Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Bring back Regulation
- Thread starter buxflyr
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Salukipilot4590
IS WE ON TV?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 1,512
Flybywire44
Flies With The Hat On
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Posts
- 991
Jmoney
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Posts
- 851
What Carter left us with is a mess.....
It is simply a failure, by all accounts.... You can't attract investors to put their bucks in an industry that continuously and consistently loses money as much an airlines do. Something will have to happen or the industry will collapse.
-Here is a hint:
-Obama is not the answer-Communism never works!
It is simply a failure, by all accounts.... You can't attract investors to put their bucks in an industry that continuously and consistently loses money as much an airlines do. Something will have to happen or the industry will collapse.
-Here is a hint:
-Obama is not the answer-Communism never works!
Salukipilot4590
IS WE ON TV?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 1,512
I totally believe you but I would love to PM you what my senator sent me as a reply to the CREW-PASS mass mailing!
It'll make your head assplode!
centralpilot
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2005
- Posts
- 600
My senator's response was pretty disappointing as well.
There is regulation. It's called bankruptcy. 
Maybe the government shouldn't keep proping up companies that have proven they can't run themselves.
This is an industry where companies will eat themselves in the hope they can starve off the competition. Problem is, new competition always comes up just long enough to make the big airlines eat themselves more.
Yes, the goverment either needs to jump all in or stay completely out. What they are doing now is just prolonging the pain.
Maybe the government shouldn't keep proping up companies that have proven they can't run themselves.
This is an industry where companies will eat themselves in the hope they can starve off the competition. Problem is, new competition always comes up just long enough to make the big airlines eat themselves more.
Yes, the goverment either needs to jump all in or stay completely out. What they are doing now is just prolonging the pain.
Salukipilot4590
IS WE ON TV?
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 1,512
There is regulation. It's called bankruptcy.
Maybe the government shouldn't keep proping up companies that have proven they can't run themselves.
This is an industry where companies will eat themselves in the hope they can starve off the competition. Problem is, new competition always comes up just long enough to make the big airlines eat themselves more.
Yes, the goverment either needs to jump all in or stay completely out. What they are doing now is just prolonging the pain.
Wanna go to Bennigan's?
Flybywire44
Flies With The Hat On
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Posts
- 991
coolMost loans were denied by the scumbag Bush administration. Even a loan to UAL, which lost airplanes and crewmembers in the 9/11 attacks, was denied its ATSB loan.
The government has no place in bailing out any private enterprise. Bailing out failing companies just prolongs the pain. I hope no bail outs come this time around.
Soverytired
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
Specifics please.
"Regulation" is rather broad, and I'd hate to give any politician a license to do anything.
They do when government incompetence directly led to the destruction of four airliners and the deaths of their crews, and then an entire industry economic collapse.
Specifics: a complete return to the regulated system before Alfred Kahn got involved under the Carter administration. A reinstatement of the CAB, complete with fare and route authority. No new airline entrants.
Pie in the sky. The government should not mettle in the private sector. Less government intrusion is the key - not more. The best thing the government could do for the airlines is let the invisible hand take its course. If a free market is left to run its course, it truly will find an equilibrium. To date we have not had a free market in any way shape or form.
I find it ironic that you, a pilot for a low cost carrier, would favor a return to regulation. In the previously regulated industry your company would not have existed.
HalinTexas
昇る太陽の土&#
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,536
You might as well add a 30-40% job reduction system wide as redundancies and unprofitable routes are eliminated.
Don't forget to include the economic collapse of small to medium sized cities that lose all or most of their airline service. Businesses close up and move out. Tourism dies up.
Next, it should be fun to watch all those people in congress and those "airline managers" arrested for graft and racketeering as they try to "acquire" influence on capitol hill.
And lastly. I'm sure you'll be happy as your airfares increase 20%, or so, overnight for an advanced purchase fare as dictated by some unelected official that would determine the "fare market value" of the ticket. Don't forget the boarding "tax" that would be levied to make sure that whatever airlines are left get "support" from the gubmint to ensure service. And, you know that money will disappear in the greater budget for some unknown reason.
