DOT votes against modified Delta-USAirways swap agreement - socialism???

[DustyBottoms]

I think that the people who are throwing the word socialism around on this thread should stop listening to Beck, and Limbaugh and pick up a book and read what socialism actually means. You may not like what the government is doing, fine. I don't agree with all of it either. But its not Socialism, and we are not a true democracy or a pure Capitalist state. We never have been. At best we are a Democratically elected Social Republic. We've been that way since day one. Seriously, stop watching Fox News and pick up a history book. Preferably one not published by Ruport Murdock.

I don't even know why I am bothering to say this. In the next post somone is just going to acuse me of trying to take there guns, or call me a nazi or something and completely miss my point.

I give up, what is the definition of Socialism in the minds of the enlightened? If someone try's to tell me that socialism means something other than a contrast to Capitalism, then I become skeptical. This actually reminds me of a quote by Nikita Khrushchev, a leader of the Soviet Union during the Cold War: "We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."

I wouldn't call you a Nazi, either. I would consider the Nazis a fascist group, and a group who was actually against socialism. Don't let their name (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) fool you. And don't let me read your history books.

Back to topic: I'm not sure what the DOT's definition of anti-competitive is. Maybe they read the same books and watch the same TV shows that DASHDRIVER does? If losing tens of billions of dollars over the last decade, while trying to stay alive in this business isn't cut-throat enough, then I don't know what is. I'm not too sure how we are going to attract bright, successful and innovative people and businesses to come to this country (or stay here) if they are told how much money they are allowed to make... if any at all.

...not to trying to be a stick in the mud, but this country is going downhill.

 

[9rj9]

Whats so bad about Socialism ? Your Union is pure Socialism, if it was capitalism then the 100 hour wonders from riddle would be allowed to replace a 777 captain as long as he flew for cheaper. A seniority list is socialism, why not compete for seniority by efficiency or vsi at touchdown ?
Delta nor US Air paid one cent for those slots, they were awarded to them in a very socialist move during a bankruptcy of eastern/TWA and others. When you spew about some slot swap and know nothing about how the airlines originally got them I assume your freaking trailer trash watching FOX news again.

 

[RedDogC130]

Whats so bad about Socialism ? Your Union is pure Socialism, if it was capitalism then the 100 hour wonders from riddle would be allowed to replace a 777 captain as long as he flew for cheaper. A seniority list is socialism, why not compete for seniority by efficiency or vsi at touchdown ?
Delta nor US Air paid one cent for those slots, they were awarded to them in a very socialist move during a bankruptcy of eastern/TWA and others. When you spew about some slot swap and know nothing about how the airlines originally got them I assume your freaking trailer trash watching FOX news again.

uh oh....someone brought in history........here we go...good work if it is true...I am too lazy to look it up. Will take u at your word until someone posts something that counters it then I will call u a damn liar and flame baiter....until then...u are up 1

 

[waveflyer]

Socialism does not equal regulated capitalism.

Both regulation and transfer of wealth are a REQUIREMENT Of capitalism. Without these, capitalism will ALWAYS devolve into feudalism where the winners that used to be the most efficient will be replaced by those with the biggest guns.

The federal govt has always retained the right, under the constitution, to regulate commerce. And appropriate&balanced regulation has been what has allowed america to prosper.

You want a totally unregulated market- go start a business in Somalia. See how you do. Over-regulation is something to guard against- but please remember that so is UNDER-regulation. Not agreeing on where that line between over and under regulated is NOT socialist. Only an idiot would offer that it is

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

i think that the people who are throwing the word socialism around on this thread should stop listening to beck, and limbaugh and pick up a book and read what socialism actually means. You may not like what the government is doing, fine. I don't agree with all of it either. . .

Thank you!

 

[FlyinPiker]

Not in this case, they want to sell to someone that posses no threat .

What is Socialist about a blind auction where the highest bidder gets the slots. That's Capitalism at it's finest, and if I was a DL or US Shareholder I would insist that these two Airlines get the highest price they could get on the OPEN market.

A lot of people are missing the point. This is not really so much as a sell as it is a "swap".

Swapping allows you to get something you might not have been able to otherwise which is also in the best interest of the shareholders. They don't want to get rid of these slots, but if they can be traded for better ones then why not?

Now as to whether they have the right to chose who they pass them off to....that's a whole other story.I actually believe the DOT/FAA does have the right to say "use them or lose them", but the problem is the precedent that has already been set by allowing other airlines to "swap" things that they don't effectively own (CAL/AAI).

