Regulate 'em, Crandall says

[Donald]

Hmmm. I believe the Republicans have bankrupted the country, led us into a war without end, and presided over the massive decline of the US airline industry.

If you want to eliminate BK protection for airlines, then it has to apply for everybody, not just airlines.

The "gubment" needs to have a coherent energy and air transportation policy. Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans have proven for 8 years that they don't have a clue about either.

The airline industry is way too capital intensive to run like small town taxi industry. If that's ok with the country, then it deserves the kind wild swings in service and prices that it gets. Just like it's been said . . . "every people get the kind of government they deserve." Looks like we deserve a corrupt, incompetent and dishonest government.

Time to make a change. Anything has to be better than the sick clown-show who's running it now.

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but I don't think Mr Bush has done too bad. When was the last administration that had to deal with:
1. Worst attack in US history
2. Rebuild a military (decimated by Clinton) so we could:
3. Launch two war fronts to kick some much justified a$$, while keeping a close eye on North Korea and Iran.
4. Worst Natural disaster in US history
5. Major mortgage crisis
6. Major oil crisis

Granted, he has made some mistakes. What president hasn't. But I certainly don't think Gore or Kerry would have done any better. Had GW not brought our economy back and picked this country up so strong and quickly after 9/11, we would be in much worse shape today.

To criticize in hindsight is cowardly. Especially when all it is is complaining and whining about what your gov't hasn't done for you lately.

Clinton had a cake walk for 8 years thanks to technology. Booming computer industry, booming cell phone industry, booming ecomerce industry. And with all that, he only balanced the budget one year. And that was by raping businesses and the working class with taxes.

 

[PCL_128]

I don't think Mr Bush has done too bad

Stopped reading right there. Anything that comes after that certainly can't be worth reading.

 

[Donald]

Stopped reading right there. Anything that comes after that certainly can't be worth reading.

Hence the reason you are a liberal. Closed minded, selfish, whats in it for me and its not my fault

 

[PCL_128]

Hence the reason you are a liberal. Closed minded, selfish, whats in it for me and its not my fault

Nah, I was open minded for 7 years about Bush. Hell, I even voted for him both times. He's simply proven to be an unparalleled imbecile.

 

[Lear70]

You've got some apples to oranges stuff in there, so let's make it a little easier to compare:

Here's a price comparison:

I looked at three of the four modes available to get from Dallas to Chicago this weekend. I didn't include driving.

You included just 1-ways for the Train and Bus options, but round-trips for the airlines, so we'll double the cost of the Train and Bus options for more accurate comparisons:

Amtrak: Limited schedule. 1way = $173. Duration: 23:34

So, $346 to go by train round-trip.

Greyhound: Slightly less limited. 1way = $164 (refundable). Duration: 20:50

$328 to go by bus, round-trip.

American Airlines (DFW-ORD): Good schedule availability. Roundtrip = $781. Duration: 2:15 (non-stop).

Legacy carrier, $781 a little more than double what it costs to go by bus or train.

Southwest (DAL-MDW): Good schedule, all one-stop, some change plane, limited availability. Roundtrip = $523. Duration: 3:30 depending on the stop.

Not even double what it costs to go by bus or train.

UAL (DFW-ORD): pretty good schedule, OK availability. Rountrip = 558. Duration: 2:15 or so.

Legacy carrier in trouble, selling somewhere between another Legacy and the LCC with a lot of frequency in and out of Chicago, cost not even double what it takes for bus or train.

So, what you're telling us is that most airlines are only DOUBLE what it takes to ride by bus or train, even though the cost to PRODUCE that seat is likely 5-7 times as much.

So Greyhound and Amtrak cover their costs and turn a profit, which is what any responsible company should do, and the airlines don't (or can't).

Travel times aren't the point here,,, the point is that deregulation has failed. Not because it's not providing me with a job (I'm surviving just fine and still flying, although I'd love to be back in an airliner for the schedule and career earning potential), but mainly because AIRLINES REFUSE TO COVER THEIR COSTS.

They either can't or won't price the product to at least break-even or better, then rely on the government protection of bankruptcy to bail on all their obligations, refinance their debt, screw their employees, then start all over and do the bankruptcy dance again and again and again.

That's not a successful industry; to even try to defend deregulation is preposterous. Yes, it gave us cheap fares for a huge number of Americans, but at what cost in the end? How many BILLIONS has all the airline bankruptcies, shutdown carriers and associated job losses, and personal bankruptcies as a result, cost the American public over the last 20 years?

Is re-regulation the answer? I wish I could say so, simply because I know the American government wouldn't allow the wholesale reduction in capacity needed to correct ticket prices. The citizens would scream bloody murder, and demand their "right" to airline travel. However, if you just removed the safety net of bankruptcy for airlines, enough of them would fail that the same thing would happen, and you'd simply have a lot of unemployed ex-airline employees, huge financial messes at GE Cap and other lending monsters, and tens of thousands of p*ssed U.S. citizens that demand their "right" to airline travel.

Either way is bloody. Pick one.

 

[BigMeat]

Hence the reason you are a liberal. Closed minded, selfish, whats in it for me and its not my fault

Wow dont you think that was harsh? Dont forget gay like Dick Cheneys daughters and that bad foot tapping man.

 

[Marko Ramius]

I'm not smart enough to tell you when it will happen, but we will just end up in a modified version of what happened to Europe. As a country we've largely built ourselves, our history and our culture as an outcropping of theirs why this situation would be any different I can't fathom. Europe was devastated after the WW's to the point where their national airlines were weak and dependent on government aid/propups and/or help for foreign carriers like Pan Am/TWA. As a proud first world, former empire, those countries propped up their carriers until they could survive on their own or merge into some EU entity that could do the same. The US didn't get ravaged by WW's, but the financial effect of the Iraq war and globalization has had the same effect, and ultimately the US Airlines will likely get propped up by a combo of government and foreign airline $$$ for the same prideful reasons that Europe did it. It won't matter who's in charge either-Dem or Rep. Until that day....