Capitalism would work better if left unfettered. Let the weak die and be eaten by the rest. You can blame Pelosi, and Boxer for that as they couldn't stand KSFO getting any less busy. They're the leaders in making sure that UAL stays (stayed) aloft. Feel free to blame the Repubs too. They're just as guilty. I remember seeing Sen. Kay Bailey and the Cong. from Ennis/Waxahatchee (forgot his name), both GOP, publicly lobbying against the repeal of the Wright amendment. Wanna know why? AMR was in their pockets with campaign donations.
Go back to school and learn some economics.
All of these doomsday scenarios are frickin' hilarious. This industry worked beautifully under a regulated system. Since deregulation, smaller markets have lost service, service in other markets has been downgraded to these godforsaken replacement jets, and customer service has fallen through the floor. Neither the consumer nor the employee have benefited. Stop worshiping at the alter of Ayn Rand and look at reality.
Tim47SIP
Serving for the USofA
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Posts
- 1,157
What Carter left us with is a mess.....
It is simply a failure, by all accounts.... You can't attract investors to put their bucks in an industry that continuously and consistently loses money as much an airlines do. Something will have to happen or the industry will collapse.
-Here is a hint:
-Obama is not the answer-Communism never works!
Carter left us a lot more than the airlines in a mess. Just about every thing that idiot did, we are paying the piper now. BRAC and Panama were absolute disasters. The agreement we had with the Panamanian Government would absolutely boil the average citizens blood whcih is why it wasn't public.
It is simply a failure, by all accounts.... You can't attract investors to put their bucks in an industry that continuously and consistently loses money as much an airlines do. Something will have to happen or the industry will collapse.
-Here is a hint:
-Obama is not the answer-Communism never works!
Carter left us a lot more than the airlines in a mess. Just about every thing that idiot did, we are paying the piper now. BRAC and Panama were absolute disasters. The agreement we had with the Panamanian Government would absolutely boil the average citizens blood whcih is why it wasn't public.
Everything you just tried to use that supported your argument for de-regulation is already happening as apart of the "free-enterprise you speak about. There are some industries where a government control does work better. This is one of them. It would mean better pay, better working conditions and a solid, committed schedule. No more undercutting LCC's.
HalinTexas
昇る太陽の土&#
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2004
- Posts
- 1,536
Who served Medford Ore in 1978? Who misses it? Those in Medford. Would you rather the taxpayers outside of OR pay to keep air service there?
The airline industry is not "free enterprise." That's part of my point. The "failing" have not been allowed to "fail." There is tons of regulation that's gotten in the way. There was an attempt to privatize ATC a few years ago. That was quashed rather succinctly. There are still calls to reform ATC. They're arguably understaffed, and yet they have to wait for Congress to allocate funds for "modernization."
Name one industry where government control works better? Provide a reference to an independent source, please.
It would mean better pay for whom? Those that are left? Who's gonna pay for it? The passengers that pay the higher fares, and the taxpayers that will inevitably be bailing out the "protected" class. Working conditions? How so? Are they going to wild-cat strike like the French? Whick leads me to.....
I'll give a specific example of a very regulated airline environment that failing. Europe. Where's Swiss Air? Looks what's happening to Alitalia. Air France was on the verge of insolvence, and so was KLM. They were "forced" to merge. Varig in Brazil (different continent) had hegemony over S. America. They're almost gone. Had to be partially bailed out by Americans (Mattlin-Patterson).
Spicepilots
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2006
- Posts
- 117
The government also has no place in bailing out financial institutions who make risky investments and play fast and loose with their clients' money... oops. I guess it just depends on who has friends in the White House.
I agree...
Soverytired
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Every person shall produce to the best of one's ability in accordance with one's talent, and each person shall receive the fruits of this production in accordance with one's need, irrespective of what one has produced.
--(Obama is not a communist. But he is a socialist. And yeah, that was lifted from wiki, which was lifted from god knows where.)
Soverytired
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Posts
- 1,572
Fair enough. Although de-regulation was pushed through by Sen. Edward Kennedy, so it can't be all bad.
Anyone else?
go!ng for broke
I love to duck!
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Posts
- 273
I expect such nonsense from some of the other idiots on this board, but you're smarter than this. Socialism involves government ownership and control of the means of production. Obama has never favored any such thing for any industry. He is not a socialist.
SpauldingSmails
Aboard the sloop.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Posts
- 1,278
Unless they're irresponsible investment banks and mortgage lenders... then just bail bail bail by tanking the dollar with a nearly non-extant interest rate .
It's time we take our medicine.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
