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

[Smarta$$]

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 think most of the people who are the most angry at Obama and the government are venting it in the wrong direction or don't understand what is going on and how we got here. Obama didn't set up the rules for deregulating the airlines. He also has not influenced the way the anti-trust laws have been writen for 100 years. He also has no significant apointments put into the DOT since his election.

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.

Exactly right Dash.

 

[Smarta$$]

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.

I thought all the other industrialized nations were socialist, and the US was Capitalist. All other industrialized nations have their socialized medicine, unions and government control. They all supposedly have a lower standard of living than us. Those are all the things your alternative media tell us everyday. If we are to believe you, then why are the bright, successful and innovative people over seas? Why would they not be desperate to leave those Godless, socialist nations? Why were they their to begin with? If, as you say, the US will tell people how much they can make, like Europe (supposedly), how are there wealthy entrepenuers in Europe, like Branson?

How is it that we are supposed to believe this garbage? Maybe the trailor trash down south, but anyone that actually travels to other countries or becomes informed about their standard of living knows your full of sh!t.

And this country has been going down hill for a long time. Long before Obama. What short memories some have.

 

[Smarta$$]

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.

You would assume correctly.

 

[puddlejumper101]

Socialism has become a scapegoat for the right much like sex addiction has become a scapegoat for celebrities.
Like I said those slots are rented, and the landlord has final say. I will take it a step further, it is much like the house you own. You think you own your house, however, stop paying property taxes and see how much longer you get to keep the house you own. Unless your house is in reservation land, you might own a house but not the land it sits on. DAL and USAirways don't OWN slots, they rent slots. Of course they would rather compete against Westjet than SWA. SWA is capitalism at it's finest. I think this whole thread can be summed up as follows:
DAL: The last thing we need is SWA with more flights in LGA and SWA in DCA. There goes my revenue. I own those slots, even though I have to pay rent on them. Obama is a socialist.
SWA: What? they rent those slots and want to hand them to who they want? That's a bunch of crap, whatever happened to competition and capitalism? That's it, our voice will be heard. YES they listened we live in a capitalistic society after all. Now we will pay what's fair for those slots, and if the price is right Bags will fly free in DCA.

 

[Jetjockey]

Now this thread is classic FI entertainment! Pilots solving the world's social issues.

Next up:

Investment tips from a 3 times divorced 747 Captain living in a trailer home community.

How to fly an ILS approach by a Doctor in his V Tail Beech Bonanza

Camping with young men, by a Catholic Priest.

Stay tuned.

 

[johnsonrod]

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.

The problem is that Delta and USAirways could decide to scuttle the entire deal - and thus negate the public benefits and new entrant access that would have resulted... They won't relinquish the slots if there isn't an economic benefit - that would violate their shareholder fiduciary duty (and it wouldn't be strategic). So, instead of public benefit (new city-pair routes and new competition) you get no benefit. Gee, thanks.

Maybe Obama should spend less time meddling in the affairs of consenting organizations (asset swaps) and more time working on improving this economy and lowering unemployment levels...

 

[Hair-on-Fire]

Maybe Obama should spend less time meddling in the affairs of consenting organizations (asset swaps) and more time working on improving this economy and lowering unemployment levels...

Maybe you should spend less time posting dumb comments to internet message boards?

We just finished 8 years with an administration that thought regulators had no business regulating anything. How did that work out?

No one thinks the government should regulate everything, but proper regulation is essential. I want MY GOVERNMENT to properly regulate. You can't have a football game without rules and referees. The same applies to any venture or system.

The Delta/US swap is collusion of the highest order. 'We'll not compete with you at LGA if you don't compete with us at DCA.' They're splitting up the market to the detriment of the consumer. The DOT is acting in the best interest of the consumer by requiring access for other carriers to these slot controlled airport. Airports owned by THE PEOPLE.

 

[FlyinPiker]

The problem is that Delta and USAirways could decide to scuttle the entire deal - and thus negate the public benefits and new entrant access that would have resulted... They won't relinquish the slots if there isn't an economic benefit - that would violate their shareholder fiduciary duty (and it wouldn't be strategic). So, instead of public benefit (new city-pair routes and new competition) you get no benefit. Gee, thanks.
.

Exactly. According to their own words the only thing they are supposed to be looking at is if this will "hurt" the consumer, not necessarily "help" the consumer. It seems the FAA/DOT is fishing for something beyond this.

Is the proposed deal worse for the consumer than things stand today on a big picture scale? Will it really hurt the consumer and are there hard facts to base this on? Instead of answering that question they are proposing x amounts of slot go to auction. In that case there is no guarantee that transferring the slots to the winning bid won't be "hurtful" to the consumer. They are assuming it won't be....much like they are assuming the DAL/Airways deal will be.

Bottomline is they seemed to have skipped step one: Is this deal worse than what's in play today. Not "Can we conjure up something better."

Hopefully they get called out.

 

[Captain X]

Seriously, stop watching Fox News...

I assume your (sic) freaking trailer trash watching FOX news again.

I love when people post stuff like this.

In order to know the content of FOXNews, one actually has to watch it. So I assume since people imply to know that, it means they watch it on a regular basis.

I also love how it's OK for a declared "liberal" to stereotype anyone who disagrees with them as a bible-thumping, gun-toting, back-woods militia, right-wing extremist, but the second any declared "conservative" even hints at a stereotype they are lambasted for racial bias, cultural insensitivity, and lack of education.

 

[Jetjockey]

Maybe Obama should spend less time meddling in the affairs of consenting organizations (asset swaps) and more time working on improving this economy and lowering unemployment levels...

Don't look now, but those things are happening. Sorry to rain on your gloom and doom parade.