DOT to create panel to fix airline industry
 

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ne-panel_N.htm

"...Ed Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO's transportation trades department, said he doesn't expect the Obama administration to attempt a return to the kind of regulation that existed before 1978 where the government set fares and routes. But he said he'd like the government to tighten requirements for new, low-cost airlines seeking to enter the marketplace.

A parade of low-cost carriers have at times driven air fares below cost, Wytkind said. That causes economic chaos for mainline carriers until finally the new entrants go bankrupt [or their costs mature (my comment)] in a process that hurts the entire industry, he said..."

One simple way to begin stabilizing the industry is to quit issuing 121 certificates for the next decade. If we have a glut of seats on the market, why add to them.

Yawn.........

At least someone has noticed that the problem needs to be fixed. Of course it should be the execs who get millions of dollars to be retained as "top talent". But it beats a blank as my mom used to say.

To a point. Problem is the FAA needs to get behind not giving out Operating Certificates like candy at Halloween. A panel cannot do it, nor is one required to see how we need to fix this industry. The government and industry need to make the barriers to entry much higher.

Wasn't de-regulation just a GRAND idea? :rolleyes:

Here's a thought

Each certificate must fly under thier own paint, only one certificate per company (holding company if you prefer), and no outsourcing to another certificate.

If you buy a ticket on brand X you fly on brand X.

I think that's a great start.

Wholeheartedly agreed... and bloody unlikely.

De-regulation didn't have to be such a bad thing. But we as humans have no sense of self control. As a fairly junior regional pilot I always say that my job really shouldn't exist. I'm flying at the expense of someone's potentially well secured, great QOL, high paying flight crew position. I would be ok if I lost my job...........only if I knew that the position would NEVER be filled again.

Or better yet, make illegal the bribes, subsidies and hand outs that airports give to new entrants which anti competitively harm the established carriers.

Level playing field.

There are loopholes to that idea too. It would have to be very carefully worded!

Perfect. Should also be expanded to include maintenance and training. Brand X airplanes serviced by Brand X mechanics, pilots trained at Brand X training.

Dosbo, great post, I agree.
On a 2nd note, competition is a healthy thing and shouldn't be hindered. The government's role should only be that to insure that the playing field is even, nothing more. Like I've said in previous posts, new entrants may not be able to offer the highest pay for position, but other benefits do come with it.

Hmmmm, AirTran in Atlantic City.........

Agree with acl here.

There have been lots of ideas on how to improve the airline industry. i.e. We pay the second highest tax burden behind tobacco and alcohol but our infrastructure is decrepit.

Our industry has become a cash cow for government and banks. We are allowed to exist but not to thrive.

Sounds like the Legacies are TOO BIG TO FAIL.

Anyone see in USA Today, 11/10/09 article, "Reshuffled deck leaves low-cost carriers king"? The man jist is traditionals are losing ground to low-cost airlines.

ALPA National in 1983 publicly considered an SOS over the problems associated with the newly deregulated airline industry. Airlines were losing money, paycuts were frequent, etc. It's amazing to compare that with the statements of the ALPA National of today. There hasn't been a giveback or a sell out ALPA hasn't endorsed.

Your'e right competition is a good thing but customers should know what they are buying and what the true quality of that product is before stepping on an aircraft.

Currently airlilnes run like a shell game outsourcing whatever they can, changing rules for customers frequently, while doing it under the apperance of one big happy airline. Domestic flying is outsourced to the lowest bidder, maintenance is outsourced overseas with little Fed oversight, and with internet ticket purchasing talking with a reservation agent (again outsourced) costs more money.

Mainline domestic workforces have been severely slashed over the last decade yet route structures remain relatively the same size. At what point does the outsourcing (domestic and overseas) end.

Perhaps when only the corporate headquarters remains will someone realize there is nothing left to outsource and no company left to run, only vendors to manage. What will the executives do when they need to outsource themselves to cut costs further just to remain competitive?

If I put my family on a plane I certainly don't want it operated by the lowest common denominator.

This industry really does suck. Here's an idea to ease congestion and delays in the NY area.

Limit the number of seats per plane to a minimum of 100 going into LGA, JFK and EWR and the NE corridor will see delays significantly improve.

Another example was when Virgin America started out. I can remember sitting in line for 2 hours at JFK and Redwood taxis by. By allowing new entrants into the busiest airports at the busiest time of the day is just adding fuel to the fire for ATC delays.

It's a start. This could be a good idea for many different reasons. Honestly, how long would any regional last (ASA, Comair, Mesaba, anyone) with doing their own branded flying? Not even a month. If mainline airlines wanted to keep the regional airlines flying for them, they would be forced to bring them up to their certificate.

I agree with you. But I don't see how limiting new certificates will affect these problems. Each of these issues need to be address by all agencies, FAA, NTSB, labor unions, and congress if this truely gets out of hand.
In fact, certificates should not be sold. If carriers go under or just plan want to shut down, the certificate should be sent back to the FAA and shredded.

Certain items need to be and should be outsourced within reason. Heavy mx checks, Flight sims, and etc are all items that can be effectively outsourced to qualified facilities. Of course my preference would be those outsourcing facilities be located within the U.S. and employ U.S. workers.
The name of the game is capitalism, it only works when the field is in balance. Any unbalance prevents true capitalism from working.

This can be address not by limiting new entrants. But placing limits on what types of aircraft can operate out of high density airports. Maybe a 200 seat minimum of JFK?

I never said new certificates shouldn't be issued just one certificate per operator and paint job. Any new entrants should have to apply for and be issued a brand new certificate based on thier ability to operate an airline independently.

In my opinion (which is not worth much) it is already out of hand.

If outsourcing is allowed for maintenance it should be heavily scrutinized by the feds. Leasing sims is understandable but the instructors and training department need to be in house.

It is all about accountability and getting rid of the shell game.

Setting limits on aircraft size going into airports will just reduce the competitive-ness of JFK as an international airport. Maybe Delta will start flying into Stewart (KSWF) for their NYC area operations.

Here's how u fix it, Fire all the CEO's and replace them with pilots and raise ticket prices to cover the costs!

How would a guy from Allentown, Burlington or Syracuse get anywhere on Delta?

He'd have to wait at ABE, BTV or SYR for 199 other passengers, or drive 4 hours to JFK.

Good question, and further thought is needed. Perhaps allowing those cities within an X radius to operate flights into JFK. But none of this D.C. to JFK on an RJ.

Agreed 100%. No reason JFK-ORD, JFK-DFW, JFK-MCI, JFK-MSP, or JFK-IAH needs to be a CRJ.

But what will the passengers do if they can't have a departure every 45 minutes to suit thier schedule and 30 minute connections in a major hub. (Note Sarcasim):cool:

You're right you never said that, got you confused with another respondant

No problem.

Limiting the number of seats into airports is a dumb idea, I think. If the airlines want to schedule more flights than an airport can handle, thats their own choice. Limited or setting a min seat requirement just goes against competition and actually limited airlines' ability to fill seats.

Having lots of choices of departure is what keeps seats filled. Lots of folks say lets replace four RJ flights with one 737. Well I can assure you that, that 737 will probably carry as many passengers that can fit in the RJ. If people don't have a choice of departure times, they'll just simply choose another airline or mode of transport that goes when they want. This is especially true for the business traveller. I'm all for selling slots to prevent utter chaos, but you can't limit capacity when the demand is obviously there. I'm all for mainline pilots flying RJ's and fixing all the other nonsense in this industry.
I say build a new runway in JFK out in the bay and extend the Airtrain out to LGA. Passengers making connections can fly into LGA and take ride to their international flight at JFK. Thats my pie-in-the-sky solution to that. :)

I see congestion as an airport problem. The airport authority has to the power to accept, deny or limit any operations to and from their facility. If the airlines have a problem with that, then they can build their own airfield.
People have the right to choose whatever mode or schedule they please. If they choose to fly then they have to adhere to the schedules of the airlines. If they really want their own flight on their schedule, they can charter a private jet.

Exactly my point....

Well, if you want a zero cost idea to significantly reduce ATC delays in the Northeast then seat requirements would fit the bill. Simply put, there are too many airplanes in a given amount of airspace. The most obvious way to fix that is to reduce the amount of airplanes going into that busy airspace. If you reduce the flights it's logical to fly airplanes into that airspace that can carry large amounts of people.

You're right, Im sure there are lots of ideas that are cheaper and easier to implement. Smaller airplanes with more frequency into the busiest airspace in the world coupled with the Passenger Bill of Rights will fix everything.

To quote P.J. O'Rourke

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. "


Personally, I find it amusing that the same people who are crying that "government screwed up the airlines" are also the same one's who are sure that LOTS more government will somehow "fix" them.

But hey . . .maybe THIS ONE TIME, they'll make things better, eh? :)

Normally I would agree with you. But the only thing worse than a politician is an airline exec.

Very simple ...Have that 200 pax airplane fly point to point instead of hub and spoke. Stop at ABE, then at BTV then SYR then where ever else...Hell we are already treated like bus drivers and passengers expect to pay bus fares to fly so why not provide a bus like service! 4 stops to get to where you want to be!

Heh. Well, I for one am not going to get wrapped up around the axle about either. I don't have ZERO impact on either politicians or airline execs.

First of all.. what is a "low cost" carrier? DAL is THE low COST carrier across the Atlantic. Is SWA still considered a "low cost" carrier? Their costs are as high if not higher in some respects than DAL's. Their fares certainly are.. So what does this bullplop term really mean?