It's not. I fully believe that total airline capacity in the US will shrink by 30-50% over the next decade and nothing can change that fact. I'm planning accordingly.
However, lets fast forward though to Summer 2009. After sweeping both houses and winning the White House in a blowout election (
deservedly, I might add) and Congress passes the "Airline Right to Strike Act".
Your union group now gets to strike whenever it wants. Isn't that great? You can negotiate for anything! Except the airlines will still be losing billions, and you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
I have yet to hear anyone explain how a labor friendly Congress will actually help airlines or their labor groups. Can they:
- Lower oil prices? - doubtful, cuz it ain't within their power
- Spur development of supply via shale, oil sands, offshore drilling and new refineries - are you kidding? (It would take decades anyway.)
- Subsidize airlines, picking winners and losers? - possibly, but there is no way the taxpayers could support anything like the number of airlines we have now
- Give tax breaks to airlines? - hahahahahahah!
- Build new airports at major hub areas to improve efficiency at congested areas? - (see previous)
- Actually implement ATC "point to point" and NextGen FAA improvements that have been promised and delayed for 30 years and save a fortune in gas? - only if they fire half the FAA brain trust first (not controllers)
- Implement "profiling" at the TSA instead of 10,000 see-through-clothes x-ray machines? - not gonna happen.
Neither party will commit to any of the above.
If there is a single reason to vote "red" based solely on what's good for the airlines, it really is this:
Which party is likely to "do what it takes" to prevent another crippling terrorist attack? Personally, I think it's still the "reds" but it's certainly a debatable point, and even I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep them in.