![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. :-)) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airline Lobby Group Says GA traffic Is The Main Cause Of Airline Delays | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | July 7th 07 01:19 PM |
Proposed FAA Regulation FAR 1000 | ContestID67 | Soaring | 3 | April 3rd 06 05:58 AM |
Here it is! Straight from the horse's mouth Existing Training Grandfathered out of regulation | Cecil Chapman | Piloting | 1 | October 29th 04 05:08 PM |
Cell phone regulation on airlines? | C J Campbell | Piloting | 54 | October 14th 04 04:53 PM |
Engine "on demand" regulation?? | Frode Berg | Piloting | 7 | January 23rd 04 06:00 PM |