Newsstand - Don't hate the airlines — pity them

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25350085/

Don’t you feel just a bit sorry for the airline industry?
You should.
America’s domestic airlines are in the eye of a perfect financial storm, and when the winds die down, one of the big airlines will probably be gone. With aviation fuel at astronomical rates with no sign of relief in sight, bets are being taken on which will be the first out of business.

I'm not at the airport or on a plane now, so I can feel pity rather than anger. :D

But, I agree with what I take to be the OP's point. The airlines are in big trouble. And, it really ain't their fault. No one could have reasonably planned for current fuel prices.

Rather, it is those who permitted the insane speculation in the oil "market" and who destabilized the mid-East for no good reason. Points for guessing who I mean ....

The present air transport system cannot survive at anywhere close to current fares and current oil prices. Something will bust soon; and it may not just be BK filings and going out of business by a major or two.

I'm not at the airport or on a plane now, so I can feel pity rather than anger. :D

But, I agree with what I take to be the OP's point. The airlines are in big trouble. And, it really ain't their fault. No one could have reasonably planned for current fuel prices.

Rather, it is those who permitted the insane speculation in the oil "market" and who destabilized the mid-East for no good reason. Points for guessing who I mean ....

The present air transport system cannot survive at anywhere close to current fares and current oil prices. Something will bust soon; and it may not just be BK filings and going out of business by a major or two.

The cash they take in on a sale today reflects the current cost of fuel. Why would one take pity on that?

I do feel sorry for legacy carriers, with their high union labor costs and high cost of oil.

However, lets not forget that they had many years of solid profits to tuck cash away, and didn't. Many of the majors don't understand why so many frequent flyers want to take foreign carriers over the water. Its because the US carriers were doling out huge bonuses and pay incentives to their top management, and not investing in hard product like better business class seats and better food options.

I look at the airlines like I look at the US automakers. They had many good years, and didn't change with the market. Now, the US automakers are stuck with dealers overloaded with gas-guzzlers and people are flocking to smaller more fuel-efficient cars made by foreign automakers. Remember, this isn't the first time oil has become crazy expensive. The US automakers should have learned the first time to spend R&D money on fuel-efficient vehicles.

Sorry? Airlines are businesses. You win some, you lose some. They need to adjust to the new market and carry on. It's a simple as that.

Obviously in case of airlines fuel costs are very important. Otherwise, the price of oil seems to be a very popular excuse for just about anything. It's becoming as boring of a subject as the weather...

Why would I take pity on an airline in an industry that historically has been mismanaged?

Sorry about the job losses but I'm hoping we "thin out the herd" here pretty soon. Get rid of one legacy carrier and maybe the rest will survive.

It is too bad the the "mismanagement" has come from those receiving exhorbitant bonuses for all of the great desicions that have been made to keep this boat afloat. No employee contrbutions could have possibly helped out. Didn't last time, won't in the next "scare" time. Labor could work for free, and AA will still lose money.

I know i will get flamed here for that comment but don't you realise that some of the most fundamental problems for US based carriers are homemade? The biggest one lies in your silly laws, especially the idiotic restrictions put on foreign ownership of airline voting stock. As long as you cap that at 24,9 % no foreign company will invest in any of those airlines. Yes, i understand that many americans would having a hard time swallowing an "United Luftwaffe Airline" or an "Delta France Airline" but these companies would be much healthier then the current ones. Another problem is your air traffic control system which seems to be as bad as the one in Nigeria.... The inefficiency of the US air traffic system cost additional billions each year.
Keep in mind that the USA is one of the richest countrys in the world but dosn't seem to be able to resolve their airline / air traffic problems.

No one could have reasonably planned for current fuel prices.

So what? That's why real airlines hedge their fuel.
The stupid rest deserves no pity.

So what? That's why real airlines hedge their fuel.
The stupid rest deserves no pity.

Even the airlines who've hedged will be facing the same problems when their hedges run out. They not likely to renew them at the same price they hedged at before.

Even the airlines who've hedged will be facing the same problems when their hedges run out. They not likely to renew them at the same price they hedged at before.

Until then, many of the stupid and "pitiful" airlines will hopefully have disappeared.

