Time for re-regulation

[Junkflyer]

The one with the crack pipe.

 

[JD2003]

.....

 

[ackattacker]

Forget goverment regulation....

what we need is the mafia.

Hear me out, here.

"Looka here boyz, the boss says youza tickets to maiyami isa gonna be four hundred clams or I breaka your kneecaps"

 

[ToiletDuck]

Which economist?

"Northeastern University economist Steven Morrison and Clifford Winston"

First ones www.google.com brought up. Along with the ones that teach at two of the universities I've attended.

 

[Publishers]

The fact is that a public transportation system is first and foremost for the traveling public. The public must be assured of reasonably priced transportation in a competitive environment. That is not what regulation offered.

Reregulation would cause just as much consternation as did deregulation. The biggest problem airlines face is that they are extremely capital intensive which is by its nature a long term situation and yet the have to deal with the vulgarities of a short term public and problems.

The biggest of them have become unwieldy and are encumbered with debt, regulation, and unions all of which remove any flexibility in dealing with the short term situations.

Had regulation continued, the price of travel in America would be obscene on some routes, essential air service would kill many smaller airlines, and there would be less pilots and fewer opportunity however they would be more stable and better paid than regionals.

An economist would look at the recent events as a major rennovation of the industry, nothing more.

 

[Vector4fun]

Well,

My idea of re-regulation would be this:

Somebody with knowledge and credibility sets a realistic hourly capacity number for every major airport, based on runway config, gates, ramp space, etc.; and then forces the airlines to adhere to it. The challange then becomes how to fairly allocate the hourly slots, recognizing each airline's investment in that facility. The result would be that at airports which are already severely over-crowded, like LGA and EWR for example, would have fewer flights and less destructive competition for a limited resource. Fares would go up at these airports of course. Then I'd tell each and every city that complained, if they want more flights and competition, they can pony up some matching $$s and Political will to upgrade their darn airports, OR tell their citizens they can commute to a releiver airport. Start-ups and Regionals can fly all they want to the NON-congested airports. I'm not talking about limiting growth and routes. Just limiting the destructive competition of $99 fares at horribly congested airports where the average delay is a joke and a big factor in passenger dis-satisfaction. A side benefit is it makes the larger aircraft like the 757-767 more viable/valuable domesticly. I think it would also, over time, improve service to the 2nd and 3rd tier communities and airports.

Pouting and waiting for the FAA to come up with an "automation" solution to a lack of physical space and concrete is a cop-out and a complete waste of time.....

 

[MDAutry]

What we need are the Pan Am Clippers and that way we won't have to build new runways.

No, we all know how little the average person understands aviation so why would we want some intern in Washington deciding where and when and what we fly? If you want to be out of a job and out of choices then beg for reregulation.

 

[ToiletDuck]

Well what they are doing now is not working. We know this. So why not move in a different direction?

 

[414Flyer]

Yea let us go back to the regulated industry like 1975, 75% less pilots flying, most guys hired by the majors are ex-military like about 85%. The regional industry, SWA outside of Texas, Air Tran, Spirit, do not exist. This means 3 out of 4 pilots presently would probably not have jobs. Is this what we really want?

Bingo, give the man a red star. He was flying at that time. Most here who advocate regulation, were not around flying then, but just read about it, without understanding it.

People who think that if we just start regulating the airlines like we once did, it would solve all of our problems remind me of Muslims who think that if move to a prosperous western country and then try to get Muslim law installed, that they can have BOTH prosperity and their religious law.

However just like those Muslims who do not realize it is exactly their religion and culture that keeps them in poverty, pilots do not realize regulation is very much a two headed monster.

You simply wont have a BOTH stability, and a large aviation system and many airline jobs if we went back that way. Yes fares were more expensive, but consequently airline travel was not a means of mass transit like it is now. Airline travel was more of a means of travel for the person traveling for business, or the upper middle class and upper class. There were far far far fewer airline jobs.

It is competition that gives us many of these jobs, and removing the competition aspect of it, will also remove many of these jobs, as will raising fares significantly will start will invariably remove part of the traveling public.

The main winners in regulation would be those who already are at an airline and significantly up in seniority, and then part 135 charter passenger companies, who would find they are suddenly more competitive.

Those who want an airline job, or are low on seniority, might find their airline job goals vanishing.

I think many of those who advocate increase government intervention, would be the loudest critics if other industries asked for it to

 

[coolyokeluke]

Question: What does the aviation fuel tax fund? Isn't it ATC and airport infrastructure? If it is dropped what will take the place to fund the missing dollars?

And TiredofTeaching, you pointed out SW is successful in the present environment but neglected to note that they would not be if they weren't hedged. Somebody else spoke of innovation by the likes of JetBlue. Let's see, JetBlue gets airplanes with cheap or deferred lease payments, has no senior workers and associated pensions, probably very little maintenance needed with new airframes, and picks off traffic only on the denser markets. Thus they take away business from the established carriers that serve more markets. The established carriers declare BK in order to drop pensions etc to compete. And once JB is an old enough carrier somebody else will come in and do the same because a newer business can do it cheaper. Is this the type of innovation you want? I'm not all for regulation and I don't only favor legacy carriers but this cycle of BK's every few years is clearly not in anybody's favor (investors or employees) in the long term.