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)


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)

 

Speaking of mature economies and deregulation, Fedex would not have been possible without deregulation. I am sure the UPS guys would agree most of their flying is a result of meeting the Fedex challenge. How does that fit into your growth models?

Is the italics requirment listed in the APC terms of service or Roberts Rules for Blogging?

 

Yeah, exactly!! If deregulation had not happened...FDX wouldn't have hired me, when my legacy carrier went bankrupt!!

 

The regulation of safety is really a separate issue from the deregulation of markets that Kahn successfully, and rightfully, brought to fore.

Management didn't gut contracts without the help of unions, who agreed to it.. Unions used to go to jail with "illegal" strikes. Unions are afraid of BK courts. They repeatedly say that they have no choice, but 1113(c) contract abrogation after emergence from BK and the court's protection has never been challenged in court. Why? They don't think they can win. And, it doesn't help the unions' bottom line. They need dues payers to stay employed, even at a reduced rate. While they do all this, the make those dues payers more beholden to the unions under the guise of trying to trying to "restore the profession."

The politics of Regulation did NOT disappear with Deregulation. Cities, states and airlines (via the ATA or their own pockets) lobby the public, Congress and the FAA for "protection." Every time there is an improvement to an airport, look who's pushing for it. AMR and SWA in the fight over KDAL and the Wright Amendment come to mind. Noise abatement is regulatory.

The one thing not mentioned in this argument is how failing airlines are protected and/or saved from their own poor management in the BK courts. This must stop. Let failing airlines fail. Forbidding airlines from mergers based on antitrust is ridiculous. Look how airlines without merging have dominated various airports like AMR in DFW, DAL in ATL, and SWA in DAL and others somehow that escape the DOJ from intervening. Politics of Regulation are alive and well.

 

See deregulation saved you from marrying three stews.

I'll put you in the love Mr. Kahn column.

 

Can I change my vote?