Save G.A.

[minitour]

Isn't this a backwards way of thinking. Well the airlines can't charge more so lets makes others pay?
How bout fixing the price structure of the airlines?

I agree, just because some pencil pusher at a desk says "ABC to DEF won't support a fare over $350" doesn't mean you can't charge more than $350.

You pass your fees along to your customers. That includes, fuel, taxes, fees, maintenance, pilot pay, CSR pay, ramp leases, pay for everyone else, the cost of your 1-888 number, your website fees, IT, etc. When you've got 100+ people in the back of your DC9, you can easily offset those costs for dollars per ticket. The guy that is sitting in his 750 with his three business partners is paying the whole bill.

There lies the problem. The airlines are so busy trying to see who can charge less that they've lost sight of the fact that to make a profit, it's a very simple formula: Revenue - Expense = Profit. If you charge $350 for a seat to go from A to B and the cost is $375, then your profit is ($25) per seat. If you turn it around and charge $400 and the cost is $375 then you just made $25 on each seat. You can make the numbers as large or as small as you like, the formula still works. If airlines lose customers because they're charging a correct price, they'll go out of business (eh...I guess they'll just go into chapter 11...again). Guess what...so will the ones that aren't charging enough. Eventually we'll be left with a handful of airlines that aren't concerned with undercutting each other anymore so they start charging the correct fee. I don't have a problem with a few (or even several) air carriers going out of business if it fixes this mess. The pilots will end up just fine at other jobs either airline or corporate, and as for management...they can take their multi-million dollar bonus, sit on it and twist.

...and what happens when so much GA is forced out of the sky by these user fees that the fees can no longer support the system? Guess who's going to end up getting the fees shoved on them. The airlines. ...and they'll have to support it themselves then.

-mini

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

That's some incredibly simple thinking. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

 

[Maurus]

Fractionals will only be able to get pilots through the airlines. That will hurt the airlines with that. Part 135 operators will suffer a lot from the lack of pilots as they may not have the money and/or resources to train new pilots up to part 135 standards. Flight schools will lose business because of increasing prices. There will be an even larger CFI shortage than there is now as the airlines would have to train all of their pilots and the CFI spot will no longer be a step to getting into the airlines.

GA will be hurt more than just having to increase prices. The lack of pilots will cause a lack aircraft production which would cause many current companies such as Cessna and Piper to either struggle or go belly up. The market would be saturated by older aircraft trying to be sold. Heck I haven't even mentioned other companies that would get hit such as Garmin, and other avionics companies. Hitting the GA side will hurt the economy just as bad, if not worse than the airlines sitting where they are today.

Are user fees worth the risk if it could cause all these companies to be harmed? A simple increase in price wont do the trick as it will only cause a greater deficit in these companies..

Maybe the airlines need to get a hint or two form Southwest who is still projected to make a profit even with the increasing cost of fuel. Southwest shows that it is possible to make money right now as a airline. The legacies and such I believe are living in the past and hurting themselves by not changing their business to fit the times.

 

[Mr.Maximus]

I'm not too concerned about guys that just fly for a hobby. Sorry, but I'm not up for destroying my leverage just so some guy can go fly the pattern in his 152 for a couple of weekends every month. If they can still afford it with user fees, then fine, but I'm not going to worry about them when structuring public policy. Airlines drive the economy, Cessna hobbyists don't.

As for the fractionals, charter companies, check haulers, etc..., they will simply have to pass their increased costs on to the consumer. All of them are in a much better position to do so than the airlines.

It is a sad state of affairs to see this type of thinking. The willingness to sell out fellow aviators for your own benefit is disgusting. Destroy YOUR leverage so a guy can fly around the patter in his 152? What a bunch of horsesh t. If more people would remember where they came from - things would be alot better off. PCL, I'm willing to bet you flew a Cessna or Piper around the pattern starting out. Flying a Cessna or a Piper around the pattern is where every civilian pilot has started. How would you have liked it if when you were just starting out, good ole Uncle Sam imposed fee's that you could not afford and eliminated your opportunity to become a pilot? I bet you would not have liked it. The airlines need to adjust to economic cycles like any other industry - sink or swim. All your worried about is YOUR leverage? Are you kidding me - you have NO leverage. The greed you demonstrate regarding YOUR leverage is no different than the greed that is demonstrated by YOUR management.

