government's responsibility and concern. Managing the economy to prevent a collapse should be part of their responsibility. Preventing the decimation of a vitally important industry should be their concern. For the government to sit idly by as the airline industry implodes would be completely irresponsible.

 

[Maurus]

Legacy airlines are getting in the way of the legacy airlines, every time they went into bankruptcy protection they hurt the other airlines.

In bankruptcy you need to raise cash, so, you lower fares, cost is not a problem since you are not paying your bills, in turn this decreases the yield at other airlines to decrease.

No need for regulation as long as the bankruptcy codes are strict & shortened.

Also, the Government run "Federal Essential Air Service program" should be abolished, it is things like this which affords Mesa to charge those low fares in Hawaii...

If that is all it takes then that is fine. I would want the best solution with the least government involvement. If the government does start re-regulating, I would just want them to take one step at a time till the airlines are good again with the least amount of government involvement.

 

[rostato]

Well according to my Aviation Legislation class in order for the government to take regulatory control over the airlines it would come down to 2 things.

Economic Necessity and they would need legal authority.

Do we really think it is an Economic Necessity? Debatable I guess...

Legal authority, well we knwo the government can do what ever it wants...

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

There's no question of legality. Remember, this is how it was done for a majority of the history of commercial aviation. It would only be a return to what worked for so long.

 

[SteveC]

Ask some economists. The entire economy implodes if commercial aviation collapses.

The assumption that commercial aviation as a whole would collapse is the point that I don't agree with. Without that stipulation many of the rest of your contentions fall down.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I think you're living in denial if you look around the industry and don't see an imminent collapse. Oh look, oil's almost up to $114 now. Wonderful.

 

[SteveC]

I think you're living in denial if you look around the industry and don't see an imminent collapse. Oh look, oil's almost up to $114 now. Wonderful.

Are we talking about the same definition of "collapse"? Collapse as in the airlines go belly up, planes quit flying, pilots on the street...no airline industry left???

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm talking about multiple legacy carriers going into Chapter 11 with little hope of exiting intact. They'll never actually go belly up, because the government will be forced to bail them out, but that's what we're headings towards unless oil drops a good 30%.

 

[Boris Badenov]

We're talking about national infrastructure, here. Are the highways "regulated"? The railroads?

If you really want root em toot em cowboy capitalism, start by getting rid of the RLA. Or maybe stop bailing out every "important" business that screws up and goes under. Savings and Loans, Airlines, Brokerage houses...the list goes on. The notion that any of these industries are "deregulated" is absurd. They're simply regulated in favor of the very powerful interests running them.

I'd be happy to see a true laissez-faire model evolve, if only to see the hilarious carnage which would result. In the real world, that'll never happen. The next best thing is at least to level the playing field.

This is from a delegate for Ron Paul!

 

[Blip16]

Are we talking about the same definition of "collapse"? Collapse as in the airlines go belly up, planes quit flying, pilots on the street...no airline industry left???

i would think if some legacies went belly up, then there would be a lot of people on the street, not just pilots! would it impact the economy? yep! would it cause an economic crash, probably not

 

[SteveC]

I'm talking about multiple legacy carriers going into Chapter 11 with little hope of exiting intact. They'll never actually go belly up, because the government will be forced to bail them out, but that's what we're headings towards unless oil drops a good 30%.

Allow me the liberty of combining a couple of your statements to try to get some clarity: "Ask some economists. The entire economy implodes if multiple legacy carriers going into Chapter 11 with little hope of exiting intact."

I'm not misrepresenting your viewpoint with that am I?

I'll hold off on further comments about the national economy imploding until I'm sure where on the same page...

********

Moving on to your contention that multiple airlines will go Chapter 11, don't you think that ticket prices will be forced to rise across the board to cover the higher costs incurred?

 

[CoffeeIcePapers]

Moving on to your contention that multiple airlines will go Chapter 11, don't you think that ticket prices will be forced to rise across the board to cover the higher costs incurred?

