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

Deregulation crashes, burns? AJC article...

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

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
Deregulation crashes, burns

Published on: 09/09/04



I see Delta Air Lines as the next airline going bankrupt.

Each time I see another airline bankruptcy, I remember Alfred E. Kahn. He looked like the original "nutty professor." He was, indeed, a real-life professor who came up with a nutty idea in the 1970s. At the time he was the chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board during Jimmy Carter's administration.

Kahn thought that if we deregulated the airlines, a thousand flowers would bloom from heightened competition. Airfares would plunge and service would improve through competition.

In college I was taught that certain industries are better regulated than unregulated. This was to avoid uncontrolled monopoly or oligopoly in industries where few competitors could survive because of the huge costs involved in operating companies such as airlines and utilities. Today, this would be considered heresy, if not socialism.

My professor taught that after the deregulation of such industries there would be an initial burst of competition producing lower prices. This would be followed by a winnowing process in which the weak companies would fail, even if they were large.

Ultimately the industry would consolidate either into monopoly or, at best, oligopoly. Prices would then rise as service deteriorated due to lack of competition. The airline business has followed that model in the way my professor taught me.

When Kahn unveiled his plans to deregulate airlines it was very popular with both parties. This was the beginning of the era when "government regulation" was becoming a disreputable concept because of the inflationary economic policies of Carter's time. Republicans had demonized all government regulation as one of the roots of the inflationary evils of that time.

So when Kahn came up with the idea of deregulating the airlines, he had strong bipartisan support for a concept that my professor had taught was doomed to failure. Just as taught, everything went swimmingly at first. People's Air, a small East Coast carrier, established itself with low-fare marketing. The big airlines were forced to match them and prices went down — for a while.

The only problem was that the winnowing phase followed soon after. Eastern Airlines and Pan Am went bankrupt. People's Express was eventually run out of business by bigger companies with more money to survive fare wars. So don't get too excited about Jet Blue, the latest low-fare darling.

Consolidation followed. Allegheny Air swallowed up Piedmont Air to produce the fare and service mess that we now know as US Airways. It goes bankrupt every year or two despite its monopoly at many different airport hubs. We aren't ending up with a nationwide monopoly. But anyone who travels knows that most hubs are monopolized by one dominant carrier.

There is little price competition on a trip to or from Charlotte. Its fares are high and local businesses and consumers despise US Airways, the dominant carrier. It handles 97 percent of the flights in and out of Charlotte, and it still doesn't make money. It also has huge hubs in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

US Airways received a $900 million guarantee of new loans, courtesy of the federal government, as part of its bailout when it went bankrupt.

Guess who really guaranteed that? You, the taxpayer.

Delta, one of the premier airlines in the country and one of the best managed, is now on bankruptcy's doorstep. It is being forced to close its Dallas hub. Isn't that a great benefit to consumers? Seven thousand jobs lost. Don't tell those employees that this is merely the wonderful "creative destruction" of capitalism.

We cannot live without air transportation, but we can try to regulate some sense back into the system. Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration was forced to re-regulate flight schedules on a de facto basis because there were close to 50 flights scheduled at the same time.

The latest trend in airline bankruptcies? Dump their workers' pension plan liabilities. By the way, we guaranteed those also. I'm glad we did for the workers' sake. I'm not glad we did it at the altar of the deregulation "miracle."

The severe dislocation of workers' lives wouldn't have been necessary if the industry were properly regulated.
 
Should we start regulating every industry in order to remove instability and competition?
 
I wish more people could have seen this coming. It's difficult to regulate only part of the business. You can start with good intentions, but someone always comes up with reasons to throw more regulation into the mix.

But for starters, in the spirit of this discussion, how about mandating that an airline cannot charge less than what it costs to fly that seat on that trip? That way, as an example, UAL could not charge $58 for a round trip from DEN-RNO. The CASM is a known number for each carrier, so this would be easy to monitor. I'm sure there are some flaws in this idea, but it seems to me it would at least be a step in the right direction to keep us from killing each other. There is no light at the end of the tunnel if we don't change something.

Is this a bad idea?
 
