While I’ve never avoided the label of “right wing,” and although I would much prefer the label of “conservative,” I would stop short of aligning myself with the likes of Milton Friedman, primarily due to the fact that, even though many of the principles he advocated are those I would advocate as well, there are enough differences between his philosophies and mine to make a primary distinction.
Also, while PJ2 may think it odd to respond to specific thoughts or suppositions in posts that may not lend themselves directly to the over-arching theme of the thread, I tend to agree that flight safety was the primary thread of this series of posts, and, therefore, turn to the response from postman23 to agree – to at least some level – that I, too, am not advocating an elimination of ALL regulation in the aviation business. There are, as we all know, substantial regulations that apply directly to safety. In fact some say that those regulations are too hampering when it comes to the free application of some business models. This is precisely where I think regulation – from a national perspective – is advantageous to the aviation industry. Safety regulation is not supposed to, at least to my knowledge, be dependent on the cost involved – the theory being that if everyone must do the same things by regulation, this process, in itself, provides for the long-sought-after “level playing field.”
In advocating this situation (and I do), I think it is clear that I also agree with his position that a “free market” will not, by itself, garner and support safety - and why I am saying that I don’t advocate an elimination of ALL regulation. But, I DO NOT agree that the regulators (i.e., the government) should decide on what portion of what industries get governmental support and what portions and what industries do not. I also agree with postman23 when he says “there is nothing free about a 'free market', (when) people are forced to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards and under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs, because some new hooker may pop up on the block and steal their clients.” However, the absence of governmental regulation on airline ticket costs, pilot salaries, or other things that he may think necessary, is not “forcing people to work in the worst possible conditions, with the lowest possible standards, under a continuous pressure and fear of losing their jobs." I would guess that any pilot finding himself or herself in such conditions, would find that they are welcome to resign and walk off the property. Also, I would think that if any such person was promised a certain salary or benefit and the management of the company did not fulfill their part of that bargain, there are legal remedies to follow. Do I think that all regional airlines are providing their crewmembers a wonderful, magnanimous, enviable salary? Certainly not. Do I think that those crewmembers were hoodwinked and tricked into signing on to fly for that airline? Also, certainly not.
Several decades ago, airline cockpits were heavily staffed with ex-military aviators – some sources say as high as 95%. Why not today? Yes, there are not the same numbers of military aviators getting out of the military. Why is that? Because the military had invested a lot of time and money in training those folks and they want a return on their investment. But there ARE some getting out of the military. Why don’t they grab up these regional airline flying jobs? Because they can make 10 or 15 times the offered salary by selling insurance (or similar) – and they are willing to sell insurance because they don’t believe their time is worth a tenth or a fifteenth of that insurance-selling salary to fly airplanes. What is your time worth?
As for the picture posted under postman23’s post, anytime anyone has anything that someone else wants badly enough, it is likely that the guy “without” will point a gun at the guy “who has.” In my view, that is what happened on 911. Of course it doesn’t have to be a gun – it can be any weapon available – including marketing strategy.
PJ2 states that “Deregulation has been an unmitigated, proven disaster as far as aviation goes…” Look at how successful start-up businesses are in the US – and how many remain in business more than 5 years. (If I knew the recipe for how to do that, I wouldn’t post it here, I’d go start my own business chain – and retire to some nice sand beach with a MaiTai in hand.) But I think it’s fair to say that starting and running an airline isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. How many airlines have started and how many closed since airline deregulation in the late 1970s? Has deregulation been a success or a failure? I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. Are there less airplanes flying today than in the early 1970’s. Are there less passengers or cargo being carried by airplanes today?
In short, it’s almost a given that a new industry elbowing its way into business, wanting to capture a share of the market for the way it wants to do business will ultimately inflict a cost to someone, somewhere. Look at “Mom&Pop” grocery stores and the supermarket chains. Look at small businesses in store-fronts along Main Street in your town, and the “big box” stores. Look at the success of organizations like Federal Express or UPS … and look at the US Post Office Special Delivery option. Look at the internet and look at the remainder of the US Post Office (look quick, ‘cause it may not be around much longer). Does that mean that the Mom&Pop stores were wrong? Does it mean that the US Post Office was wrong. What happened to Pan American World Airways? Where is National Airlines? Eastern? New York Air? People’s Express? Air South? Western Airlines? Just how many airlines can the economy of the US support? Are there greedy people in this business? Sure. Will they succeed? Probably … at least for a while. But, as flawed as any free market enterprise may be, I’ll still take it over a government run, socialistic society, where someone else makes all of the decisions for you – because, they know better than you what is good for you.