Good read for Newbies
- Thread starter usa1
- Start date
N965VJ
Veteran
Without deregulation, how many of those with 20 years or less would have a job?
V
VAflyGal
Guest
I find it interesting you consider anyone with less than 20 years "newbies."
I personally wish they would regulate this industry more than they do.
If wishes were horses then beggers would ride.
767jetz
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,286
- 2,779
About the same number as today, but perhaps in fields other than avitation. Many of those with less than 20 years at any airline are unemployed or went on to other jobs/careers over the last 8 years or so. If you are implying that deregulation somehow created or saved jobs that otherwise would have been lost, consider this... if deregulation had not occurred and airlines hired less over those years, many would have sought other career paths to start with. (supply and demand) Hence they very well may have been gainfully employed today.
The ridiculous ups and downs of this industry since deregulation have created waves of hiring and firing, collapsed airlines, and expectations from consumers of the same "pre-deregulation" levels of service, quality, and safety at deregulated prices. Nowadays people view air-transportation like public bus transportation.
Here's another wrench in the "20 years of jobs" theories... How many travel agencies still exist due to deregulation? Yes the internet helped seal their fate. But it all started after deregulation when the race to the bottom caused airlines to slash or eliminate commissions to travel agents in order to cut the red ink caused by the unregulated environment.
Finally, to consider this industry deregulated is actually a joke. If that were true then for the last 20 years airlines could have flown where ever they liked, when ever they liked, and if they wanted to fight the cheap start-ups to defend their turf they would have been allowed to. Deregulation was a politically correct way for politicians to artificially force lower fares (popular with voters) while maintaining a tight leash on airlines and causing them to cut corners, slash jobs, and create a race to the bottom.
If Airline X gets grants to come into an airport and special deals in the name of "competition" it's "good." If established airlines defend themselves and try to make it hard for newcomers to poach, it's called "anti-competitive." How about the security regulations imposed on the airlines at their cost when in fact it is a matter of national security. So while necessary and mandated, the government conveniently avoids using tax payer dollars for this essential security service by forcing airlines to absorb the cost, who in turn are unable to pass along that cost to customers due to ... you guessed it... deregulation. How about slot controls? How about air-traffic limitations because the government refuses to modernize the system because they won't dip into the aviation trust fund. A fund that grows due to a surcharge on every ticket sold, but is included in the general budget to make the numbers look better. Heavens forbid we actually use the money for what it's intended for! Then the government would look even more broke.
We could go on and on. But to call this a deregulated industry is a farce. I don't believe it will ever be reversed. But if there ever was an industry that would actually benefit from re-regulation it would be this one. Either that or let the big players actually compete on a level field without tying their hands in favor of the start-ups.
Seatacus
Veteran
So you're saying that regulation would have kept fares higher and wages higher and then more employees would make it a career. If so, I agree.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
About the author:
"Matthew Green is currently navigating the job market in New York after working for The Royal Bank of Scotland and an upstart hedge fund."
"Matthew Green is currently navigating the job market in New York after working for The Royal Bank of Scotland and an upstart hedge fund."
jimntx
Veteran
There are certain industries that require more government intervention/oversight/support/whatever by the very nature of the industry. In the early days of this country and in Europe at the time, fire companies were privately owned concerns. Only people who purchased protection got water thrown on their houses in a fire. If the fire spread to the house next door, and that owner was not a member of the fire protection society on the scene, it was allowed to burn. If there were not government-run police forces, I doubt most of us could afford to purchase protection from a private "rent-a-cop" company.
Public transportation appears to be in the same category. Whether local, state, or national, there seems to be almost no way to provide transport from Point A to Point B at an affordable price and make a profit--Southwest Airlines being the most notable exception to my broad generalization.
And, this not a new phenomenon in the airline business. We can't blame the current ills on the current government in D.C., the last one, 9/11, or the oil companies. It's been that way almost from the beginning. I've posted this before, but it applies. One of the founders of British Airways said many years ago..."If you have to tighten your belt, it's a recession. If you lose your belt, it's a depression. When you have no trousers, you're in the airline business."
Now, that being said, it would still be possible to "let a thousand flowers bloom" if we choose to not care about the consequences of unbridled competition. Such as, 10 transcons an hour all day everyday from JFK to LAX and no service whatsoever to/from Omaha. Airlines would go out of business left and right because prices would be so low that no one could make a profit. Then, when there was one airline left standing, it could charge whatever it wanted to move you from Point A to Point B.
In such a situation, none of us could afford to fly. It would be like the early days of the airline business...very wealthy people, such as movie stars, were the only people who flew. Everyone else took the train or, if they couldn't afford that, a bus. Or, they didn't go, which is what most people did.
Well, that's the way a free-market economy is suposed to work. Unfortunately, the airline business is one of those vanity-type companies where some man with more money than sense (see also, Carl Icahn and Donald Trump) believes that he can make a business work where others have failed.