Coming from a guy that sold out his fellow aviators by doing a PFT scheme, I guess I shouldn't be shocked to see your willingness to sellout anyone you consider to be in your way. Disgusting. Your reasoning and your actions are one of the biggest contributors to the state of problems within unions. You are all to willing to sell someone out for your personal greed instead of standing with your fellow aviators through thick and thin.


Max

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

This is the only country in the world with such a huge GA industry. The loss of GA wouldn't be a blip on the economy. The loss of a single legacy carrier would be devastating, and a couple of them are teetering on the edge right now. This country would manage just fine with a much smaller GA sector.

 

[mikecweb]

It is a sad state of affairs to see this type of thinking. The willingness to sell out fellow aviators for your own benefit is disgusting. Destroy YOUR leverage so a guy can fly around the patter in his 152? What a bunch of horsesh t. If more people would remember where they came from - things would be alot better off. PCL, I'm willing to bet you flew a Cessna or Piper around the pattern starting out. Flying a Cessna or a Piper around the pattern is where every civilian pilot has started. How would you have liked it if when you were just starting out, good ole Uncle Sam imposed fee's that you could not afford and eliminated your opportunity to become a pilot? I bet you would not have liked it. The airlines need to adjust to economic cycles like any other industry - sink or swim. All your worried about is YOUR leverage? Are you kidding me - you have NO leverage. The greed you demonstrate regarding YOUR leverage is no different than the greed that is demonstrated by YOUR management.

Coming from a guy that sold out his fellow aviators by doing a PFT scheme, I guess I shouldn't be shocked to see your willingness to sellout anyone you consider to be in your way. Disgusting. Your reasoning and your actions are one of the biggest contributors to the state of problems within unions. You are all to willing to sell someone out for your personal greed instead of standing with your fellow aviators through thick and thin.


Max

Excellent post Max.
PCL you preach how selfish some non-union pilots are and only look out for themselves.
You've been doing that your whole career.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Sorry guys, I'm not getting into that sort of argument again. Dough wants the vitriol toned down on this site, so that's what I'm doing. If you want to talk about the merits vs downsides of user fees, then that's great, but if you want to yell at each other about PFT or who "lowered the bar" then I'm out.

 

[Patrick]

Maybe the airlines need to get a hint or two form Southwest who is still projected to make a profit even with the increasing cost of fuel. Southwest shows that it is possible to make money right now as a airline. The legacies and such I believe are living in the past and hurting themselves by not changing their business to fit the times.

I completely agree. The major carriers are in a business where their business model simply doesn't work. If it costs, say, $250 per seat to fly the plane from A to B, and you only charge $150 for that seat, how do you ever plan to make any money? Sure, every American wants their $179 round trip NY to FL tickets, but with the cost of fuel, along with everything else (paying for the aircraft, pilots, flight attendants, maintenance, insurance, ramp agents, etc) it just doesn't add up.

 

[mikecweb]

I don't want to either. But your willingness to throwout a whole segment of aviation because it doesn't effect you anymore is absurd. You are pretty much willing to let anything destroy aviation as a whole as long as it doesn't affect yourself or your union brothers for the time being.
There is alot more to aviation then 121 Passenger flying. I just wish you would take a look around and see that.

I'm sorry if this is raising the "vitriol level" but I find it disgusting that someone wants to destroy general aviation in america so he can have more leverage come contract time. I don't know about you but I want to take my kids flying some day, not tell them we had to give it up so the airline boys could make some more money while not raising ticket prices.
Disgusting.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I completely agree. The major carriers are in a business where their business model simply doesn't work. If it costs, say, $250 per seat to fly the plane from A to B, and you only charge $150 for that seat, how do you ever plan to make any money? Sure, every American wants their $179 round trip NY to FL tickets, but with the cost of fuel, along with everything else (paying for the aircraft, pilots, flight attendants, maintenance, insurance, ramp agents, etc) it just doesn't add up.

