Dizel8
Douglas metal
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Posts
- 2,817
"The government tries to keep the legacy carriers in business because their chances of long term survival is greater".
Or maybe they have more political clout. If the legacies are better, then were is Braniff, EAL, PAA. Perhaps keeping U alive is the worst thing possible, since it negates the laws of the market place and places a larger burden on all carriers. If U were to fail, DAL, AMR, UAL etc. would pick up the slack and we could well see an increase in farelevels with less capacity. Keeping capacity high, by propping up failing carriers is a recipe for disaster. Not only for the business, but also for the employees. Point in case, U cancelled the pension, now UAL seem poised to follow and AA has said they are watching UAL. Had U disappeared, that may perhaps not have happened.
"Re-regulation would not be bad. It would allow competition to increase, with fewer airlines theirs fewer sets, and supply and demand would raise prices.
Reregulation would not be bad for who, UAL, AMR? Oh, I am sure they are longing for the old days. I cannot believe, that you said reregulating the industry would increase competetion, since it would do exactly the opposite and hence is why the legacies wish for it to happen. Yes, it would raise fares, probably to the point that we would see a dramtic dcrease in passengers.
Reregulation ransk right up there with a wet dream, featuring Heidi, for the legacy execs.
"Don't kid youself about economics, people are wealthier now than every before".
Oh really, and pray tell, what do you base that on? W-2s or spendable income. If that truly was the case, then how come the elasticity of the market place, particularily airlines, says differently. Tell you what , since people have so much money, why are they not flying in business or first? Or could it be, that both discretiory consumer and business spending is down, which would indicate troubled financial times?
Or maybe they have more political clout. If the legacies are better, then were is Braniff, EAL, PAA. Perhaps keeping U alive is the worst thing possible, since it negates the laws of the market place and places a larger burden on all carriers. If U were to fail, DAL, AMR, UAL etc. would pick up the slack and we could well see an increase in farelevels with less capacity. Keeping capacity high, by propping up failing carriers is a recipe for disaster. Not only for the business, but also for the employees. Point in case, U cancelled the pension, now UAL seem poised to follow and AA has said they are watching UAL. Had U disappeared, that may perhaps not have happened.
"Re-regulation would not be bad. It would allow competition to increase, with fewer airlines theirs fewer sets, and supply and demand would raise prices.
Reregulation would not be bad for who, UAL, AMR? Oh, I am sure they are longing for the old days. I cannot believe, that you said reregulating the industry would increase competetion, since it would do exactly the opposite and hence is why the legacies wish for it to happen. Yes, it would raise fares, probably to the point that we would see a dramtic dcrease in passengers.
Reregulation ransk right up there with a wet dream, featuring Heidi, for the legacy execs.
"Don't kid youself about economics, people are wealthier now than every before".
Oh really, and pray tell, what do you base that on? W-2s or spendable income. If that truly was the case, then how come the elasticity of the market place, particularily airlines, says differently. Tell you what , since people have so much money, why are they not flying in business or first? Or could it be, that both discretiory consumer and business spending is down, which would indicate troubled financial times?
Last edited:
