Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?


Can you justify the ban against age discrimination in the workplace?

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. :-))

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 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.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

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.

Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. And that's also
the root cause of the delays. I thought I made that clear.

On May 13, 7:52*am, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:
I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
in providing what the buyers want. *But I believe that sort of
thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
want people to see.

The whole point is that there is no "man behind the screen" There is
no guy in a secret layer setting fuel prices. Its all the natural
forces of the market.

Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
inappropriate.

Monopoly = no competition. I support regulation that encourages
competition.

In the case of a marketplace like the air carrier market, while a free
market (deregulation) may have provided a positive result in lowering
fares, it has also produced additional negative effects. *Competition
has forced less efficient, or less market driven airlines into
bankruptcy or unwelcome mergers and consequent unemployment of former
employees. *

Less efficient airlines are expensive to customers so I see it as a
good thing that they went out of business. You really have to ask
yourself what the purpose of the airline is. Is it to employ airline
employees or is it to move customers around. If you want to create an
airline who's primary purpose is to employ people you are welcome to.

As
the subject of this discussion bears out, there is significant
collateral damage to free-market economics, and negative impact on the
lives of people involved in the unregulated industry.

Employees ultimately do better in a free economy because there are
more jobs. If you regulate the industry and unionize the employees you
just end up with a few people that have golden jobs and a bunch of
other people who can't find work (i.e. supply and demand are out of
wack)


The free-market concept is predicated on the buyers knowing what is
best (inevitably lower prices), but are buyers qualified to direct the
industry? *Doubtful. *Buyer's don't conduct research and make
intelligent decisions that benefit the industry above their own
personal wants. *

It’s a fundamental concept in liberalism that people are too stupid to
make their own choices. Please understand that there are others of us
that consider that ability to be sacred.

Take the tobacco marketplace for example; no one
would call tobacco smokers wise or sagacious, yet they built one of
the most poisonous industries ever in a free market place. *Regulation
is appropriate at times. *

No, you miss the point. Tabacco exists because people want to smoke.
What right does the gov't have to take that away from them? Its their
free choice.

The difficulty with market regulation lies in the bureaucratic ethos
of government regulators. *They don't have a financial stake in the
industry they regulate, so they may not be sufficiently motivated to
act at times, and then there's *always the question of ethics or the
lack thereof....

I agree, the best solution is to keep the gov't out with regard to
number of producers and pricing. They don't have a natural stake in
the game so they can't make pro/con decisions.


Have airline passengers said they want the consequent delays that
result when rampant competition forces air carriers to schedule an
unreasonable number of flights into hub airports or face losing market
share? *No. *

Yes, they've said they want low fares over low delays. The airlines
could have extra aircraft and crew (which they used to to some extent)
but pax are not willing to pay extra. They'll just go to the less
expensive airline. If you disagree, get rich and prove me wrong by
starting another airline(I won't mind).

-Robert

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. And that's also
the root cause of the delays. I thought I made that clear.


No, the root cause of delays is the air carrier's practice of booking MORE
flights than possible into hub airports.

On May 13, 9:12*am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. *And that's also
the root cause of the delays. *I thought I made that clear.

And that is because of gov't influence. If the airports were owned by
private companies they would charge a fee that represents the scarcity
of the resource. However, you don't fix gov't mess ups with gov't mess
ups.

-Robert

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
in providing what the buyers want. But I believe that sort of
thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
want people to see.

Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
inappropriate.


In a marketplace dominated by a monopoly a free market is nonexistent.


The Europeans know that, and are teaching Microsoft
about it.


No, the Europeans are displaying their dislike of free markets.



Very true and the best thing MS could do would be pull all oh their
product out of the EU including the termination on the licenses already
in place. The EU economy would crash and burn LONG before someone could
fill the gap.

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.