What would "re-regulation" mean?

[AC560]

To credit deregulation for the increase in aviation is to ignore the fact that deregulation gutted the earning power of the Pilot salary.

The point of deregulation was to benefit the consumer, not the industry.

Pilots for the most part have gutted their own earnings over the years by giving up scope, accepting b scales, failing to support other union groups (mechanics and flight attendants), and other things in exchange for a short term gain. In short management says to the current pilot group we will give you a 3% raise in exchange for letting us shaft anyone hired after you. Over time it decays pay.

Couple that with pay being coupled to supply and demand. As long as there is plentiful supply of pilots willing to spend $100k on training + college tuition for a $19k a year job salaries will remain where they are.

Then again it is always easier for a person to blame the government, a corporation, or aliens for their issues as opposed to maybe reflecting that they put themselves in the position they are in.

 

[pilotyip]

Nothing wrong if you are one of the winners

What's wrong with fewer pilots? Good competition means higher salaries. Bring it on.

Yea if you are one of the survivors, but how high is your number?

 

[pilotyip]

Do some research

Bullsh--. The explosion in airline aviation came about because of the overall economic boom of the '80s and '90s. It would have still taken place if regulation was in effect. The difference is that EAL, PanAm, and Braniff would probably still be around with a lot more mainline jobs available instead of the crappy replacement jet jobs.

I was there, watched my airline go out of business. Before de-reg a one way ticket JFK to LAX was around $250. Transamerican dropped the ticket price in that market to $99. Planes full, but the other carriers matched us. The low prices opened up air travel to people who could not afford it before. The Greyhound crowd started flying on airplanes. BTW The owner of TA became disenchanted with airlines and proceded to sell his airplanes to the highest bidder and within 5 years the airline was belly up, except C-130 trash hauling at garden spots around the world, Angola, Palua, and even that folded in two years.

 

[TWA]

What's wrong with fewer pilots? Good competition means higher salaries. Bring it on.

Sorry sir, but I believe your logic is flawed. The scenario you described will not be plausible for another 30 years. For the number of pilots there are now, and the number of jobs that will be available after re-regulation, the airlines will be able to easily pick and choose who will get to fly their planes, under their terms. They won't care if you have 20,000 hours, they won't care how much you used to make, they won't care how much you think you should make. All they will care about is that you are qualified to take the job, under their terms. Think pilots will refuse to take a lower paying job to "maintain the industry standards"? Everyone talks big and bad until they are out of a job, and need another. There will always be someone who will do your job for less money.

 

[PCL_128]

I was there, watched my airline go out of business

Yes, you were there, and you've drawn the wrong conclusions, as you usually do.

 

[pilotyip]

I am?

Yes, you were there, and you've drawn the wrong conclusions, as you usually do.

How do you explain the explosive growth of the regionals in the 80's? These jobs allowed many more pilots to get the experience to move into the majors 5-years later, like you did. These airlines would not have been there without de-reg. We have fantastic growth in the 50's, 60's and early 70's, we did not see the growth in the airlines like the era after de-reg. BTW again std FI post from you, attack the poster instead of providing a counter to what you consider as an incorrect position. Also looks like you will be taking a FI break for about a week, the IND polls show her looking pretty good.

 

[Lear70]

Also looks like you will be taking a FI break for about a week, the IND polls show her looking pretty good.

If she does, McCain will win it in a landslide.

She's too polarizing, even other Democrats don't like her, and have publicly stated on several polls that they would consider voting for McCain or not voting at all rather than vote for Kommrad Klinton.

 

[PCL_128]

How do you explain the explosive growth of the regionals in the 80's?

Growth that would have taken place anyway due to the overall growth of the economy during the '80s.

These airlines would not have been there without de-reg.

If they didn't, then the already existent airlines would have simply grown at an even faster rate, still providing for the same amount of jobs, possibly more. The overall growth of the economy is what drove the growth in commercial aviation, not deregulation.

Also looks like you will be taking a FI break for about a week, the IND polls show her looking pretty good.

Not a chance in hell.

 

[AC560]

Growth that would have taken place anyway due to the overall growth of the economy during the '80s.

The economic growth in the 80's though is directly the result of lessening government regulation on many industries, practicing greater free trade, etc. This is true not only in the US but in Europe as well (especially the UK where the British government divested itself of almost all state run businesses in the 80's).

Economic growth in the 90's has been all about China and the US liberalizing regulations toward it (MFTN status via Clinton) and China itself deregulating.

I certainly will agree pilots got screwed in the process (so did a lot of other airline people myself included). The opportunities created though put me and a lot of my co-workers in much better positions as a result though. Pilots, mechanics, attendants, ramp rat's, etc. were hamstrung because they couldn't laterally move due to seniority issues associated with being part of a union. They further screwed themselves by negotiating away what power they had piece by piece in exchange for short term gains and screwing each other over.

So regulating the industry would give probably 40-60% of the current pilots (the other 40-60% would be on the street) a better deal at the expense of every other American. Why would anyone vote for that?

Explain to me the consumer what regulating the industry brings to me other then less service, more expensive fairs, etc.

 

[Lear70]

So regulating the industry would give probably 40-60% of the current pilots (the other 40-60% would be on the street) a better deal at the expense of every other American. Why would anyone vote for that?