Until they build an airliner that can be shrunk to fit the number of passengers, the de-regulated airline business will never make money.

When an airline has a route where the planes fly full of pax where the airline is making money on each pax, other airlines start to notice and fly the same routes. You then get competition, and the planes fly with empty seats. Empty seats equal weight with no revenue. So in desperation, the airlines sell the empty seats at a loss, in order to reduce overall losses. The pax who paid non-loss fares notice, and feel used, and so they start shopping the low fares.

The downward spiral begins. During that time each airline cuts service making the experience excruciating for the pax and crew. The spiral only ends until enough airlines abandon the route. The cycle repeats.

I neither pity nor hate the airlines. It is what it is. Re-regulation (which would certainly produce profits), state monopolies, etc. is just going to lead to higher fares, and no guarantee that the service will improve either.

One model the airlines should consider is a co-operative like REI, credit unions, and in Canada, the CO-OP supermarkets. The CO-OP at least has survived a long time.

I know i will get flamed here for that comment but don't you realise that some of the most fundamental problems for US based carriers are homemade? The biggest one lies in your silly laws, especially the idiotic restrictions put on foreign ownership of airline voting stock. As long as you cap that at 24,9 % no foreign company will invest in any of those airlines. Yes, i understand that many americans would having a hard time swallowing an "United Luftwaffe Airline" or an "Delta France Airline" but these companies would be much healthier then the current ones. Another problem is your air traffic control system which seems to be as bad as the one in Nigeria.... The inefficiency of the US air traffic system cost additional billions each year.
Keep in mind that the USA is one of the richest countrys in the world but dosn't seem to be able to resolve their airline / air traffic problems.
I think it's conspiracy led by India and China. They are responsible of increases in oil prices due to higher demand for oil to fuel their growing economy. Not only that, they also contributed to higher food prices by eating better. Consequently our poor executives have no alternative but cut worker's salaries, reduce or eliminate meal service and all other amenities, cut capacity and even increase fares. Tsk Tsk. Can anyone help this struggling industry?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25350085/

Don’t you feel just a bit sorry for the airline industry?
You should.
America’s domestic airlines are in the eye of a perfect financial storm, and when the winds die down, one of the big airlines will probably be gone. With aviation fuel at astronomical rates with no sign of relief in sight, bets are being taken on which will be the first out of business.
Many FTers do not know that there was a time, not so long ago, when Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, were poor third countries. It's ironic that many airlines of yesterday's third world put U.S. airlines to shame when it comes to service.

Is that a glimpse into the future in general?

Until they build an airliner that can be shrunk to fit the number of passengers, the de-regulated airline business will never make money. ...

I neither pity nor hate the airlines. It is what it is. Re-regulation (which would certainly produce profits), state monopolies, etc. is just going to lead to higher fares, and no guarantee that the service will improve either.

I used to be a big fan of de-regulation. Now, not so sure. :confused:

Fares sure went down after de-reg (really only a semi-de-reg with limits based on restrictive factors inherent in air travel systems nature, e.g., limited number of big airports, limited number of gates). Service has sure gone down, too.

If airlines can't make a good profit, they can't stay in business, long-term. And, at some point (are we there yet) safety is affected.

What I wouldn't give for a chance to fly Pan Am again! :D

Many FTers do not know that there was a time, not so long ago, when Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, were poor third countries. It's ironic that many airlines of yesterday's third world put U.S. airlines to shame when it comes to service.

Is that a glimpse into the future in general?

I don't think it's that ironic. When you have one major airline and one major air entry point like Singapore or Hong Kong with SIA and CX it's infinitely easier to upgrade your entire airport system and fleet. And Japan's slightly smaller than California in it's land area for comparison. So, when those countries made the shift they able to pour their funds into creating something efficient, that works. It's just common sense. If the US had one major airlines and one major airport, I would have to believe it would have comparable service.

That's no excuse, but it has to taken into account. It's not a coincidence that other countries with large land areas (US, Russia, China, India, etc) don't have have air facilities and services that can compare to smaller nations like Singapore.

NW MSP-SEA (1399 miles): No IFE, Snackbox food ($5), worn out old 757, indifferent F/As
SU SVO-AMS (1337 miles): No IFE, Hot breakfast, delivered by friendly FAs who still realize it's the customer who pays them, brand new A320 or A321..