It seems like this will never happen. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. They are afraid of raising prices, and will bleed cash and bleed into bankruptcy. Once in bankruptcy, they just milk the system and continue operating.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Allow me the liberty of combining a couple of your statements to try to get some clarity: "Ask some economists. The entire economy implodes if multiple legacy carriers going into Chapter 11 with little hope of exiting intact."

I'm not misrepresenting your viewpoint with that am I?

I'll hold off on further comments about the national economy imploding until I'm sure where on the same page...

A more accurate way of putting it would be "the entire economy implodes if multiple legacy carriers enter Chapter 11 and the government doesn't stop them from going into Chapter 7." As I've said, we'll never reach that point because the government will intervene first, precisely because of the economic disaster that would result if they didn't.

Moving on to your contention that multiple airlines will go Chapter 11, don't you think that ticket prices will be forced to rise across the board to cover the higher costs incurred?

You must not have been paying attention for the past few decades. As mojo pointed out, that's simply not what they're doing in management. They're allowing bigger and bigger losses all the way into bankruptcy, claiming that they can't raise ticket prices for risk of losing market share permanently. The only way to force them to raise ticket prices is to actually force them, ie re-regulation.

 

[Fly4Pay]

Ask some economists. The entire economy implodes if commercial aviation collapses.

Source?

Oil is at $113/bbl as I type this. According to most analysts, NO airline makes money above $110/bbl, even SWA. Most airlines can't make a profit above $95/bbl. We're heading towards some serious problems here.

Sorry, but that's a bit too broad of a statement. There's no way to say that airlines can't make profit above a certain oil price. It depends on far too many variables to make a categorical statement like that. If people still want to fly (and I think they will), they'll pay what it takes. Don't believe it? Remember when analysts said that $3/gallon gasoline would never sell?

You and I disagree on what is the government's responsibility and concern. Managing the economy to prevent a collapse should be part of their responsibility. Preventing the decimation of a vitally important industry should be their concern. For the government to sit idly by as the airline industry implodes would be completely irresponsible.

Ahh, but the difference is that my opinion of what the government is supposed to do is based on the Constitution, not what makes me feel good. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government is to "prevent the decimation of a vitally important industry"? Where does it say that the government is to prevent an industry from "imploding"?

 

[tonyw]

You and I disagree on what is the government's responsibility and concern. Managing the economy to prevent a collapse should be part of their responsibility. Preventing the decimation of a vitally important industry should be their concern. For the government to sit idly by as the airline industry implodes would be completely irresponsible.

:yeahthat:

Look at what they did when Bear Stearns imploded.

For all the talk of capitalism and free markets, when the free markets threatened an economic meltdown, they stepped in. Okay, technically, Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan Chase stepped in, but as Dimon said, without the Fed's guarantees, they never would have gone after Bear Stearns.

The air transport system we have in place is vitally important to not just the country's but the world's economy. We've got to move people and goods across the world rapidly, and until Star Trek becomes reality and we can just push a lever and transport something like that, the only way to do that is with the air transport system.

I think we need a hybrid type system like we have with utilities. The government tells utilities when they can build, what prices they can charge, and the utilities go out and do it and make as much money as they can under those constraints.

They are guaranteed a certain level of profit but this guarantee comes with a higher level of regulation.

As for where in the Constitution does it allow the government to do this, it's simple. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which states:

The Congress shall have the power...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

If the air transport system doesn't constitute commerce among the several states, I don't know what does.

 

[minitour]

The only way to force them to raise ticket prices is to actually force them, ie re-regulation.

Or stop protecting them with bankruptcy. Next time, make it a 7. Close the doors. Either charge an appropriate fare or go out of business.

Commercial aviation isn't what drives the economy. Who ever told you that was

. Commercial air transport (for people...not boxes) is a luxury, not a right, not a necessity. Obviously we have to move "goods" in a large way somehow...I don't think boats are the best way in all cases.

People don't HAVE to travel over seas and there's no where except Hawaii in the US that you can't drive to...unless, of course, you already live in Hawaii...then you need a boat.

-mini