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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

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

I agree with all your points above, but am not against government
regulation. I think it has its place, where social objectives
over-ride what particular participants in a completely free market
transaction may prefer. For instance, in a completely free market, the
best win-win transaction between a chemical company and a farmer may
be pesticides that, when used, create environmental or health risks to
the rest of us. Regulating the market for those products is more
efficient than trying to police their use. Back on topic, there are
valid social reasons (such as safety) to regulate air travel. But
regulating which carriers can go into which markets, and fixing prices
to force carriers to compete on services that buyers would rather give
up for more attractive prices is not a legitimate government role,
IMHO.

Controlling consolidation is a legitimate role for regulation, but
that is not an airline regulation issue. That is an issue of proper
enforcement of anti-trust laws to preserve competition.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

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.

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.

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. Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of
that. Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.

"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.

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
:

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.

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20818452/
EU court dismisses Microsoft appeal
Upholds $613 million fine, saying it was guilty of monopoly abuse

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. After all, that is the key to survival: kill or eat the
competition, so that you can dominate the marketplace on the road to
monopolizing it. (While 'eat-or-be-eaten' may be the law of the
jungle, is it an appropriate doctrine for an enlightened society?) 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.

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. 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.

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....

So I acknowledge your point, but it overlooks mine to the detriment of
all.

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.

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. Passengers aren't even aware that it is competition in
the deregulated marketplace that is producing those delays. And you
can bet the airlines aren't disclosing the fact that it is their being
forced to saturate hubs in order to survive the intense competition
that is the source of the absurd increase in flight delays**.
Consumers are not always qualified to decide what is best; their
analysis is often superficial and banal. Unbiased experts are far
more qualified to direct markets, but that approach has its drawbacks
too...

And we haven't even begun to consider if it in the best interest of
the world to have 5,000 aircraft in the air over the CONUS (and more
worldwide) the vast majority of which are transporting tourists
(537-million pax annually*) while spewing enough jet exhaust
(20,317,000,000 gallons of jet fuel annually by US air carriers*) to
change the temperature of the planet (born out during the flight ban
subsequent to 9/11***).

Several have tried to create "premium" airlines but they always fail.
If someday passengers prefer comfort over price the market will change.

The airline market is changing; there are more defectors to business
jets, and the airlines are attempting to change regulations to
increase the tax on GA to protect their current dominate position.
Business-jet operations are increasing significantly as a result of
the abysmal experience airline travel has become.





* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf ~20-trillion gallons!



** http://gettingtomaybe.blogspot.com/2...lue-delay.html
Thursday, February 22, 2007
News broke last week that passengers on Jet Blue flights were
subjected to 10 hour delays inside the plane, while on the runway.
Passengers were forced to wait for many hours due to bad weather
and an unavailability of open gates. ...



*** http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html
Although cars generate more greenhouse gases, airliner exhaust has
an exaggerated effect, scientists say. Is it time to take action?

The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning
the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place.

"Airliners are special because even though their total emissions
are relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting
their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce
Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science
and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the
atmosphere. "It's a special location."

--
So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
let us pause to consider how close we are to making ourselves fossils
from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next twenty years, almost a
billion Chinese people will be trading in their bicycles for the
automobile. Folks, we either get our **** together on this quickly,
or we're going to have to go to plan 'B': inventing a car that runs on
Chinese people. --Bill Maher, March, 31, 2006

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 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.

"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 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?

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. :-)

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.

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

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

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

--

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
--