![]() |
Originally Posted by The Juice
(Post 586341)
Re-Regulating=Less jobs. When the airlines started the deregulation process in 1978 it helped open up many low cost carriers that otherwise would have never gotten their start because of the barriers to entry.
Although I like the idea of regulation are you all ready for the pilot cuts this may bring? ABSO-FREAKIN-LUTLY!! We've been beating that horse forever. There NEVER should have been as many jobs across so many airlines in the first place and contraction is inevitable. |
Originally Posted by dn_wisconsin
(Post 585998)
Wasn't this already posted in the "Majors" section?
Originally Posted by bryris
(Post 586255)
The more that turn blue and give up, the more market share is available for those that are still standing. Its brilliant!!! The next best thing is a merger and/or consolidation.
Originally Posted by The Juice
(Post 586341)
Re-Regulating=Less jobs. When the airlines started the deregulation process in 1978 it helped open up many low cost carriers that otherwise would have never gotten their start because of the barriers to entry.
Although I like the idea of regulation are you all ready for the pilot cuts this may bring? |
One additioal note;
Maybe something as simple as an update to the FAR's would be a solution. An additional FAA certificate required to be eligible for employed by the airlines. A certificate that falls somewhere in between the TT requirements of a commercial and an ATP. I'm sure that the original language was not meant to allow a pilot with 250 hours to sit right seat in a 76 pax jet for an airline but rather to allow a pilot to make money and/or reduce the cost involved to get the time that the airlines required for employment at that time. |
I think we're more likely to see proposals that increase regulation, but dont necessarily 're-regulate' the entire industry.
Increased regulation doesn't mean we have to go back to the system that existed prior to '78. It could be as simple as mandating where US airlines get their maintenance done (i.e. not Mexico/Canada). Could also be simple price floors that basically say companies cannot fly for less than a pre-determined ammount, forcing companies to not operate at a loss for the sole purpose of burning the competition out (i.e. aloha/go!). Really doubt that any politician would go for full-blown re-regulation. |
From a pilot's wife perspective ,how many of those carrier's are still in business that jumped in after deregulation?
|
Originally Posted by flight0813
(Post 586401)
YOUR RIGHT that it's brilliant "but not for us as pilots which I'm sure was your piont". Let's take this trend and extend it to the ultimate end of its journey. If this trend continues then the final outcome will be a monopoly of one airline. I know this may sound extreme to some but can you see any other outcome that will bring it to end? If one of the two actions mentioned in the first post are not acted upon then the company will continue to have us by the balls to no end.
|
Originally Posted by DYNASTY HVY
(Post 586463)
From a pilot's wife perspective ,how many of those carrier's are still in business that jumped in after deregulation?
Around 20 in my 2 second recollection. A lot have merged over the years but it did create a lot of new airlines at the expense of the value of the seat. |
Originally Posted by DeltaPaySoon
(Post 586473)
Around 20 in my 2 second recollection. A lot have merged over the years but it did create a lot of new airlines at the expense of the value of the seat.
ALLY |
Originally Posted by DYNASTY HVY
(Post 586651)
And it also created lower pay scale's by half at the expense of the pilot group's.
ALLY I think it was a very bad tradeoff. |
Originally Posted by DeltaPaySoon
(Post 586841)
That's exactly what I meant by saying that it lowered the value of the seat.
I think it was a very bad tradeoff. Anyone ever come up with what the pay rates schould be in this day and age? ALLY |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:10 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands