Re-regulation Of The Airline Industry
 

Please contribute Pros and cons of re-regulation.
My two cents:
1. Protects against predatory russian rolutte by management when it comes to protecting jobs.
2. Protects essential services to outlying communities.
Cons:
1. Robs the poor CEO's of their perks.:{
2. Tax dollars put to work wherever the government thinks its necessary.:confused:

The Business Travel Coalition released a study today which concludes that without immediate government intervention several major US airlines are going into bankruptcy and probably liquidation in the near term future.

This is in addition to the airlines which have shut down so far this year. American is at the top of their list. http://businesstravelcoalition.com/c...sis_report.pdf

Airline regulation did nothing to protect jobs. It was designed to level the playing field while crushing free enterprise.

Essential services have always been there, subsidized under the Essential Air Services program.

CEO's set their own agendas, and regulation would do nothing to change what the CEO gets. The former CAB had authority to regulate routes and limit charges, but had no power over what the company did internally with respect to pay, perks, etc. Let's not forget that the political landscape and the economy, as well as the amount of air traffic, has changed substantially since deregulation.

Tax dollars already at work. Revisit the EAS.

reregulation !!!!
 

Reality Check !!!
Any thoughts on re-regulation, NOW !!

No, regulation is against free market.
It would be better to get rid of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It is
helping unhealthy airlines hurt healthy ones. It is one of the reasons why
the US airline industry is in such a mess.

Ahhh, no. Nothing has changed since you posted the question two weeks ago. See previous post.

Regulation?
 

I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you, Guppy, a couple of years ago.
Now, I'm not so sure.
Let me pose a question to everyone here.
Would you book year-end holiday travel now, today, with most airlines in the US?
I don't intend to, since God knows who will cut what routes between then and now, and the non-rev option is equally unapealing, given that revenue miles flown can only increase as aircraft are parked.
To run the airline industry on a public utlity model would result in higher fares, as well as an absence of real bargain fares, which can be found even today.
However, such a model would also result in a degree of predictability of both fare levels and flight availability not found today.
In the end, I agree that the market must be allowed to work. I also think that a rational case can be made for regulation.

Benefits of a merger !!!!!!!
 

Well i guess if enough pilots are against re-regulation, we can all start training for new careers in the pizza delivery business. uniform + customer service + transportation + on time arrivals + food delivery (pt 91/Pt135 compliance.....ha ...ha ...). We are all blue collar workers with white shirts, except for UPS and Jetblue. Timecard + Lunchbox + Union +Uniform.
Hope we can someday wakeup and smell the FUEL.

Northwest to shed 8.3% of workforce - Related Stories - AIA dailyLead

All of which has exactly what to do with regulation?

Bringing back the civil aeronautics board to regulate passenger fares and routing isn't going to improve anything, not in the least.

What has airline regulation to do with Parts 91 or 135?

What has it to do with fuel?

Two things need to happen in the U.S.

1) All commercial airports need to have access limited to their capacity. IOW, if it's a 60 airplane-an-hour-airport -- the airlines should not be allowed to schedule 100 ops per hour. That leads to a couple of practical problems -- Who decides what the capacity is and once the decision is made, who decides who gets to use the airport. "The Market" has not been able to make a rational decision (or any decision at all really) about this in the 30 years of deregulation. It won't make one tomorrow or the next day or the next.

2) There needs to be some limit on the number of new entrants in the market. Right now, even as I write this, somebody is out there thinking, "Gee, I can pick up some airplanes really cheap. I think I'll start an airline. The established airlines cannot compete against this. They'll bleed to death until the "new" airline is the "established" airline and the process starts all over again.

#1 might take care of #2. It might not. Regardless, what we are doing now is not working and it hasn't been working.

If anyone can think of another entity to handle all this besides the government, I'd be glad to listen to it. I'm pretty sure this is the reason humanity started governments though -- for the common good.

Don Brown

One Gloral Airline
 

I have thought for years that one day there should be a SINGLE GLOBAL AIRLINE: designed to transport needy travellers, covering all destinations, all areas of business tended to but mainly for the GOOD OF MANKIND: see fuel cost,dependency, labor security and most important, earth pollution factors.
Hopefully the powers at large will be captured and skinned alive: we have been misled long enough. Free Enterprise is dead if we deplete mother earth of its resources and, lastly, with the technological possibilities available, why are we sitting back and moaning while the industry is dying ? And its not just USA in trouble, this is global mismanagement.

Okay, who is going to run this Single Global Airline, the UN? If it us the UN we need to go to the bone-yard and dust off all the remaining DC-6/7s and Connies, because that would how far back the UN would take the industry.

Possibly a good idea, however, as Europe can still not manage to operate under a single ATC structure I'm afraid it would unworkable.

I agree with GetTheFlick....

" All commercial airports need to have access limited to their capacity."

That'll take care of the new entrants issues; as for who decides the capacity, just look at the flow controls in place today by airport and reduce the departures until you get zero outbound delays and you have the airports capacity per hour. If you can't leave, then you can't land so that will also eliminate the "help I'm being held hostage on the ramp waiting for a gate scenarios". With gas at these prices, having a line-up of 20 plus aircraft waiting to go has to be a thing of the past; as does going endlessly around Epsom.

The US airline industry may be de-regulated, but the airports and airways they depend on to function are still generally control by the US/State government. Thus you have the supposed efficiencies of de-regulation bumping up against the in-efficiencies generally associated with almost anything the goverment manages.

As for a single world airline, I would think that unlikley, but I could easliy envisage a going back to the "flag carrier" national airline with a domestic provider ala BOAC/BEA or (bit of stretch) PanAM/TWA.

I think that what's needed now is some stability in this system so that the industry, the manufacturers, and the finance world can take a breather and work out what or who is working so that future investments can be made.

Have to also say that I agree with those who want to eliminate the Chapter 11 process as all that does is permit ineffective management to use the employees and any escrowed funds to mask their incompetencies.