The gov't needs to either regulate it like they used to do with the CAB, or they need to completely get out of the way. This half-regulated disaster that we have is what the problem is with the industry. The gov't regulates that certain slots have to go to new "competitors", prohibits mergers, and some local governments even subsidize LCCs like Airtran to encourage them to start service. It should be all or nothing. The gov't can't just pick and choose what regulation they want to enforce. Either bring back the CAB, or let the free market work. No half and half.
 
Hi all,


I have to agree %100. The similar instances of psuedo-deregulation in other captial intensive industries have been a disaster, such as the telecom and power industries. Like avaition, both of these have extreme amount of capital outlay upfront and a ton government entanglement along the way.

One only has to look at the huge debacle with electricity in CA a few years ago as proof.


Nu
 
This from the 'Al Jezeera Contemplation (or) 'Atlanta Urinal and Constipation'? Glad it is from a reliable source!
 
The problem with deregulation is that its NOT. The airlines are very heavily regulated. The only thing not regulated are the fares and destinations....unless you count international then those are regulated too! We say the industry is deregulated yet there are whole entities, the FAA and the DOT thats sole purpose is regulation. Now lets talk about the taxes. How much of every ticket goes to tax!!! it's insane.

But hey at least we can always blame it on those greedy unions!
 
If that story has anyone thinking about deregulation, they need to obtain a copy of Hard Landing. It does a pretty good job of detailing how deregulation came about.

In short, Ted Kennedy needed a presidential campaign theme and we ended up with a partially deregulated industry. Simply, they left the industry in a position that was doomed to fail because they were only looking short term. Deregulation is not bad, poor/incomplete/shallow deregulation is/was doomed.

enigma
 
Plus you have the US goverment bailing out the airlines. If they can't pay the bills anymore, let the airline die in piece. Maybe those with a decent plan would survive. Shure, you may no longer be able to go coast to coast for $100, but them's the breaks.
 
You know what? Maybe the era of "regulation" wasn't so bad?

This is why I posted this piece...I was hoping some of the old timers would drop a line and compare how things are now, with how they were during some of the other, older down turns in the industry.
 
enigma said:
If that story has anyone thinking about deregulation, they need to obtain a copy of Hard Landing. It does a pretty good job of detailing how deregulation came about.

In short, Ted Kennedy needed a presidential campaign theme and we ended up with a partially deregulated industry. Simply, they left the industry in a position that was doomed to fail because they were only looking short term. Deregulation is not bad, poor/incomplete/shallow deregulation is/was doomed.

enigma
Wrong! Well, it actually started with Lorenzo and Phil Bakes who saw dereg as a way to get competitive. This is where Teddy came in..... Once again politics baby... It's everywhere, even in the cockpit....
 
PCL_128 said:
The gov't needs to either regulate it like they used to do with the CAB, or they need to completely get out of the way. This half-regulated disaster that we have is what the problem is with the industry. The gov't regulates that certain slots have to go to new "competitors", prohibits mergers, and some local governments even subsidize LCCs like Airtran to encourage them to start service. It should be all or nothing. The gov't can't just pick and choose what regulation they want to enforce. Either bring back the CAB, or let the free market work. No half and half.
Local governments (or more often chamber of commerces) subsidize LCC's to lower airfare costs. After all, these cities are in competition with other cities for both business investments as well as tourism. If the city can reduce the costs of travel, it can reap the rewards.
 
46Driver said:
Local governments (or more often chamber of commerces) subsidize LCC's to lower airfare costs. After all, these cities are in competition with other cities for both business investments as well as tourism. If the city can reduce the costs of travel, it can reap the rewards.
I know what their reasoning is, but I still find it disgusting. The tax payers money should not be used to subsidize airlines. Let the market work like it's supposed to.
 
Hey everyone,

The other aspect of regulation is to ensure that everyone has access to an "essential" service. We may argue amongst ourselves about what counts as to what exactly counts as essential, but for the purposes of argument, lets assume air travel is included with that.

If you look at the history of electric, telephone and air service, you will find that one of the regulatory requirements was that you couldn't just servce the lucrative, high density urban areas, but you had to service the sticks as well. Very often, the rates you were allowed to charge accounted for the "subsidy".

The CAB was no different. If you wanted to go from Dallas to Minneapolis, and make fat bank doing it, fine, but you also were going to service Cedar Rapids, Burlington and Fort Dodge, Iowa.

