George Will

[user912]

His mind continues with more inertia than a 747 with its wings ripped off.

Is churning out this drivel worth >$200k/yr?

 

[tzskipper]

His mind continues with more inertia than a 747 with its wings ripped off.

Is churning out this drivel worth >$200k/yr?

His commentary made no sense. In other words, "management good, labor bad..." Where the fk is his discussion of Wolfe and the rest raiding the coffers of the companies they managed? I thought so.

S

 

[Poahi]

His commentary made no sense. In other words, "management good, labor bad..."

Where did he say that?

 

[tzskipper]

Where did he say that?

never mind. it just seemed to be implied by the tone of the article.

 

[PCL_128]

Pure idiocy. Exactly what I expect from a rich conservative like George Will.

 

[Scoot 11]

Pure idiocy. Exactly what I expect from a rich conservative like George Will.

Your disdain for conservatives is obvious. Typical answer I expect from a "where's my handout" liberal.

 

[IBNAV8R]

Wait, airlines have already cut pilot's "overblown" salaries and pensions. Do they expect pilots to work for free?

What's killing the airlines is:

1. Charging less than the cost of the product in the name of market share.
2. Gouging customers for "services" that have little or no cost.
3. Trying to drive up prices by reducing capacity. This will be very hard to reverse and, therefore, self-defeating. You need a market and cash to expand but you've already killed the market and spent the cash.
4. Neglecting the front-line people who actually MAKE the revenue and are the face of the company. Treat them poorly, they treat customers poorly and drive up costs.
5. Making long-term changes in order to affect short-term stock gains.
6. Rewarding management for poor performance. "Hey, were in the red. Let's give ourselves bonuses and then we can tell the front-line folks they have to take concessions to keep their jobs. We're all in this together."

Airlines dying off and/or consolidating is BAD for consumers as well as airline employees. Consumers get less for more while the ever shrinking number of employees do more for less.

 

[Ty Webb]

Well, he was right about one thing, " . . . . Intellectuals are often the last to learn things . . ".

Yes, Mr. Will, you are. :laugh:

 

[CRAWDADDY]

If deregulation has wrecked anything, it is the airline industry.



The bankruptcies came from lbo looters loading the companies down with debt; then when the debt becomes unrepayable, the employees are punished by layoffs and pay cuts.

 

[Mamma]

George Will must be losing his mind to say this:

"Horton has done taxpayers a favor by deciding not to turn American's non-pilot pensions over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the deeply underfunded federal agency that would pay only a portion of what employees were expecting. American will pay benefits already accrued but henceforth employees will have defined contribution rather than defined benefit plans."

Here is reality:

PBGC puts up its case against AMR's plan to dump its pensions

By Terry Maxon/Reporter
[email protected] | Bio
6:00 AM on Fri., Feb. 17, 2012 | Permalink
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which is waging a public campaign to keep AMR from dumping its four pension plans, has put up a webpage stating its case.

"American Airlines has announced it wants to end the pension plans of its 130,000 workers and retirees. The company will ask the bankruptcy court to transfer its pension obligations to PBGC," the agency says on its page.

"Pensions are promises made to working Americans who count on them for a secure retirement. Those promises should not be broken lightly. PBGC will make sure the AMR pensions end only as a last resort: if doing so is necessary for the airline to restructure itself successfully after considering the possible alternatives," it continued.

"Unfortunately, some of the claims that have been made about these issues aren't true," PBGC said.

If you read the PBGC paper, it doesn't exactly refute American's claims, but gives a different view of the situation.

For example, American says that more than 90 percent of the 130,000 participants in its four pension plans would not see their pensions reduced if the PBGC took them over. PBGC says "that just isn't true" for the 13,000 who would see their pensions reduced.

In other words, American is saying that most people wouldn't see their pensions reduced if the PBGC took them over. PBGC is countering that the action would hurt the participants whose pensions would be reduced.

 

[pilotyip]

If deregulation has wrecked anything, it is the airline industry.

Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed. BTW SWA the low cost provider has near the top wages, this was done under de-reg. Still is still a great way to make a living.

The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity.

People change airlines for a $1.00, Spirit is now one of the most profitable airlines, but has the cheapest fares. However they are now thinki9ng of a charge to use the lav.