 

[Soverytired]

Good example. Amtrak charges a reasonable amount of money for their fares (a lot more than a comparable airline ticket) and provides much better service. Sounds good to me.

Ugh.

I believe that was sarcasm.

Amtrak is the perfect example of a very poorly run government regulated industry that sticks it to the taxpayer.

The problems of Amtrak are legion, so I won't go into all of them. The most glaring one is this: every congressman wants a piece of it. Instead of concentrating on something truly useful, like a high speed train running regular service between BOS-IAD-NYC, taxpayer money is wasted on routes that nobody rides on all over the country.

Regulated air service will be no different. The most powerful congressman would get the most air service. The fact is, if it's federally regulated like Amtrak, markets would be artificially limited, and the markets would be chosen by political pull, not customer need.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I'm not smart enough to tell you when it will happen, but we will just end up in a modified version of what happened to Europe. As a country we've largely built ourselves, our history and our culture as an outcropping of theirs why this situation would be any different I can't fathom. Europe was devastated after the WW's to the point where their national airlines were weak and dependent on government aid/propups and/or help for foreign carriers like Pan Am/TWA. As a proud first world, former empire, those countries propped up their carriers until they could survive on their own or merge into some EU entity that could do the same. The US didn't get ravaged by WW's, but the financial effect of the Iraq war and globalization has had the same effect, and ultimately the US Airlines will likely get propped up by a combo of government and foreign airline $$$ for the same prideful reasons that Europe did it. It won't matter who's in charge either-Dem or Rep. Until that day....

Throw in some Shock Doctrine!

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-film

 

[PCL_128]

I believe that was sarcasm.

No, it was not.

 

[Soverytired]

Regulate it?

Answer: Amtrak. Now there's a well run state-sponsored, highly efficient, fast mode of transportation.

How 'bout Greyhound? Anyone remember Trailways? Didn't think so.

This is sarcasm, right? I think PCL didn't pick up on it.

$1.7 billion in government subsidizes last year alone, and they still lose money. It's the most heavily subsidized form of transport in the US.

The usual problems apply. The worst performing routes aren't cut . . . they're used as examples for why more government money is needed. For example, the LAX-Orlando route generated $6.5 million revenue, but lost $27.2 million. Roughly $433 per passenger stuck to the taxpayer for a non-needed service. Hell, for that price the government could just buy train riders a cheap airline ticket instead.

In theory, Amtrak could work. Concentrate on high-density areas with fast trains and ticket prices on par with airline fees. In practice, every Congressman wants a piece of it, the taxpayer gets raped, and nobody uses the thing.

 

[PCL_128]

This is sarcasm, right? I think PCL didn't pick up on it.

No, I picked up on his anti-Amtrak sarcasm. I simply disagree with his (and your) opinion of Amtrak.

The problem is that you want Amtrak to be a normal business. That's not the intent. The intent is to continue to provide nation-wide intercity rail transportation to the citizens. Profitability isn't he primary concern, nor should it be. Cities shouldn't stop receiving transportation services simply because a route isn't profitable. We need to stop thinking of transportation as just another business, and realize that it's actually a public utility necessary to the functioning of our economy.

 

[Soverytired]

I agree. Operating at a strictly cash-basis loss isn't a deal-breaker if value is added in other ways. Intra-city public transportation is an example of this. A real high-speed rail in the NE corridor would be another.

The reality of Amtrak, however, is that numerous routes, especially long-haul passenger routes, add absolutely no value. If no one uses it (or very few), it is nothing more than a drain on the US taxpayer. And no congressman ever cuts service to his district. Oh, they'll say things like "fuel efficient", "more green", and so forth, but the reality is it's a huge waste.

Yet despite decades long track records of failure, irresponsibility, and political opportunism, you nevertheless celebrate it as a glowing example of government efficiency.

I don't even worry about this happening to the airlines, because it would utterly bankrupt the country.

 

[CRJ's suck]

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but I don't think Mr Bush has done too bad. When was the last administration that had to deal with:
1. Worst attack in US history
2. Rebuild a military (decimated by Clinton) so we could:
3. Launch two war fronts to kick some much justified a$$, while keeping a close eye on North Korea and Iran.
4. Worst Natural disaster in US history
5. Major mortgage crisis
6. Major oil crisis

Granted, he has made some mistakes. What president hasn't. But I certainly don't think Gore or Kerry would have done any better. Had GW not brought our economy back and picked this country up so strong and quickly after 9/11, we would be in much worse shape today.

To criticize in hindsight is cowardly. Especially when all it is is complaining and whining about what your gov't hasn't done for you lately.

Clinton had a cake walk for 8 years thanks to technology. Booming computer industry, booming cell phone industry, booming ecomerce industry. And with all that, he only balanced the budget one year. And that was by raping businesses and the working class with taxes.

I'll agree with that last sentence. I hate paying taxes and really hate paying higher taxes. In the grand scheme of things though, I'd rather pay higher taxes and have a job than pay no taxes and have no job.

 

[CitationLover]

2. Rebuild a military (decimated by Clinton) so we could:

since you're stating "facts" do you care to back this statement up? if you will look it up you will see that Bush I and his SecDef Cheney are the ones who started the demobilization of the military (at a MUCH higher rate than Clinton).

this has been beaten to death in other threads. Clinton simply CONTINUED Bush I's policy of demobilization.