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 Tue, 13 May 2008 11:20:36 -0400, alexy wrote in
:

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.

That is only true if logistics permit it.

In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
we'll never know.

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.

In a managed market place, there would be no need to offer reduced
delay flights for an increased fare, because it's wouldn't be
necessary for air carriers to overload hubs as a competitive tactic.
Responsible regulators would manage flight schedules, and all would
run smoothly. (Now you tell one. :-))

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

That is only true if logistics permit it.

In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
we'll never know.


If air carriers had to deliver what they sell they wouldn't schedule more
flights than hub airports can accommodate.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:20:36 -0400, alexy wrote in
:

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.

That is only true if logistics permit it.

In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
we'll never know.

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.

In a managed market place, there would be no need to offer reduced
delay flights for an increased fare, because it's wouldn't be
necessary for air carriers to overload hubs as a competitive tactic.
Responsible regulators would manage flight schedules, and all would
run smoothly. (Now you tell one. :-))


Responsible managers would do that now and the free market would take
care of letting the passengers self select when they got to a location
IF there were a truly free market now. Most all airports are owned by
state and local governments and for some reason have chosen not to let
the free market set the cost of the good they are providing i.e. landing
spots. If they were to do that the cost of taking off from JFK at 8:00
am on Monday would cost a hell of a lot more than taking off from JFK at
2:20 am on a Saturday. This price difference would then be passed along
to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:54:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

This price difference would then be passed along
to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.

So you agree that air fares are artificially low and unsustainable
currently?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:54:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

This price difference would then be passed along
to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.

So you agree that air fares are artificially low and unsustainable
currently?


Yes but the free market, in this case charging more for better landing
slots, is the answer. As it is now the government be it local, state
and/or federal is subsidizing the prime spots and over charging for the
bad ones.

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