Originally Posted by
iahflyr
I completely agree with this statement. I believe in a certain amount of regulation for everything. I am not one of those anti-government and anti-regulation people. It is generally a good thing in small doses.
With that said, aviation is probably the most regulated industry in the country. Look at all the laws that govern us. It's pretty insane. I believe those laws are the reason that aviation is the safest form of transportation known to man.
But I completely believe that deregulation did more good than bad for the industry.
If today's aviation is the safest in the world, just how much regulation would you like to see estimated? I mean, would could have a couple of 737s crash every year and STILL be safer than automobiles. If we cut the amount of training and the hours required (we need to repeal the ATP rule NOW), we could hire people off the streets to fly. Heck, while were are at it, let's eliminate unions (since your posts have shown you see them as artificially adding cost to products). The good news for you is due outside influences (9/11 and crazy oil speculators for example), management has been able to gut the contracts of many folks very senior to me.
And the public would pay less.... maybe 2-3 dollars an hour less. Yippee!
And just WHAT would be the result? More airlines? Absolutely! Because, just like actuaries, the managements/investors would make a bet on how long they could be in business until enough until enough crashes and lawsuits happened and they went out of business. If a newcomer figured he could get a return on his investment in say five years while only having one or two crashes, maybe it is worth the bet..... I mean, smart people play roulette too.
(for the record, I am one of those crazy folks who wants to reduce government FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. but when one's business impacts one half of the US population ((Delta alone carried 161 million pax last year)), I think they may need some limits)
Originally Posted by
FDXLAG
So you are saying you disagree, there would be just as many airlines/aircraft/flights today had deregulation not occured?
If you wish to debate please make a point and not an ad hominem attack.
Growth would have occurred without deregulation, though not as fast. In 1978 the US population was about 223 million. Today it is about 310 million. So, if the rules had not changed, it is logical to assume there would have been roughly a 30 percent increase in flying which coincided with population. Also, allowing more companies to enter the market meant more flying. But just like the dot com and housing booms, large percentages of growth was unsustainable. Sure, if the cost of a ticket was five bucks, everyone would fly. But at that price there is no profit. Much of what the newcomers did was artificially lower the price for a particular market and force the established companies to match it. Unfortunately, the ridiculously low prices in most cases lead to the new company folding and the established company taking a big financial hit, only to have the next up and comer try the same thing a few years later.
The United States has a mature economy. Under normal circumstances, growth on most industries should mimic the population growth. To expect more from an established industry is foolish, and maintaining higher growth is impossible.
But, what do I know, I had to look up
ad hominem.
(oh, and since it is Latin, it should be
italicized)