American Airlines - Last one standing

"SF3aviatrix" wrote in message
...

Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest
Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3
operator you remember:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/DouglasDC-3.htm


No, he's remembering Southern Airways.

On 2005-09-15, George Patterson wrote:
I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s. Southwest
was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into Atlanta (there were
a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was cool - they looked like new

Southwest? I thought they had only ever operated Boeing 737s and nothing
else.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:6j6We.21953$Zv6.4968@trndny03...

I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s.
Southwest was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into
Atlanta (there were a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was
cool - they looked like new planes.


I don't think so. Southwest Airlines never operated the DC-3, and didn't
serve it's first city outside Texas until 1979 (New Orleans).

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"John Mazor"
:

I'm not disagreeing with your premises here, just amplifying on them.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:rY4We.351954$xm3.256217@attbi_s21...
Anyway, it seems like some more consolidation among the majors will
be needed in the future. There isn't really a need for more than
three major airlines, probably AA, DL (merged with CO and NW), and
UA (merged with US).

Absolutely. The reason the airlines are in this mess is because
Congress refuses to let any major airline FAIL.

Well, there is the minor matter that until the US Airways/America West
merger, the administration also refused to allow mergers. Mergers
provide a rational, orderly reduction of capacity. Bankruptcy is a
weapon of mass destruction if reducing excess capacity is your goal.

Unfortunately, that's what capitalism requires for success. In a
truly
free market,

...the government would have been open to proposals for mergers.

the surviving airlines would feed on the carcass of a truly bankrupt
airline, plucking the profitable routes and leaving the deadwood
behind.

That already happens. You don't need bankruptcy for that.

In our current dream-world of "protected deregulation", Congress
keeps bailing out failing airlines, allowing them to continue
operating at below-profitable levels

That goes all the way back to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,
where Congress hedged its bets by providing "Essential Air Service"
subsidies. The problem has been that Congress and consumers want it
both ways - competition resulting in cheaper fares, while maintaining
the expectation of service levels that were possible under regulated
pricing.

-- which means they can continue to charge less than
what it really costs to fly the routes, which, in turn, means that
NONE of the airlines can charge what it actually costs to fly.

True as far as it goes, but there are other factors that have undercut
airlines' ability to set pricing or clear a profit, such as Internet
fare shopping (which the airlines foolishly embraced at first), the
rising cost of oil (even the carriers in bankruptcy would have had
operating profits except for rising fuel prices), the way that the
government has treated airlines as a cash cow (the taxes on a typical
airline ticket are higher than the "sin taxes" on alcohol and
tobacco).

The irony here is that allowing airlines to go into bankruptcy allows
them a competitive edge over solvent carriers. The solution is to
reduce the period for management to have exclusionary control over the
enterprise, and not allow a bankrupt carrier to expand operations.

Until the Feds let Northworst and Delta fail, this situation will
continue
to get worse.

That's one solution, but not the only one. There are more rational
approaches to the capacity problem.

Best solution is to limit it to the types of people that used to fly.
People that needed to. People that could afford to. People with class.
Bring back the DC-7, I say.

Oh wait, wrong problem.

Bring back the Connie. Now THERE was an airplane to fly in.

As to the pax, a simple literacy test would filter out the worst of the
riff-raff.

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"John Mazor" :

"Robert J Carpenter" wrote in message
...
I recall that at the time of the previous rash of airline failures,
1991???, Mr. Kahn ? - the chief architect of airline deregulation -
said that foreign airlines / owners ought to be let in to show how to
run an aitline. Back then that was particularly silly since most
European airlins still had protected turf and some subsidies (real or
hidden).

To compound the idiocy, we still hear proposals to allow foreign
airlines to compete in U.S. domestic markets (cabotage).

Hey, US airlines do it in Europe....

*Originate* a flight that *starts out* in, say, Paris, and drops them at the
final destination of, say, Bordeaux, with the flight not stopping or
continuing elsewhere? That's cabotage. Many countries allow lesser
freedoms, such as if a United flight originating as JFK-Bordeaux makes a
stop in Paris - the next leg could pick up Paris-Bordeaux riders. You just
can't have a United flight that starts and ends as Paris-Bordeaux, which
would be cabotage. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any nation that
allows that, except maybe for some minor countries where they're glad to
have any service at all.