The problem was, ONLY in the high density markets did you make enough to cover the smaller markets. If you look at the history of "local service" carriers, you will find that they rarely mady and significant money, even with generous government handouts. These carriers served local, regional markets, and often fed into a "big" market (there being no hubs at the time).

Eventually, in an effort to wean the local service carriers from the government teat, a few big cities were doled out. In the end, however, few made anything of themselves. They either merged or went "pffft".

There WERE exceptions. Such as PSA (the real deal) and SWA. In this case, both airlines had "big" markets wholly within their respective states. As such, they made really bad examples for comparason to other local carriers (which inevitably happened) because they had so much "cream" they could skim, entirely within each state.

Anyway, when that requirement to fly smaller markets is removed, you see whats happening now...rural air service is in high speed rewind, even from where it was 10 years ago. If all the majors go bust, and you are left with LCCs, you will have essentially no air service unless you happen to live in or close to the top 75-100 markets.

Thats how LCCs work. Low costs, yes, but also lots of revenue from easy to pick, high density markts. But to serve to small markets, you HAVE to charge somewhere to make up the revenue, and all of a sudden, there go your low fares.

Of course, the worst disaster to befall small markets was the RJ craze. But thats an argument for another time...

Nu
 
PCL_128 said:
I know what their reasoning is, but I still find it disgusting. The tax payers money should not be used to subsidize airlines. Let the market work like it's supposed to.
Chamber of Commerce money is private, not taxpayer. The business's are trying to increase the number of people who come to their town. If they pool their resources, they can get lower airfares which increases their profit. Some of the deals do not necessarily subsidize an airline but take away the risk by guaranteeing a minimum amount of tickets sold.
 
46Driver said:
Chamber of Commerce money is private, not taxpayer. The business's are trying to increase the number of people who come to their town. If they pool their resources, they can get lower airfares which increases their profit. Some of the deals do not necessarily subsidize an airline but take away the risk by guaranteeing a minimum amount of tickets sold.
I'm not referring to the Camber of Commerce money. I have no problem with that. If companies want to band together to bring business to their area, I'm all for that. However, several local governments use taxpayer dollars to pay Airtran for their first 6 months or a year of service. That's wrong. The market should dictate whether Airtran serves a city.

Note: I'm not picking on Airtran here. I just believe that Airtran can make tons of money with their business model without having to take hand-outs from the gov't. By problem is with the gov't, not Airtran.
 
What about the plus side

How about all the flying jobs created since de-Reg, 5 times as many pilot jobs now as compared to 1977. If we went back to regulated 1975 style, how many of the presently employed pilots would be looking for jobs? It was nearly impossible for a Helo pilot to get a fixed wing job back in 1977. The glory days of the legacy airline life style are gone. Much like horseshoe makers and sail stitchers had to adopt in the early 1900’s, so will pilot expectations. You can not go back, change is the only constant. I still think $100K per for flying an airplane is a great job, since I have never seen it. Observation from 40 years in the inductry.
 
46Driver said:
Are all taxdollars the same? Or are is there a difference between local, state, and federal tax dollars?
I don't think that ANY KIND of tax dollars should be used to subsidize businesses. That's not a free market. Local, state, federal, it doesn't make any difference. If a business wants to survive, they need to offer the best possible product at the best possible price while still turning a profit on their own without help from the gov't. As long as local tax dollars are used to subsidize Airtran while giving nothing to Delta when they are both serving the same market, then we don't have a fair free market. That's not how things are supposed to work in America.
 
pilotyip said:
How about all the flying jobs created since de-Reg, 5 times as many pilot jobs now as compared to 1977. If we went back to regulated 1975 style, how many of the presently employed pilots would be looking for jobs? It was nearly impossible for a Helo pilot to get a fixed wing job back in 1977. The glory days of the legacy airline life style are gone. Much like horseshoe makers and sail stitchers had to adopt in the early 1900’s, so will pilot expectations. You can not go back, change is the only constant. I still think $100K per for flying an airplane is a great job, since I have never seen it. Observation from 40 years in the inductry.

Listen up here boys, the Man is on to something. You guys who wish for total regulation need to go look at the number of pilots who will have a job under such an economy. It won't be anywhere near what we have now, even after furloughs.

Unless you are a ring-knocking water walker, or an AFA grad you won't be flying an airliner in a regulated environment. There just won't be enought jobs.

enigma
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom