Airlines say pilot fatigue rule would cost jobs

[PBRstreetgang]

I am ok not filling the back of out planes with trailer trash rejects, if the trailer folk stay home because the ticket is 40.00 too high, good riddance!

 

[pilotyip]

I am ok not filling the back of out planes with trailer trash rejects, if the trailer folk stay home because the ticket is 40.00 too high, good riddance!

yea thats the way to do it, who need paxs anyway, they are just toads in the back. I heard that SWA makes its profit on 2-3 trailer trash per flight that buy the $40 ticket 2 months in advance like I do for my wife. We once owned a trailer, so it fits.

 

[surplus1]

The solution is really simple. There are two problems here; 1) There are too many regulations governing the airlines and, 2) There are too many labor unions interfering with management.

So, all you "conservative" pilots need to go out next November and elect some more Republicans. They will get rid of the regulations and remove the collective bargaining rights of the unions. That way you can all be paid what you're worth instead of the inflated wages of folks like General Lee and Yip. Then everything will fall into place and the airlines will make lots of money again.

Management doesn't need the FAA to telll them how to run the company and they sure don't need any union thugs to force them to pay 100K/yr for a job that's not worth nore than 50K tops.

Vote Republican!

 

[Axel]

The mathematics of regulation

The ATA's claim that the new regulation will be prohibitively expensive is more than a PR ploy. There is a complex mathematical formula that is applied to proposed regulation to determine whether it is implemented.

I can't rattle it off or provide specifics, but in essence (and very, very simplified), a human life is assigned a specific value in dollars. That value is inserted into an equation which also assigns a probability of a certain event occurring as well as the probability of the number of lives lost in the occurrence.

The dollar value of those lives is compared to the expense of implementing a regulation designed to mitigate the possibility of the event occurring as well as the statistical reduction in the number of fatalities.

What comes out to the right of the "=" signs are two values: the cost of the lives expected to be lost and the cost of implementing the regulation. If the dollar value of the cost in lives exceeds the cost of the reg, the reg is implemented. If the cost of the reg exceeds the cost of the lives, it is not.

The higher the cost of the reg ATA is able to convince lawmakers, the more weighted in their favor the equation becomes.

 

[doh]

Axel, sad but true...

 

[Flyprdu]

like where the stock market will be on 12-31-11

Dow Jones Industrial Average = 12,387.27

And you can take that to the bank!!!

 

[pilotyip]

Dow Jones Industrial Average = 12,387.27

And you can take that to the bank!!!

Man that is great guess!, one of the best guesses I have ever seen, why this marks you as the best guesser that has ever posted here. But much like drawing any conclusions on what a crew rest rule will do to the airline industry, is still just a guess.

That way you can all be paid what you're worth instead of the inflated wages of folks like General Lee and Yip. Then everything will fall into place and the airlines will make lots of money again.

Vote Republican!

Now that is funny, I can safely bet that are many more pilots on FI making more than me, than there are making less than me. I have never seen that six figure paycheck in my life. BTW I will vote GOP, I voted Dem once back in 1964, because LBJ said if I voted GOP we would become involved in a war. 21 year old men don't like wars. Funny thing happened on the way to no war, I found myself in Vietnam.

 

[igneousy2]

Funny how ATA would seem to think that a buck or two per flight will kill jobs and be the downfall of the industry but $15 a bag won't.

If you can't see the economic difference between a $2 tax and a $15 fee charged by a private company than this conversation is a lost cause and it is no wonder that this country is in the fiscal mess that we are in.

 

[pilotyip]

If you can't see the economic difference between a $2 tax and a $15 fee charged by a private company than this conversation is a lost cause and it is no wonder that this country is in the fiscal mess that we are in.

That is the reason SWAs get to charge higher ticket prices, some people don't like bag fees and will pay a higher ticket price to avoid those fees. In the end the customer will determine what can be charged.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Now that is funny, I can safely bet that are many more pilots on FI making more than me, than there are making less than me. I have never seen that six figure paycheck in my life. BTW I will vote GOP, I voted Dem once back in 1964, because LBJ said if I voted GOP we would become involved in a war. 21 year old men don't like wars. Funny thing happened on the way to no war, I found myself in Vietnam.