John Mazor wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"John Mazor" :

"Robert J Carpenter" wrote in message
...
I recall that at the time of the previous rash of airline failures,
1991???, Mr. Kahn ? - the chief architect of airline deregulation -
said that foreign airlines / owners ought to be let in to show how to
run an aitline. Back then that was particularly silly since most
European airlins still had protected turf and some subsidies (real or
hidden).

To compound the idiocy, we still hear proposals to allow foreign
airlines to compete in U.S. domestic markets (cabotage).

Hey, US airlines do it in Europe....

*Originate* a flight that *starts out* in, say, Paris, and drops them at
the
final destination of, say, Bordeaux, with the flight not stopping or
continuing elsewhere? That's cabotage. Many countries allow lesser
freedoms, such as if a United flight originating as JFK-Bordeaux makes a
stop in Paris - the next leg could pick up Paris-Bordeaux riders. You
just
can't have a United flight that starts and ends as Paris-Bordeaux, which
would be cabotage. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any nation that
allows that, except maybe for some minor countries where they're glad to
have any service at all.


About the only recent example I can think of is the pre - 1991 intra -
German services from West Germany to West Berlin provided by PA, AF,
BA...but it was a special case as that monopoly service was set up by the
victorious Allies post - 1945; air rights to West Berlin were technically
administered by the US, France, and the UK.

--
Best
Greg

Jay Honeck wrote:
There isn't really a need for more than three
major airlines, probably AA, DL (merged with CO and NW), and UA

Absolutely. The reason the airlines are in this mess is because Congress
refuses to let any major airline FAIL.

Unfortunately, that's what capitalism requires for success.

As I sit here in my home office preparing to do a show and tell with 9
people across Europe, it occurs to me that it may take a bit of a
technology roll-back for continued airline success.

There was a time when I boarded a jet once or twice a month just so I
could meet with a customer/teammates in another city for a couple of
hours. I just watched a ridiculous airline commercial where 'the boss'
is looking for 'Bob' who he saw earlier this morning. The office staff
tells him that 'Bob' doesn't really work here but flew back home to
Chicago an hour ago. Just like he does several times a week to supply
the 'software' for the office. What planet were they on when they came
up with that one?

You run around major US and European international airports and you see
the 'usual' collection of heavy iron moving people around the globe.
You go to Tokyo or Sydney or Singapore and you find out where the
world's 747s really go to work. Is it a coincidence that the
Asia/Pacific rim region is the only major industrial region where you
can't quite depend on the net to do real time work? 5 minutes from now,
when you can use the net across all borders, where will the giant ships
go? (a bit of an exaggeration...)

There's a lot more going on than just competition and regulation.

Maule Driver wrote:

I just watched a ridiculous airline commercial where 'the boss'
is looking for 'Bob' who he saw earlier this morning. The office staff
tells him that 'Bob' doesn't really work here but flew back home to
Chicago an hour ago. Just like he does several times a week to supply
the 'software' for the office. What planet were they on when they came
up with that one?

Maybe the same one on which a friend of mine lives. Her home is near Morristown,
NJ. Every Monday, she drives to work in Piscataway. That evening, she hops a
plane to her other job in Birmingham. Friday evening, she flies back home.
United loves her. No, she's not typical.

More typical are the people who hop shuttle flights between cities several times
a week. Quite a few BellSouth employees and contractors shuttle back and forth
between B'ham and Atlanta for meetings. I know other people here who spend a lot
of time flying down to DC during the week.

And if you think it's unlikely that someone would make a trip just to supply the
software, we did a lot of that at Telcordia. It's cheaper in the long run to fly
over a skilled installer than to ship a tape or several CDs and have the
customer botch up the installation of a large system.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

On 2005-09-15, sfb wrote:
Airlines and all businesses do not play taxes. They collect them from
passengers and customers who are the government's cash cow.

All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

Yes, but I suspect the O.P. was making the point that businesses pay no
"real" tax, in that every tax they pay is passed along to consumers.

Which is why the Left's diversionary arguments about "making the
corporations pay more" always rings so hollow to my ears, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"