Granting the AAI slots to CAL for use at EWR clearly was not in the best interest of the consumer. The package that is being offered up by Airways/DAL not only comes with significant benefits to both airlines, but also significant benefits to the consumer. This is not guaranteed if the slots go to auction.

The DOT/FAA is going to have to find another excuse other than "we are looking out for the consumer" to back their ruling. They obviously didn't mind giving CAL even more of a monopoly verses making them "tweak" things if they wanted the deal approved.

 

[Redmeat]

All you guys that are screaming socialism...you want pure capitalism in this industry?

How about no government intervention whatsoever in the industry?

What if every swingin-dick billionaire with a few bucks in his pocket could come in with a bunch of leased airbuses (read:free), pay their pilots $30,000 a year and take over ALL the routes. Charge $9 for a ticket.

Sound familiar?

And there will still be a line of shiny 'big jet' kids willing to fly cause $30,000 a year is twice as much money as they ever made in their 'flight-school' college.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[FlyinPiker]

§ 93.221 Transfer of slots.

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title14/14-2.0.1.3.11.html#14:2.0.1.3.11.13.9.7

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, effective April 1, 1986, slots may be bought, sold or leased for any consideration and any time period and they may be traded in any combination for slots at the same airport or any other high density traffic airport. Transfers, including leases, shall comply with the following conditions:

(1) Requests for confirmation must be submitted in writing to Slot Administration Office, AGC–230, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, in a format to be prescribed by the Administrator.....

(2) The slot transferred must come from the transferor's then-current FAA-approved base.

(3) Written evidence of each transferor's consent to the transfer must be provided to the FAA.

(4) The recipient of a transferred slot may not use the slot until written confirmation has been received from the FAA.

(5)(i) Until a slot obtained by a new entrant or limited incumbent carrier in a lottery held under §93.225 after June 1, 1991, has been used by the carrier that obtained it for a continuous 24-month period after the lottery in accordance with §93.227(a), that slot may be transferred only by trade for one or more slots at the same airport or to other new entrant or limited incumbent carriers under §93.221(a)(5)(iii). This transfer restriction shall apply to the same extent to any slot or slots acquired by trading the slot obtained in a lottery. To remove the transfer restriction, documentation of 24 months' continuous use must be submitted to the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel.

(6) The Office of the Secretary of Transportation must determine that the transfer will not be injurious to the essential air service program.


Injurious= harmful, hurtful, or detrimental. I hardly see how the deal we (DAL) put together is injurious. I don't care what you call it capitalism, socialism, whatever....it's total bull and I'm glad we are challenging it.

 

[johnsonrod]

How about too much Government control? I thought this industry was deregulated at one point? Not if Obama and Lahood (who looks like a Mafia gangster) have their way.

The biggest problem I have with this is that Lahood disagreed with the modified agreement. I can see how the Feds would want to stop the original agreement just between Delta and USAirways. But DL and US had modified the agreement and brought in many other airlines - including two entrants to the markets (JB and Westjet). This is just too much Government intervention.

I guess you Obama lovers get what you paid for...

 

[chase]

Some good points on both sides of the argument. Understand completely why DAL/LCC want to control who they wish to compete against. Other low cost carriers that control less than 5% of pax traffic vs one (SWA) that has 15% is a solid reason to limit the exposure.

Every airline would like to choose who it can compete against. What should the gov. do in such situations?

The DOT has spoken and DAL/LCC always has the option to nix the entire deal and stay with status quo. If that is better than the alternative and not good for the shareholders, then go for it.

Lets recall the US Gov gave out $15B to the airlines in 2002 after 9/11....some would argue that capitalism wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

"The measure gives the nation's airlines $5 billion in immediate cash assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees in an effort to keep several major carriers from collapsing. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., was the only senator to vote against the bill." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/rec.congress.airline.deal/

The two airlinles involved have both gone through bankruptcy.

Some would argue that true capitalism would have had the companies dissolve since they were unsuccessful in the competitive market place. Bankruptcy laws, most would agree I believe, have some very anti-captialistic elements to it (making businesses repay money to bankrupt companies up to 90 days after being paid is just one example that led many other companies into bankruptcy...I'm just saying...)

It is obvious what DAL/LCC want to do....increase profits and improve their efficiency while at the same time limiting their exposure to more competition. Is that the free market system?

It is not black and white and the courts, as is often the case, will make the call and with SWA (Herb) arguing on the side of more competition, that is a side that most people can understand and get behind. I'm not saying SWA should get all of the slots but the DOT obviously feels a blind auction is better than what was proposed as an alternative by DAL/LCC.

No offense directed toward others at DAL, LCC or others who have different opinions.