 

[tzskipper]

It is just crazy talk to say that (as an industry) airlines as a business have been successful since deregulation.

By just about any metric used, with the exception of the price of a ticket, deregulation has been an epic failure for both investors and employees.

Potential to be a good job? Maybe. Career? Never, unless you believe a career is made up of multiple employers and the hope of some 401k balance upon hitting retirement age (having to start over a few times will pretty much ensure that there won't ever be enough). Oh yeah, and having a spouse that works.

We are about to see for the first time, the true size of a sustainable airline market once US and AA merge. Four carriers controlling 90% of the domestic traffic. With capacity discipline in place, I doubt we will ever see a true pilot shortage.

S

 

[maru657]

I heard PilotYips argument before. Though long since retired there were plenty of non-military pilots at the major airline I retired from. There were plenty of non-military pilots at most of the airlines, and to specify when I say non-military, I mean not military trained although many like myself had served in the military. The only airline that seemed to go almost entirely military eventually was Delta. They paid for this in the 80's. There was not as much movement because as a career you could pretty much count on staying at one carrier until retirement, with a pension. Yes there's movement now but it seems to be a lot of movement between airlines, with no decent retirement package or pension involved.

 

[Poahi]

... with the exception of the price of a ticket,...

It's a key metric.

 

[tzskipper]

It's a key metric.

Only to the fact that it has been historically priced below cost since the advent of deregulation. Just because the consumer is happy doesn't mean the industry is healthy.

S

 

[Poahi]

Only to the fact that it has been historically priced below cost since the advent of deregulation. Just because the consumer is happy doesn't mean the industry is healthy.

S

The CAB did require carriers to fly below cost on short haul routes and was infinitely inflexible on new routes and changes in technology. It didn't really work.

The idea behind capitalism is to keep the customer happy. It's going to be interesting to see how Obamacare impacts health....

 

[inline]

Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed. BTW SWA the low cost provider has near the top wages, this was done under de-reg. Still is still a great way to make a living.

The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity.

People change airlines for a $1.00, Spirit is now one of the most profitable airlines, but has the cheapest fares. However they are now thinki9ng of a charge to use the lav.

Well put.

 

[waveflyer]

The CAB did require carriers to fly below cost on short haul routes and was infinitely inflexible on new routes and changes in technology. It didn't really work.

The idea behind capitalism is to keep the customer happy. It's going to be interesting to see how Obamacare impacts health....

Once again, believing propaganda about Obamacare, instead of the truth about it.: ie- it's mostly republican, free market ideas- and not even close to the liberal win you guys make it out to be.
But go on and drift away

 

[Poahi]

Once again, believing propaganda about Obamacare, instead of the truth about it.: ie- it's mostly republican, free market ideas- and not even close to the liberal win you guys make it out to be.
But go on and drift away

The discussion was about the pros/cons of government taking control of an industry. Regulation wouldn't work in today's marketplace just like Barrycare won't.

 

[waveflyer]

That's my point- Obamacare takes control of nothing and, if anything, is a corporate blowjob to private insurance companies in attempting to mandate purchase.
But keep stretching

 

[Poahi]

That's my point- Obamacare takes control of nothing and, if anything, is a corporate blowjob to private insurance companies in attempting to mandate purchase.
But keep stretching

Obamacare controls medicare payments, the CAB controlled fares. On the other hand, the CAB didn't compel Americans to travel as a condition of citizenship.

 

[PCL_128]

There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with deregulation, and everything to do with an overall economic explosion that began in the early '80s.

 

[PCL_128]

It didn't really work.

It worked phenomenally, and created the greatest airline industry in the world. The airlines were stable, small markets were served, service was incredible, delays were minimal, etc. Everything has gone down hill since 1978.

Bring back the CAB!

 

[Poahi]

It worked phenomenally, and created the greatest airline industry in the world. The airlines were stable, small markets were served, service was incredible, delays were minimal, etc. Everything has gone down hill since 1978.

Bring back the CAB!

Here's why that will never happen:

http://library.findlaw.com/1988/Sep/1/129304.html

 

[pilotyip]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with deregulation, and everything to do with an overall economic explosion that began in the early '80s.

Don't completely agree, de-reg moved the ticket price down to complete with the Greyhound Bus. Now middle class people could afford to fly and they bought lots of tickets. My school teacher sisters are a classic example until the mid 80's they drove to FL to visit mom, now they fly.