The legacy carriers simply can't operate on a similar cost structure to airlines like SWA and AAI. The legacies are supporting an international route structure which drives costs through the roof. It's simply impossible for them to match the LCCs on cost. But since they need to feed their international routes with domestic passengers, they have no choice but to operate a domestic route structure. Therefore, they have to match market prices to be competitive on those domestic routes. To say that they should simply raise fares in a deregulated environment is far too simplistic. It just doesn't work that way. Now, if you're willing to go back to a regulated environment, then different story. That's what we really should be doing.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I don't want to either. But your willingness to throwout a whole segment of aviation because it doesn't effect you anymore is absurd. You are pretty much willing to let anything destroy aviation as a whole as long as it doesn't affect yourself or your union brothers for the time being.
There is alot more to aviation then 121 Passenger flying. I just wish you would take a look around and see that.

I'm sorry if this is raising the "vitriol level" but I find it disgusting that someone wants to destroy general aviation in america so he can have more leverage come contract time. I don't know about you but I want to take my kids flying some day, not tell them we had to give it up so the airline boys could make some more money while not raising ticket prices.
Disgusting.

So everyone has to be a fan of general aviation? No pilot is allowed to believe that GA is underpriced?

 

[Gonzo]

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.

 

[Maurus]

This is the only country in the world with such a huge GA industry. The loss of GA wouldn't be a blip on the economy. The loss of a single legacy carrier would be devastating, and a couple of them are teetering on the edge right now. This country would manage just fine with a much smaller GA sector.

I believe eliminating the GA sector which has over 300,000 pilots currently would hurt more than you think.

In the end, all this is is the airlines trying to shift the burden they have created themselves to others. Just by reading through United's past all I see is management pulling one way and the unions (not just pilot unions) pulling the other. Where does this leave the company? It leaves it in an overstressed environment that could snap at any moment. Moving that stress somewhere else is what they are trying to do.

The flawed way the airlines have been managing there industry put them where they are today. Southwest is the exception. User fees will not fix the airlines. It will only be a bandage, as the airlines begin to grow again as a cause, there will be a demand of wage increases like in the past. There goes the profit for the company. It is a never ending circle that can't be fixed if the system stays the way it is. Implementing user fees would only be temporary for the airlines, but permanent for GA.

User fees = bad for everyone.

 

[Mr.Maximus]

So everyone has to be a fan of general aviation? No pilot is allowed to believe that GA is underpriced?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am of the opinion that every non-military pilot cut his teeth in GA. I also believe the user fee's the airline industry seeks is harmful to GA, and in broad terms seeks to have others financially shoulder the problems of the airlines. Airlines never sought user fee's when times were good - so clearly they seek them out now because of their own financial problems.

A business is suppose to sink or swim based on how they operate that business. Simply, is it profitable or not. If it is, continue working with that business model. If it is not, change the business model or close the doors. It seems these days that many business' feel they can categorize themselves into a couple of catchphrases: "We're vital to the economy" or we're "Vital to the american way". Personally I don't buy into that. It leads to companies operating in a way contrary to basic business principls. Airline bailouts and bailouts such as the Bear-Stearns are prime examples of operating contrary to basic business principles. It now sends a message that as long as you can sell yourself as vital to this or vital to that - go ahead and operate your business recklessly, make decisions you know should not be made, pay millions and millions to business "leaders" that are leading their business and industry into the ground - because in the end the government through its taxpayer base will bail you out.

While I agree the airline industry is an important part of our country and economy, I also believe they should be held accountable for operating on their own without using the bankruptcy systems or bailouts as a crutch. If they can't do that - they don't deserve the right to be in business.

In a nutshell - GA is not hurting the airline industry. The airline industry is hurting itself. To take it a step further - its airline management that is hurting its own industry. The industry is going to weed itself out over the next couple of years. Those that can't survive without bailouts of one form or another will not be there.

Max

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I disagree. Airlines aren't harming themselves, deregulation harmed them. It is entirely the fault of the government's deregulation that the airlines find themselves in such a mess. For 50 years the legacy airlines operated under a regulated environment. Then one day, Jimmy Carter and Alfred Kahn come along and say "sorry, no more regulation" and set them loose to survive in a deregulated industry when their entire business model and the entire industry infrastructure is set up for a regulated system. Sorry, but doesn't work, no matter how good your management is. All of the financial problems that you've seen in this business for the past 30 years are directly tied to that day in 1978 when Carter signed deregulation into law. And it gets worse! The government's own incompetence in stopping or at least detecting the 9/11 attacks ahead of time lead to a huge industry down-turn. In return for a downturn that was caused by their incompetence, the government refuses just about every request for ATSB loans from affected airlines. UAL, an airline that lost two airplanes in the attacks, was refused a loan from the government! So I'm sorry, but the airlines aren't responsible for their financial messes. They built airlines to fit within the confines of a system that was stolen from them in 1978. Rebuilding those airlines in a deregulated environment to compete with airlines that don't have the same challenges is impossible. It's easy to blame the airlines for their problems, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Mr.Maximus]

The airlines have had 30 years to adjust to deregulation. 30 years. Southwest seems to be able to operate a profitable business, Allegient seems to be able to do the same.

Keep pointing the finger of blame where ever you'd like, and by all means - don't look into the mirror. Book after book has been written about the problems of the airlines - and I'm sure there will be many more.

Ironically you just stated a bunch of reasons as to what is hurting the airlines - but you did NOT state general aviation. GA is not hurting the airlines. The guy working hard to get his PPL or instrument has nothing to do with the airlines. The airlines are their own worst enemies - and rest assured there will be less and less as they are held accountable to the basic premise of being profitable or being out of business.

User fee's will not solve the problem only create others. You'll have to look elsewhere to solve the problems.


Max

 

[jwp_145]

And there you have it, my friend.

Everything else is secondary.

I think you have the right attitude. You don't let your job define you and you see it as a means to an end.

I really respect that attitude!

Myself, I have no obligations except student loan, rent, and cell phone. Not having any family obligations allows me to follow my passion. I couldn't imagine doing ANYTHING else as a lifestyle/job. BUT, I will say I believe it takes a bigger man to do what HAS to for his family than it does for a man to turn down good money to work this career.

 

[jwp_145]

I disagree. Airlines aren't harming themselves, deregulation harmed them. It is entirely the fault of the government's deregulation that the airlines find themselves in such a mess. For 50 years the legacy airlines operated under a regulated environment. Then one day, Jimmy Carter and Alfred Kahn come along and say "sorry, no more regulation" and set them loose to survive in a deregulated industry when their entire business model and the entire industry infrastructure is set up for a regulated system. Sorry, but doesn't work, no matter how good your management is. All of the financial problems that you've seen in this business for the past 30 years are directly tied to that day in 1978 when Carter signed deregulation into law. And it gets worse! The government's own incompetence in stopping or at least detecting the 9/11 attacks ahead of time lead to a huge industry down-turn. In return for a downturn that was caused by their incompetence, the government refuses just about every request for ATSB loans from affected airlines. UAL, an airline that lost two airplanes in the attacks, was refused a loan from the government! So I'm sorry, but the airlines aren't responsible for their financial messes. They built airlines to fit within the confines of a system that was stolen from them in 1978. Rebuilding those airlines in a deregulated environment to compete with airlines that don't have the same challenges is impossible. It's easy to blame the airlines for their problems, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You know what? I've NEVER looked at it that way. All of their models were built for a regulated environment.

They were conditioned for that environment.

Very insightful.

 

[MQAAord]

The airlines have had 30 years to adjust to deregulation. 30 years. Southwest seems to be able to operate a profitable business, Allegient seems to be able to do the same.

Keep pointing the finger of blame where ever you'd like, and by all means - don't look into the mirror. Book after book has been written about the problems of the airlines - and I'm sure there will be many more.

Ironically you just stated a bunch of reasons as to what is hurting the airlines - but you did NOT state general aviation. GA is not hurting the airlines. The guy working hard to get his PPL or instrument has nothing to do with the airlines. The airlines are their own worst enemies - and rest assured there will be less and less as they are held accountable to the basic premise of being profitable or being out of business.

User fee's will not solve the problem only create others. You'll have to look elsewhere to solve the problems.


Max

:yeahthat:

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

The airlines have had 30 years to adjust to deregulation. 30 years. Southwest seems to be able to operate a profitable business, Allegient seems to be able to do the same.

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.

Ironically you just stated a bunch of reasons as to what is hurting the airlines - but you did NOT state general aviation.

I never said that GA was harming the industry. I've only said that GA isn't shouldering their fair share of the burden on maintaining our NAS and other infrastructure. I believe GA is vastly underpriced in this country.