I don't know, why don't you ask the senators and congressmen who are bringing up regulation again during session.

Not to mention, 40% is a pretty-high number (and 60% job loss is unrealistic). Most people are talking about 20-30% capacity reduction which means about 15-20% reduction in staffing. Bear in mind, job loss won't be acceptable in large numbers, either, so remember that regulation would likely come with government subsidies to keep jobs / increase compensation.

Explain to me the consumer what regulating the industry brings to me other then less service, more expensive fairs, etc.

In a word, stability. No one likes it when they show up for their flight to find out the airline has ceased operations.

Not to mention the bankruptcies and bailouts of airlines have, historically, cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, passed down to the taxpayers in small amounts, but it adds up.

That said, I agree, most consumers would rather have cheap flight and take their chances with shoddy service and gambling on airlines that might not be around tomorrow in this environment.

 

[AC560]

In a word, stability. No one likes it when they show up for their flight to find out the airline has ceased operations.

The % of flights canceled due to ceased operations versus the flights which have operated every day since deregulation is incredibly small. Deregulation will certainly kill a lot of lanes and frequencies. Which isn't going to make a lot of people happy either.

Not to mention the bankruptcies and bailouts of airlines have, historically, cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, passed down to the taxpayers in small amounts, but it adds up.

Lear 70 said "Bear in mind, job loss won't be acceptable in large numbers, either, so remember that regulation would likely come with government subsidies to keep jobs / increase compensation." Bankruptcy is a one time if any pay out by the taxpayers. Subsidies like you are suggesting is a never ending boondoggle which will grow every year. Have you spoke to the local TSA representative lately?

shoddy service and gambling on airlines that might not be around tomorrow in this environment.

To equate all airline service as shoddy is a pretty broad brush. There are a lot of carriers out there innovating to carve market share. Your attitude though is typical though of why some carriers fail. Rather then looking at why they are failing they instead blame the competition and look for the government to save them.

 

[Lear70]

To equate all airline service as shoddy is a pretty broad brush. There are a lot of carriers out there innovating to carve market share.

I agree with much of what you've said...

but...

Carving market share doesn't = good service which, in my opinion having seen 30+ years of this marketplace, has gone nowhere but down.

The best products flying right now are international service (Virgin, ANA, Korean, etc).

U.S. airlines suck for service, and I don't even think you want to compare them to what they used to be.

Your attitude though is typical though of why some carriers fail. Rather then looking at why they are failing they instead blame the competition and look for the government to save them.

Hardly. If you read back to my first posts, you will see where I don't believe deregulation will happen (or is even the answer), simply laws that require airlines to operate in a fiscally-responsible manner.

I'm simply playing devil's advocate to others' theories.

 

[AC560]

The best products flying right now are international service (Virgin, ANA, Korean, etc).

And for the most part those markets are deregulated and open to competition. Europe in particular has more odd ball airlines then you can shake a stick at.

Hardly. If you read back to my first posts, you will see where I don't believe regulation will happen (or is even the answer), simply laws that require airlines to operate in a fiscally-responsible manner.

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part (though I did fix your quote, I think you meant to say regulation won't happen).

There are laws which require all companies to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Eventually those that don't go away. We have seen it with PA, TW, etc. and are now seeing it with NW and possibly UA.

 

[Lear70]

My apologies for the misunderstanding on my part (though I did fix your quote, I think you meant to say regulation won't happen).

I thought I did say that... I'll have to go back and check,,,[/quote]

There are laws which require all companies to act in a fiscally responsible manner. Eventually those that don't go away. We have seen it with PA, TW, etc. and are now seeing it with NW and possibly UA.

Those laws are not strictly enforced, and we all know it. That's why this industry has a 30-year history of profit/corporate raiding/bankruptcy, then do it all over again, and again, and again.

You see it every time you see an aircraft operated half-full on a $39-$79 fare. They didn't raise the price because people weren't buying the tickets, so the aircraft goes out with 60 people on board who paid an everage of $60 bucks a piece (before taxes), total $3,600 on a flight that's going to cost $7,000 to operate.

I submit, after flying that route for 30 days, the company knows how many people are going to fly on it, on average, and they should be required, BY LAW, to either charge a price per seat that will at least break-even, using that historical data they have (like Ty said), or cancel the service and reallocate the asset.

Until we stop this idiotic practice of operating a route at a loss LONG-TERM just for the sake of competition and market share, things won't change. Starting a new route? Sure, price it where you want. 30 days or so later? Sorry, you gotta charge a break-even price or get out of the route.

Competition is great,,, WHEN companies don't cut off their own nose to spite their face.

p.s. International flying on certain airlines isn't better service just because of competition. Otherwise you wouldn't have Northwest serving Narita out of DTW and JAL serving Narita out of Chicago and such disparate service. JAL kicks Northwest's butt on service, each and every time, but both flights are almost always pretty full.

Those foreign airlines have great service because it's part of their identity, something they instill in their employees, then they compensate their employees properly and treat them well for giving that great service. You can't treat your front-line employees like crap and expect them to do any different to your customers; human nature is what it is.

 

[TOGA]

Recent pertinent blog post:

http://evansparks.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/airline-regulation-revisionists-face-the-wrath-of-kahn/