Airlines say pilot fatigue rule would cost jobs

[Freebrd]

Double post.

Godspeed!

and you're a double putz GL/Oy-yo-yo

 

[pilotyip]

What would happen to continuous dutyI bet they would become illegal, which is a regional staple.

Yes the standup overnight may go away to be replaced by an 18 hour RON. Less flight hours per hours away from home base. More pilots to cover the same schedule, which means more cost for the same revenue. This result either higher tickets prices or elimination of service to the former stand-up over night location. The question is, will that market support the additional cost? At the regional level that would be determined by the major partner when determines if the feed from that location is worth the additional cost.

 

[Smarta$$]

I'll spoon feed it to you. To comply would require hiring significantly more pilots, this would result in a cost structure that isn't viable. Therefore, instead of pilots being hired, schedules will be cut back, markets will get dropped, airplanes will get parked and pilots will be laid off.

Pretty simple. If the cost of compliance makes it uneconomic, air service will curtailed.

No contradiction at all.

Have a nice evening.

Wrong. That is the over-simplified FOX news version. But, it has little to do with reality.

That article was nothing more than political opportunism trying to scare us with the "jobs" buzz word. The markets that are on the margins of being cut, will more than be offset by the increase in staffing required for the markets that are still served. Most major airlines will be affected very little, this burden will mostly be borne by regional airlines, which can use some of their guaranteed profit margin to cover the costs. U.S. pilots have the most inadequate rest regulations of almost any industrialized nation. They CAN afford this, and they must.

 

[pilotyip]

Wrong. That is the over-simplified FOX news version. But, it has little to do with reality. They CAN afford this, and they must.

The airlines and gov't do not decide what they can afford. The market and the consumers individual self-interest will dictate what can be afforded in the way of airline ticket prices. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity to cover more pilots for the same flying, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer pilots.

 

[Smarta$$]

The airlines and gov't do not decide what they can afford. The market and the consumers individual self-interest will dictate what can be afforded in the way of airline ticket prices. It is basic economics, if you raise the price of commodity to cover more pilots for the same flying, less people will purchase that commodity. With less people purchasing there is not as much demand for that commodity, therefore there will be fewer pilots.

Sorry, the actual ticket cost will be very negligible. Very small amount of many, especially since most non-regional airlines aready use shorty duty periods with longer overnights.

Since the entire industry will be subject to the same rules, the consumer cannot choose an alternative carrier over $2. And the actual increase in costs will be so insignificant, it will have NO perceivable affect on bookings.

You can pedal your ATA and Rush L. bullcrap elsewhere.

 

[pilotyip]

Since the entire industry will be subject to the same rules, the consumer cannot choose an alternative carrier over $2. And the actual increase in costs will be so insignificant, it will have NO perceivable affect on bookings.

and then you are going to tell me that the increases in tickets prices due to increasing fuel costs in the spring of 2008 had no effect upon airline load factors?

 

[Inconceivable]

and then you are going to tell me that the increases in tickets prices due to increasing fuel costs in the spring of 2008 had no effect upon airline load factors?

No, I will tell you that increasing fuel costs in 2008 were accompanied by increasing costs in all sectors of the economy on which petroleum relied - like the big American SUVs that passengers drive to the terminal before getting on a flight or the cost of goods for a firm that decides to curtail expenses and reduces nonessential travel.

2008 was about a reduction in discretionary spending brought on by the price of EVERYTHING increasing at once.

Please try again.

 

[pilotyip]

Please try again.

not going to, Adam Smith understood it 230 years ago, it takes a while to figure it out.

 

[sbnflyer]

I'll spoon feed it to you. To comply would require hiring significantly more pilots, this would result in a cost structure that isn't viable. Therefore, instead of pilots being hired, schedules will be cut back, markets will get dropped, airplanes will get parked and pilots will be laid off.

Pretty simple. If the cost of compliance makes it uneconomic, air service will curtailed.

No contradiction at all.

Have a nice evening.

Can you be more condescending? The point of my post was to point out that management will say anything to get their way. The original headline of "MORE JOBS" sounds pretty good in a down economy so no one listened. Change to "LESS JOBS" and politicians might take notice not wanting to get blamed for killing jobs. In my own opinion, at worst, the work rules and proposed cutbacks would cancel each other out resulting in no layoffs at all for pilots. More likely, people will still fly at 5 dollars more a ticket and nothing will change in the route structure.

No go back to the management office and stop bothering the line guys please....we have work to do.

 

[brokeflyer]

airlines need to charge more for the ticket. that is why they fail and that is why they compromise safety.

 

[General Lee]

airlines need to charge more for the ticket. that is why they fail and that is why they compromise safety.

It's called bag fees.

Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[IBNAV8R]

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.

 

[badog]

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.

Perfect!
You sir are brilliant.

 

[Smarta$$]

and then you are going to tell me that the increases in tickets prices due to increasing fuel costs in the spring of 2008 had no effect upon airline load factors?

Oil going from $30 to $140 has a much greater effect on ticket prices than does increasing pilot staffing in a minor way, which is all that would be required for most airlines.

Come on. You lose any chance at credibility when you are dishonest or unreasonable.

 

[surveypilot]

From an outsider view point (I have never flown for the airlines), it seems as though these new duty rules will largely only affect the regional airlines. I would think that this would indeed drive up the typical regional airline CASM. I would think that this along with increasing fuel prices would help push the economics more in favor of the majors bringing more flying in house, and utilizing the regionals less. If it cost the same or more to outsource the flying, I would think that the majors would be more inclined to bring the flying back in house.