For whatever reasons, and please let's not get into a liberal vs. conservative political argument, we as a society have decided that is not acceptable. What is more worrisome is that I think airlines have been put into the "too big to fail" category. Granted, if my airline, AA, were to close up shop there would suddenly be a lot more people on the unemployment lines--and not just AA employees...there are a lot of ancillary businesses, such as caterers, that are dependent upon the existence of AA.
I think the years since deregulation have proven that the airline business does not lend itself to total deregulation and a free-market-winner-takes-all approach. Perhaps, a hybrid structure might work. Controlled prices on monopoly routes...some price flexibility on routes that have competition.
Most of my family lives in Alabama. My sister's grandchildren lived in a suburb of Las Vegas while her son was stationed at Nellis AFB. We once found an interesting anomaly in pricing. She is on my non-rev list, but was concerned about getting from BHM to DFW on a particular day, but not being able to get on a flight from DFW to LAS. I suggested she non-rev BHM-DFW and purchase a ticket from DFW-LAS and back to DFW with a non-rev listing from DFW back to BHM.
What we found was that a coach ticket could be purchased from AA.com BHM-DFW-LAS-DFW-BHM for less than a DFW-LAS-DFW ticket. In effect, not only was her BHM-DFW legs given to her free, by buying that ticket, she got a discount on the DFW-LAS-DFW portion. Does that make sense?
Public transportation appears to be in the same category. Whether local, state, or national, there seems to be almost no way to provide transport from Point A to Point B at an affordable price and make a profit--Southwest Airlines being the most notable exception to my broad generalization.
And, this not a new phenomenon in the airline business. We can't blame the current ills on the current government in D.C., the last one, 9/11, or the oil companies. It's been that way almost from the beginning. I've posted this before, but it applies. One of the founders of British Airways said many years ago..."If you have to tighten your belt, it's a recession. If you lose your belt, it's a depression. When you have no trousers, you're in the airline business."Now, that being said, it would still be possible to "let a thousand flowers bloom" if we choose to not care about the consequences of unbridled competition. Such as, 10 transcons an hour all day everyday from JFK to LAX and no service whatsoever to/from Omaha. Airlines would go out of business left and right because prices would be so low that no one could make a profit. Then, when there was one airline left standing, it could charge whatever it wanted to move you from Point A to Point B.
In such a situation, none of us could afford to fly. It would be like the early days of the airline business...very wealthy people, such as movie stars, were the only people who flew. Everyone else took the train or, if they couldn't afford that, a bus. Or, they didn't go, which is what most people did.
Well, that's the way a free-market economy is suposed to work. Unfortunately, the airline business is one of those vanity-type companies where some man with more money than sense (see also, Carl Icahn and Donald Trump) believes that he can make a business work where others have failed.
For whatever reasons, and please let's not get into a liberal vs. conservative political argument, we as a society have decided that is not acceptable. What is more worrisome is that I think airlines have been put into the "too big to fail" category. Granted, if my airline, AA, were to close up shop there would suddenly be a lot more people on the unemployment lines--and not just AA employees...there are a lot of ancillary businesses, such as caterers, that are dependent upon the existence of AA.
I think the years since deregulation have proven that the airline business does not lend itself to total deregulation and a free-market-winner-takes-all approach. Perhaps, a hybrid structure might work. Controlled prices on monopoly routes...some price flexibility on routes that have competition.
Most of my family lives in Alabama. My sister's grandchildren lived in a suburb of Las Vegas while her son was stationed at Nellis AFB. We once found an interesting anomaly in pricing. She is on my non-rev list, but was concerned about getting from BHM to DFW on a particular day, but not being able to get on a flight from DFW to LAS. I suggested she non-rev BHM-DFW and purchase a ticket from DFW-LAS and back to DFW with a non-rev listing from DFW back to BHM.
What we found was that a coach ticket could be purchased from AA.com BHM-DFW-LAS-DFW-BHM for less than a DFW-LAS-DFW ticket. In effect, not only was her BHM-DFW legs given to her free, by buying that ticket, she got a discount on the DFW-LAS-DFW portion. Does that make sense?
N965VJ
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #10
At least he knows his aviation history, most "content providers" are exactly that.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Just not enough to hold a job.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Colgate, his alma mater 2007, is not Harvard.
Maybe he can get an airline job.
Maybe he can get an airline job.
ChrisUS
Senior
- Aug 20, 2005
- 449
- 72
And well they should for that's exactly what it is. Gone are the days of hot meals, amenities, etc. but the prices are pretty much the same. What do people expect? Flying isn't the mode of transportation of only the priviledged anymore. Pretty much everyone can afford it.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #15
A good article .... Lots of facts .... Some fair-minded opinion, but allows the reader to decide. Something you don't see very often these days. Colgate ...??? .... Maybe that explains it.
My question is ... why are you attacking him? :huh: Do you disagree with something in the article? :wacko:
