Lear, you ask if I was around during regulation. That doesn't really matter does it?
Yes, it does, because you don't understand the economics of how routes were doled out, how prices were set, etc. If you DID understand it, you wouldn't have made the last comment about the government arbitrarily coming up with an "artificial pricing scheme".
Without that understanding, you're not really analyzing, you're editorializing. Big difference.
You say ticket prices are going to go up regardless. Well with regulation, how much are they going to go up? Who determines when it is enough?
Depends on the type of regulation. Personally, I believe it should be ILLEGAL for an airline to price ANY ticket below it's cost of production. That type of "artificial pricing" would at least force airlines to either break even on a route or stop flying the route. Period.
No more of this crap of "let's cut the cost on this leg below its production level so we can run XYZ out of this pairing, but make it up over here" when, half the time, the passenger is smart enough to buy a multi-leg ticket and run an end-move around the airline's pricing scheme, getting off after only one leg.
SOMETHING has to be done to FORCE airlines to stop using the "profit/bankruptcy" ploy like they have 2, 3, and possibly even 4 times for some carriers as we move into yet another era of losses, after barely ANY period of gains.
Why not let the guy with the cash who wants a round trip to LBB determine when enough is enough?
Because that doesn't happen in the airline business. They've been trying to go that route for decades and, guess what? It's not working. As soon as the airline raises fares to where it runs business off, they just lower them back into the red and keep going. After a period of this on enough routes, they file bankruptcy, shed their unwanted debt, and go do it all again.
THAT is why deregulation has failed. Airlines are not self-policing enough to quit flying an unprofitable route, just for the sake of "market share".
You say airlines competing only for service would improve consumer's experience. Who is to say what kind of service the consumer needs to improve their "experience"? Maybe they will be happy with less service but cheaper airfare.
Ummm... have you SEEN the latest airline quality reports, including customer satisfaction at an ALL-TIME LOW for the ENTIRE industry?
I'm not the only one saying that service needs to improve for the consumers; THEY are saying it.
If first class were in such high demand, Maxjet would be the business model everybody was copying instead of SWA or Airtran.
I never said airlines needed to be all first-class. That's you reading into what I said.
What I DID say was that "Coach used to be a very pleasant flying experience". It needs to be so again.
I know some pilots yearn for the days when their customers had to have a suit or dress on to travel. I think those days are gone though.
I agree completely; they're gone, and I'm not yearning for them back. I AM, however, looking for the return of customer service, the kind that only comes when you pay your customer service personnel a livable wage, stop raping their benefits and retirement, and provide them a livable quality of life. Treat your front-line employees well, and they will treat your passengers well. I believe that comes from the book Nuts, from the airline that still manages to get it right with both pax and employees.
However, the Legacies will NEVER be Southwest. They aren't set up for it and cannot change to become it. Just as Southwest will never be Delta, flying to 27 countries on 5 continents with separate business and first class sections. Each has their niche.
You say the aviation market (since deregulation) hasn't rewarded efficiency and eliminated waste? They are really one in the same aren't they?
NO. No, they're not. That's the problem we have. The airline system obviously rewards efficiency, but the waste isn't getting eliminated. If it was, arguably, UAL (with the worst bankruptcy reorganization in aviation history) would be gone and, quite possibly, UAir as well.
You can't waste energy, fuel, etc and be efficient.
True, that's the point. There's plenty of airlines out there wasting fuel and other items, bleeding red on the balance sheets, yet they're not being eliminated.
Again, I'm not saying I like deregulation. As a pilot I'd love this industry to be re-regulated. I'm saying for the consumer, deregulation of aviation is a good thing. Supply and Demand have proven themselves to be better than artificial systems countless times. This is yet another time.
*sigh* You're ignoring the obvious fact that supply and demand aren't working with the relatively inelastic product of ASM's.
Supply and Demand is SUPPOSED to dictate that, if the demand does not exist for a product, then the product will be eliminated. Airlines STILL PRODUCE ASM'S on a route that doesn't have the demand. Whether they do it for "market share" or for "frequency" or for "schedule alignment", they still do it.
Therefore, Supply and Demand does NOT work with a commodity such as an airline seat; there is NO argument that counters this basic FACT of aviation. Period. End of story.
Supply and Demand WON'T EVER WORK until the airlines are FORCED to operate EVERY flight at a price point where it at least breaks even or until bankruptcy is removed as a tool of profitability/survival for airlines, thereby demanding profitability or business closure with no safety net in place.
Whether it's extended regulation to require break-even pricing, bankruptcy elimination, or full regulation where the government goes back to determining routes, slots, and prices as well, something is going to have to change, or the airlines will NEVER become self-sufficient.
