A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

American Airlines - Last one standing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 15th, 2005, 05:12 AM
John Mazor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default American Airlines - Last one standing

"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.


  #2  
Old September 15th, 2005, 05:27 AM
John Mazor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.


  #3  
Old September 15th, 2005, 06:07 AM
Gregory Morrow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airline information on-line on the Internet FAQ John R. Levine Air travel 3 July 5th, 2005 07:28 PM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Travel Marketplace 0 April 17th, 2004 12:28 PM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Travel Marketplace 0 February 16th, 2004 11:03 AM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Travel Marketplace 0 January 16th, 2004 10:20 AM
Airline Ticket Consolidators and Bucket Shops FAQ Edward Hasbrouck Backpacking and Budget travel 0 October 10th, 2003 09:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.