Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

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 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

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.


I agree, that the government may not be the best choice for regulating
the air carriers. If the air-carriers could manage self-regulation,
that would be a boon for them and consumers alike. While it's
difficult I'm sure to get competitors to agree on being bound by an
independent group of their choosing, it would certainly be in
everyone's best interest.

Consider how the dismal state of affairs that currently exists in the
airline industry might motivate good-faith players in the marketplace
to create their own industry oversight entity. It might be structured
something or government, with the number of representatives elected by
a given air carrier commensurate with its size in one Congress-like
body, an executive branch with cabinet ministers overseeing various
departments charged with specific areas of regulation such as hub slot
assignments, passenger rights, employee issues, training and
certification to enhanced standards, etc.

Of course implementation of something like this would require a
responsible group of sincere, honest, and competent airline executives
able to subordinate their competitive bias in the interest of
bettering their industry. Such maturity does not seem evident in the
Wall Street we've seen in the last few decades. The likelihood of all
the players being mature enough to self regulate isn't too great, but
one can hope they are mature enough to see that the present situation
will not lead to a solution they will embrace willingly either.

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 08:28:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.
So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
sex discrimination in the workplace?


In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
they were hired to do which is be young and hot.


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?


Sure, common sense. But that is something that is in short supply in our
government and in our courts. A few phrases along the lines of
"...except where market forces require otherwise..." and then some
verbiage to layout when those forces can come into play wouldn't hurt.




And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.

Given a few more years of RNC influence in our government, I wouldn't
be surprised to see political orientation listed among them. :-)


RNC... HA, it is the the followers of the DNC that have burdened us with
political correctness.


You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
disabled.

Humor is either funny or it's not humorous. In a written forum,
without benefit of voice inflection nor visual cues, one cannot be
certain if an author's statement is sarcasm or not. My personal
policy is to treat all comments as literal unless sarcasm is denoted
with a :-). Was there a smily appended to the humor to which you
refer?

Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of that.

This smells a lot like a personal attack.


No that wasn't a personal attack. The personal attack was later in the
post when I called you an asshat.

Perhaps you are man enough to take responsibility for your
contribution to any misunderstanding you perceive.


I would but I perceived no misunderstanding. You di.

And is that the royal 'we' you used, or do you believe you speak for
the readership of this newsgroup.

The royal we.


Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.

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, 7:50*am, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

...



So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
older workers. *How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
sex discrimination in the workplace?

In a free society employers can decline to hire workers for any reason they
choose.

And are profit motivated to hire the most qualified regardless of age.
If older workers represent good value employers will not turn away the
opportunity to use them.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
certain people.

There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
prefer comfort over price the market will change.

- Just like self serve gas.


There is a reason
BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
people.

- But interesting how many Beemer owners prefer to pump their own gas.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:BPnWj.42289$KJ1.18150
@newsfe19.lga:


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
news:a45ee966-f621-46f1-96cb-
...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
certain people.

There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
prefer comfort over price the market will change.

- Just like self serve gas.


There is a reason
BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
people.

- But interesting how many Beemer owners prefer to pump their own
gas.


I got three!

Nyah nyah.


And I make Okies pump my gas.

Bertie

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
m...

"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?

It appears you can't.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

I got three!

Nyah nyah.


And I make Okies pump my gas.

Bertie


And do you always have to push them home like you do your motorcycle, or do
you not work on them yourself.