Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

On May 10, 7:04*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22:

So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.

How do you think the union stands to profit? *Do you believe the union
will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
granted? *

Unions demands are based on the company's profits. If the gov't
regulates the industry the airlines will make more profit (its
actually a simple proof you do in Econ 101). With more profit, unions
demands more.

-Robert

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

On May 10, 7:04*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22:

So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.

How do you think the union stands to profit? *Do you believe the union
will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
granted? *

Unions demands are based on the company's profits. If the gov't
regulates the industry the airlines will make more profit (its
actually a simple proof you do in Econ 101). With more profit, unions
demands more.

-Robert

I presume you (and Mr. Honeck) are referring to union workers, not the
unions themselves as it appears you have stated.

In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

I presume you (and Mr. Honeck) are referring to union workers, not the
unions themselves as it appears you have stated.

In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out.


An airline ticket often shows a departure time from point A and an arrival
time at point B that is pure fantasy. The number of scheduled operations at
hub airports often exceed the maximum even in good weather. The airlines
are selling a service they can't possibly deliver and they know it. In what
other industry do the customers put up with that?

Larry Dighera wrote:


In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out.

Actually, in a free market, marketing experts have the freedom to
research what passengers are willing to accept, and if they determine
that passengers would "accept the slight per-seat increase in cost if
it meant fewer and shorter flight delays", they would promote their
on-time performance. However, in a managed market, I agree that we
will have the opportunity to find out. Passengers would indeed "accept
the slight per-seat increase in cost if it meant fewer and shorter
flight delays", because they would not have the freedom to do
otherwise; some bureaucrat would make that decision for them, and it
would be forced down their throats.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

On May 13, 7:58*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. *Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? *Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? *In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out. *

If you believe pax would pay a bit more for a low-delay airline then
why don't you get rich by creating one. In a non-regulated market the
person who creates a product that hits the mark with customers is
rewarded. Most non-"act of God" delays are a result of airlines
keeping planes and crews very busy (no slack in the system). That is
done to reduce costs but if pax were will to pay extra airlines could
have more planes available and more crews. To date it appears pax have
been unwilling to pay for that but you are certainly welcome to enter
the market and prove them wrong.


-Robert

Larry Dighera wrote:

In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out.



Slight my ass. Prior to deregulation prices were WAY higher than they
are now.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321
@attbi_s22:

So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
airlines?

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.

Oh brother,

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

On May 10, 7:51*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.
--
Jay Honeck

Utter cluelessness Jay. Larry D just likes to post endless news
stories and then mis-interparate thier meaning so he can start
arguments. I am surprised you fell for it. Arent you usualy the one
who posts complaining about the lack of integrity on this list ?
The sad fact of the matter is that (The way it is structured now) the
airline biz in this country will never consistently make money. I dont
know if regulation in some form may be an answer to this or not, but
AIM does not "Ask" for protection. As an organization they have little
to gain from this. They are voted in and voted out just like in a
democracy.
There are definatly pros and cons to industry consolidation, especialy
if you are an airline employee right now. AIM obviously sees a
downside to consolidation as far as its members are concerned. Do you
want to see dedicated career profesionals working at airlines ?
F Baum

On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum"
wrote in
:

Larry D just likes to post endless news stories and then mis-interparate
thier meaning so he can start arguments.

One man's argument is another's discussion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
dis·cus·sion Audio Help /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation

–noun an act or instance of discussing; consideration or
examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions;
informal debate.

As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
points of view. Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
you?

Further, I'd like to thank you for pointing out my habit of opening
discussion of on-topic issues, thus increasing the newsgroup's
signal-to-noise ratio, unlike those limit their participation to
followup articles.

On May 12, 9:24*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

One man's argument is another's discussion:

* *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
* * dis·cus·sion * Audio Help * /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
* * Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn]

Thanks for that.

As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
points of view. *Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
you?

Stop calling me Shirley. AIM is going after job security. Based on the
dismal history of airlines since Deregulation, some form of it may be
necessary. They are actually against consolidation, which
theoretically should help consumers. Rest assured AIM (As are other
unions) is a for profit bussiness and they are doing what they are
payed to do.

Frank