The end of aviation as we know it?

charlie1017

charlie1017

Well-Known Member
So with the start of the Copenhagen summit I found this article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen

So, any guesses about how much will air carriers have to downsize due to the hefty taxes that might come in the future? Will General Aviation be killed off with the taxes?

Please I'm not discussing the merits of climate science, just the hypothetical scenarios for the aviation industry arising from this.
 
I don't think it would be all bad if the airlines were forced to change some of their SOPs. I've said for awhile now that there are simply too many flights available to passengers. Instead of sending ten 50-seater RJs between DFW and St. Louis, why not send two 250-seater mainline aircraft. Create scarcity, which will allow for higher ticket prices, and will reduce ground delays.

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there - definitely not saying I have the answer.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I don't think it would be all bad if the airlines were forced to change some of their SOPs. I've said for awhile now that there are simply too many flights available to passengers. Instead of sending ten 50-seater RJs between DFW and St. Louis, why not send two 250-seater mainline aircraft. Create scarcity, which will allow for higher ticket prices, and will reduce ground delays.

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there - definitely not saying I have the answer.
Click to expand...

Because that isn't what passengers (ie the customer) want. And if one airline reduced capacity another would add flights.
 
They should re-regulate this industry if there's momentum to tax it right out of business.
 
charlie1017 said:
So with the start of the Copenhagen summit I found this article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/rajendra-pachauri-climate-warning-copenhagen

So, any guesses about how much will air carriers have to downsize due to the hefty taxes that might come in the future? Will General Aviation be killed off with the taxes?

Please I'm not discussing the merits of climate science, just the hypothetical scenarios for the aviation industry arising from this.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but isn't BHO so fantastic for the Unions(i.e. ALPA) ?
 
wheelsup said:
Because that isn't what passengers (ie the customer) want. And if one airline reduced capacity another would add flights.
Click to expand...

I meant creating scarcity through regulation. Make it cost prohibitive for airlines to use regional aircraft versus mainline.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I meant creating scarcity through regulation. Make it cost prohibitive for airlines to use regional aircraft versus mainline.
Click to expand...

If you want the government to tell various airlines where they can fly, when they can fly, and what they can fly, why don't we just shut the airlines down, and let the government run the whole show?
 
You guys who want to re-regulate.... I hope the government does that and regulates that your current pay and benefits are acceptable. How's re-regulation now? :eek:
 
A-300F4-622R said:
You guys who want to re-regulate.... I hope the government does that and regulates that your current pay and benefits are acceptable. How's re-regulation now? :eek:
Click to expand...
OK...Is there another reason re-regulation is a bad idea? I truly do not know. I have been thinking,(with my limited understanding) that re-regulation could be a good thing. Maybe complete deregulation would be better yet.
 
wheelsup said:
Because that isn't what passengers (ie the customer) want. And if one airline reduced capacity another would add flights.
Click to expand...

I actually like the idea as is. Who needs a flight every hour of the day? I know we are going for convenience here, but it has gotten a bit ridiculous.

Truth of the matter is, if they regulated them in a manner like this it wouldn't change the number of people that fly. If the customers don't like it hand them a ticket to the AVIS rent a car. We want customer service, but not at the expense of the industry and its employees.

If it lessens traffic load, reduces fuel burned/operating costs, and relieves strain on the industry through consolidation at the cost of say a flight every 2 to 3 hours to the same place, instead of each hour. I personally think that is worth it. It will never happen I am sure, but it seems like a brilliant idea IMO.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
If you want the government to tell various airlines where they can fly, when they can fly, and what they can fly, why don't we just shut the airlines down, and let the government run the whole show?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be black and white. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum - governments can push free market systems in a certain direction with minimal regulation.
 
A-300F4-622R said:
You guys who want to re-regulate.... I hope the government does that and regulates that your current pay and benefits are acceptable. How's re-regulation now? :eek:
Click to expand...

My opinions come solely from the passenger perspective. For me, safety and efficiency are my two primary objectives. Layers of outsourcing and extremely low fares do nothing to encourage this, IMO. As a traveler, I'd rather see less selection and higher ticket prices as a trade off for improved efficiency, better service, and a in-house maintenance. I'm certainly aware that I'm probably in the minority there, but I'm fortunate to be in a position where I'm capable of paying $500 for a ticket that costs me $250 now.
 
Murdoughnut said:
It doesn't have to be black and white. Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum - governments can push free market systems in a certain direction with minimal regulation.
Click to expand...

If the government wants to get money from taxes, they will find a way to do it.

Say for example the taxes cause airlines to go to a 2x/day frequency with 250 seat planes, thus saving the airlines money in reduced taxes. Fast Forward... Now the government says, the people want more frequency so we are going to give you a tax break for each flight per day you have into XYZ airport. Now they shift back to the current system.

Now I agree that 2 mainline flights per day is better than RJs scattered everywhere, but if you think that the government gives a hoot about passenger frequency / your pay / cost of oil, etc you are sadly mistaken. They care about one thing, and thats collecting your money in the form of taxes.
 
A-300F4-622R said:
You guys who want to re-regulate.... I hope the government does that and regulates that your current pay and benefits are acceptable. How's re-regulation now? :eek:
Click to expand...

I'd take less money and a stable career over the mess of pilots sitting on the street right now making no money.
 
Murdoughnut said:
My opinions come solely from the passenger perspective. For me, safety and efficiency are my two primary objectives. Layers of outsourcing and extremely low fares do nothing to encourage this, IMO. As a traveler, I'd rather see less selection and higher ticket prices as a trade off for improved efficiency, better service, and a in-house maintenance. I'm certainly aware that I'm probably in the minority there, but I'm fortunate to be in a position where I'm capable of paying $500 for a ticket that costs me $250 now.
Click to expand...



I agree with you. I'd like to see the regionals regulated out of business, or at least back to the days when they were truly "commuters" flying small turboprops.

You guys that wish for re-regulation, higher fares, less frequency, more mainline flights, would find most of you currently at the regionals, out of a job. There would be far less, but more lucrative, mainline jobs when frequency gets cut from 10 RJs to 2 mainline jets a day.
 
ljg said:
I'd take less money and a stable career over the mess of pilots sitting on the street right now making no money.
Click to expand...



If you are currently at a regional or are a regional wannabe, you'd probably be on the street permanently, as there would be far less jobs to go around and the few mainline jobs that would open up, would mostly go the military.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top