For or against re-regulation?
- Thread starter Mattio
- Start date
Killtron2000
Well-Known Member
Airline travel is super dangerous and competition is why this country sucks so bad. What we really need some more monopolies here.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
You know, an idea like that sounds elegant, but it's akin to giving a 3 year old an automatic assault rifle while saying, "Hey, if he kills himself then it's just natural selection!"
The United States of America is the 3 year old.
This statement makes no sense particularly since you are the labor and not the one benefiting from the "free market". You are not management either. Reregulation= good for pilots. Deregulation = good for management. Notice how you're the only pilot here against being paid well, I just don't understand your mentality.
Mattio
Well-Known Member
LOL
...
I def think they should regulate pilot pay rates at the very least.... I want to look into how I can help out with this in any way
vikingair
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how I feel about re-regulation. Depends on what it encompasses. But I do believe we've enjoyed/suffered through having had the curtain pulled back the past year that right now might just be the best time to sell it to the public. A lot less people are under the impression that pilots are pulling down 100K for 8 days of work a month. Even if its lip service the Feds are acting as if the weather vane is pointing in the direction of changing the rules. And the one-two punch of Colgan/Sully doesn't need much spin to sell the public on why re-reg is in their interest.
boondr
Penalty Vectorer
Mattio
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you mean by "Congress is on "poverty wages""? Are they considering various solutions or just admitting that it's something that probably needs a solution?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
The libertarian party.
(This was mostly a crack at Joe's expense, but don't worry, I've got it coming back at me as soon as he reads it!
)
fly22
Well-Known Member
Yes John you do. Once again a failed argument. Look at all the pics of Muslim nations and their children holding firearms. They are procreating faster than the Caucasian race. So IMO giving 3 year olds guns increases our probability for survival as a country and as a race.
This was by no means a slam on Muslims etc it was a shot at Johns argument.
This was by no means a slam on Muslims etc it was a shot at Johns argument.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
How so?
If that regulation includes specific caps on how much you can make, or other work rules, then it would most certainly NOT be good for pilots. And, even worse, it would make changing those wages and rules damn near impossible.
Don't think that "re-regulation" means being zapped back in time to 1978, where the government regulations will look exactly as they were before. You can bet your ass that in the current "protect the people" atmosphere we live in, the regulation would preclude a bunch of "greedy" pilots from making a fortune on the backs of the proletariat they are flying around.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I think you went a little past what I was getting at; I was using an analogy, where you want to take what I'm saying literally.
Patrick
Well-Known Member
Nicely said.
I think I missed something again. Does the proposed re-regulation say anything about pilot pay?
I was kind of thinking along these same lines. What is there about regulation that would mean good things happening for pilots?
seagull
Well-Known Member
Pilot pay never was regulated in the first place! Hacker said it best. Wake up folks, regulation would only lead to fewer pilot jobs, and much fewer at the major level.
Have any of you who want regulation read history? I don't need to because I'm old enough to remember it. Look up how many pilot jobs there were, and then look at how many were for the major airlines. It might surprise you! It was a good deal for those few "in the club", but that was a small group, and there were many, many, outside looking in with nothing even close to regionals out there.
Have any of you who want regulation read history? I don't need to because I'm old enough to remember it. Look up how many pilot jobs there were, and then look at how many were for the major airlines. It might surprise you! It was a good deal for those few "in the club", but that was a small group, and there were many, many, outside looking in with nothing even close to regionals out there.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Kudos to Hacker and Seagull for being logical.
Re-regulation historically accelerates costs, dilutes operational flexibility, and has historically proved to be completely ineffective. But I can certainly understand why pilots would want their industry to be highly regulated when the misconception that they'll once again be making $300K, have a pension, and job security.
What a fallacy.
Re-regulation historically accelerates costs, dilutes operational flexibility, and has historically proved to be completely ineffective. But I can certainly understand why pilots would want their industry to be highly regulated when the misconception that they'll once again be making $300K, have a pension, and job security.
What a fallacy.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
First off, there is no "proposed" re-regulation. It's just talk.
Second, just because pay was not regulated prior to deregulation doesn't mean that it won't be if such regulation was re-imposed now.
When you open the door to the Federal Government to come in and tell an industry "how it's going to be", they can pretty much do whatever they want. Remember that the lawmakers who would decide what re-regulation would look and smell like have grown up largely in a post deregulation world, with the access and cost that grew from that.
IF regulation were proposed, it would likely be mostly for the purpose of benefiting the CONSUMER, rather than any other member of the equation (like, for instance, the income of the pilots, FAs, mechanics, etc). Just look to the goals of the financial industry "reform" being proposed as an indicator of that. Look at the fact that many lawmakers want to limit how much money oil companies can make -- as if cheap gas were a right, and making money by selling a product was some kind of crime.
No lawmaker would get behind a bill that would double or triple the cost of airline tickets for their constituents. They will make decisions primarily based on how it will impact the people who will vote for them on election day, and that would mean handcuffing the companies to make sure they provide a service that the passengers like.
Again, I can't fathom why pilots think this would benefit them. It's not going to be a magic return to the glory days of 1970s pilot pay with everything else remaining the same. I imagine that re-regulation would probably benefit pilot work rules, and potentially eliminate some of the idiotic management-vs-labor reindeer games by specifically regulating what companies could make labor do. On the other hand, I also envision that it will limit how much profit can be made with those regulated routes, regulated schedules, and regulated ticket prices.