 

[doh]

Life was good for a few pilots under regulation. There are probably 4-5 times as many pilot’s jobs now as there was in 1977. Back in reg time it was about 90% military that went to the majors. Dereg opened up a lot of airline job to non-military pilots. To return to regulation would raise ticket prices, reduce the number of passengers, and therefore reduce the number of pilots needed. BTW SWA the low cost provider has near the top wages, this was done under de-reg. Still is still a great way to make a living.

The CEO has little control over the airline, the airline is run by regulation and union contracts. They are at the mercy of the purchasing public, who with Internet access has made the airline ticket a perfectly elastic commodity.

People change airlines for a $1.00, Spirit is now one of the most profitable airlines, but has the cheapest fares. However they are now thinki9ng of a
charge to use the lav.

If the CEO has no control, wtf are we paying such outrageous compensation for? Don't try to sluff off CEO responsibility unless you are willing to sluff off the money as well.

 

[pilotyip]

If the CEO has no control, wtf are we paying such outrageous compensation for? Don't try to sluff off CEO responsibility unless you are willing to sluff off the money as well.

This is repeat but if fits here. This is a pilot board so saying anything in defense of management is like peeing into the wind, that it is going to come back to you. Now I will agree that CEO leadership in many cases leaves much to be desired and their compensation is obscene. An issue of ATW in 2002 had an article about “Airline Management a dying breed”; the article basically said no one wants to do it. The good track record CEO’s are going to other industries. With tremendous, payrolls, overhead burdens, and extremely low margins, there is no tried and true path to success. Most have tried to increase market share, but this has lead to low price and ridiculous breakeven load factors in 95% range. What is management supposed to do? Eliminating management will bring the end quicker for the airplane industry, and their salaries are insignificant to the airlines operating costs. I saw an article in ATW in 2001 that stated at DAL there were 17 members of top management made more than the top DAL Captain. The combined top 17 salaries equaled less than 1/6 of 1% of the combined pilot salaries. If management worked for free all pilots in the company would get a 1/10 of 1% raise. (for a $100K per year pilot that would be $3/wk increase in take home) Boy that raise would really make the pilot group happy. Top management possesses skills that allow them to move from job to job and command high salaries. And every one of these managers wants to see his/her airline prosper. They just can not do it.

 

[Ty Webb]

Fair enough, YIP, it is a tough racket. Airline history books are filled with examples of brilliance and buffoonery. Unfortunately, there is more of the later than the former, as many of our brethren who have lost their savings, their pensions, and their dignity can attest.

 

[IBNAV8R]

The greatest thing about de-regulation is that it allowed everyone to fly.

The biggest downside is that it allowed everyone to fly.

 

[doh]

This is repeat but if fits here. This is a pilot board so saying anything in defense of management is like peeing into the wind, that it is going to come back to you. Now I will agree that CEO leadership in many cases leaves much to be desired and their compensation is obscene. An issue of ATW in 2002 had an article about “Airline Management a dying breed”; the article basically said no one wants to do it. The good track record CEO’s are going to other industries. With tremendous, payrolls, overhead burdens, and extremely low margins, there is no tried and true path to success. Most have tried to increase market share, but this has lead to low price and ridiculous breakeven load factors in 95% range. What is management supposed to do? Eliminating management will bring the end quicker for the airplane industry, and their salaries are insignificant to the airlines operating costs. I saw an article in ATW in 2001 that stated at DAL there were 17 members of top management made more than the top DAL Captain. The combined top 17 salaries equaled less than 1/6 of 1% of the combined pilot salaries. If management worked for free all pilots in the company would get a 1/10 of 1% raise. (for a $100K per year pilot that would be $3/wk increase in take home) Boy that raise would really make the pilot group happy. Top management possesses skills that allow them to move from job to job and command high salaries. And every one of these managers wants to see his/her airline prosper. They just can not do it.

I am talking about managers in general. When the company turns a profit, they claim a huge bonus because they are responsible for the success. When the company loses money, they claim there was nothing they could do. But they have to be given a huge retention bonus to guide the company through tough times? I thought there was nothing they could do? What we really need is laws that hold these overpaid prima donnas responsible for the mess they make.