Funny how Democratic Presidents have gotten us into most wars, yet Republicans are called "war mongers"...

 

[IBNAV8R]

If you can't see the economic difference between a $2 tax and a $15 fee charged by a private company than this conversation is a lost cause and it is no wonder that this country is in the fiscal mess that we are in.

Dare I sound like a $%^&NG liberal but, a $2 tax might actually reflect the increased cost of providing the illusion of security v. a $15 fee for which 1$ might actually go to cover the cost of the service. They sure as heck don't pay the rampers any more than before. Nor, do they pay the F/As, who have to deal with the carry-ons any extra. And, they DAMN sure don't pay us any more while we wait longer to load and unload the pax.

$6 sandwich? I can kinda see that. But, I KNOW it doesn't cost the airline $150-$450 to change an itinerary (especially when seats are available) or $75-$150 for a pet (especially one they never even handle [i.e. cabin pet]).

I don't see the difference because, like most people, I strongly feel that getting ripped off is bad - no matter who is doing it. So, for one group of swindlers to point fingers at another is laughable.

 

[igneousy2]

Dare I sound like a $%^&NG liberal but, a $2 tax might actually reflect the increased cost of providing the illusion of security v. a $15 fee for which 1$ might actually go to cover the cost of the service. They sure as heck don't pay the rampers any more than before. Nor, do they pay the F/As, who have to deal with the carry-ons any extra. And, they DAMN sure don't pay us any more while we wait longer to load and unload the pax.

$6 sandwich? I can kinda see that. But, I KNOW it doesn't cost the airline $150-$450 to change an itinerary (especially when seats are available) or $75-$150 for a pet (especially one they never even handle [i.e. cabin pet]).

I don't see the difference because, like most people, I strongly feel that getting ripped off is bad - no matter who is doing it. So, for one group of swindlers to point fingers at another is laughable.

One difference between the $2 fee and the $15 fee is that the $2 fee is involuntarary and not subject to any kind of check/balance and the $15 fee is only there so long as passengers keep choosing to pay the fee. Competition emerges (ie SWA choosing NOT to charge the fee, certain airlines charging less than others, fees being waived for certain people, increased cost of longer boarding times, etc.) If the passengers don't like the fees enough they will choose airlines with less/no fees and this will eventually lead to the other airlines being forced to eliminate/reduce the fees.

Additionally, at least the $15 stays in the airline, so whatever the negative effect on demand is, is offset by the airline gaining $15. That $2 (and all the other taxes) is a 100% hit to demand without a revenue offset and the $2 goes into the fiscal blackhole that is the US Federal Government...and just like the airlines...the government isn't passing the extra revenue on to the commoners either.


...and you do sound like a $@#%^ liberal...

 

[Flyprdu]

That $2 (and all the other taxes) is a 100% hit to demand without a revenue offset and the $2 goes into the fiscal blackhole that is the US Federal Government...and just like the airlines...the government isn't passing the extra revenue on to the commoners either.


...and you do sound like a $@#%^ liberal...

GTFO here with that idiotic talk. Fiscal black hole? It's deadbeats like yourself that are bankrupting the government, and by association the economy.

You complain about a $2 dollar tax for being wasteful, but cheer a $15 airline surcharge because it's revenue... you really have gone off the reservation. It's clear to me that ideology is more important to you than numbers and sense.

A private company that provides the same security at twice the price is a drain on the system, no matter how much you dittoheads believe corporate fiefdoms are the promised land.

It's like none of you took a Civics class in your life.

 

[Flyprdu]

Dow Jones Industrial Average = 12,387.27

And you can take that to the bank!!!

12,217.56.
What do I win, YIP?

1.4% Margin of Error

 

[pilotyip]

12,217.56.
What do I win, YIP?

1.4% Margin of Error
Man that is great guess!, one of the best guesses I have ever seen, why this marks you as the best guesser that has ever posted here. But much like drawing any conclusions on what a crew rest rule will do to the airline industry, is still just a guess.

As I said before a great guess, what else self respect? undying gratitude? A good return because you guessed good and followed your guess by investing? don't know what else to say.