Fares? About the same given the distance.. Our US Airlines products are a joke compared to other countries.

Rather, it is those who permitted the insane speculation in the oil "market" and who destabilized the mid-East for no good reason.

Unless your "speculators" (a subtribe of that ancient and hoary legend, the gnomes of Zurich) have relocated themselves to offices entirely within the US, I suspect you'll find that the big oases where speculation is king are foreign commodity exchanges, pretty safe hangouts unless you're ready to enlarge the US Marine Corps and destabilize Switzerland, London, Hong Kong, etc. A "real" look at the speculators reveals that they've less to do with price rises than more traditional causatives, such as demand and supply. Whether designer goods or WalMart stuff, both made in China or air conditioning bills for the offshore call centers in Bangalore, we're in a bidding war for POL with folks whose consumption figures are steadily up.

As for destabilizing the Middle East, all those Senators and Congresstwirps who voted to go along with, even encourage the invasion of Iraq, thought it would reduce oil prices. Talking later from the other side of the mouths hardly makes their original intent any less telling. Did we guess wrong? Mightily, and among the reasons, "Invasion on the Cheap", no plan and entirely inadequate forces - in numbers and preparation - for an occupation.

Want cheaper oil? Drill more, mostly here in US territory. As a taxpayer I'd rather buy forage for ANWR's caribou, scenic screening greenery for the West Coast Floridians and beachfronters on the Catalina Channel, and Cadillacs for US "neorich" mineral rights owners than send the cash to oil Sheiks and Venezuelan despots.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25350085/

Don’t you feel just a bit sorry for the airline industry?


Nope, supply and demand arguments aside, the airlines have done nothing to get rid of the TSA. I have no sympathy.

NW MSP-SEA (1399 miles): No IFE, Snackbox food ($5), worn out old 757, indifferent F/As
SU SVO-AMS (1337 miles): No IFE, Hot breakfast, delivered by friendly FAs who still realize it's the customer who pays them, brand new A320 or A321..


Fares? About the same given the distance.. Our US Airlines products are a joke compared to other countries.


AA MIA-LGA (1092 miles): No IFE, snacks for purchase, older 737, barely aware the FAs were on the flight after the doors closed.

SQ SIN-CGK (561 miles): IFE, warm meal with free alcoholic beverages, snazzy 777, and the usual high standard of SQ service.

SQ fares were about double that of AA - both in the heavily discounted bucket. Flyers in the US have gotten used to fares that don't reflect the true cost of what's provided.

I think it's conspiracy led by India and China. They are responsible of increases in oil prices due to higher demand for oil to fuel their growing economy. Not only that, they also contributed to higher food prices by eating better. Consequently our poor executives have no alternative but cut worker's salaries, reduce or eliminate meal service and all other amenities, cut capacity and even increase fares. Tsk Tsk. Can anyone help this struggling industry?

So tell me, how do I go about starting an airline in India :o

Many FTers do not know that there was a time, not so long ago, when Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, were poor third countries. It's ironic that many airlines of yesterday's third world put U.S. airlines to shame when it comes to service.

Is that a glimpse into the future in general?

SAS once had superior intra-Europe service. My understanding is that they've cut 'frills' like most other U.S. airlines. I see no reason to think that Asian airlines won't join the downward spiral in service on domestic routes first, and international next.

So tell me, how do I go about starting an airline in India :o

India already has some very good ones. I've experienced Kingfisher, IME the best airline ever. I've heard good things about Jet Airways.

I have read excellent trip reports about Kingfisher and would not mind trying them sometime in the future. They will be flying to San Francisco by the end of the year from what I've heard.

By the way, one of the major "selling" points of this carrier is the supposed beauty of their flight attendants who are chosen competitively. They even publish a yearly calendar which is considered the "Pirelli" of the airline industry using actual flight attendants as models.

See for yourselves:


http://www.kingfishercalendar.com/2008/

By the way, one of the major "selling" points of this carrier is the supposed beauty of their flight attendants who are chosen competitively. They even publish a yearly calendar which is considered the "Pirelli" of the airline industry using actual flight attendants as models.

See for yourselves:


http://www.kingfishercalendar.com/2008/

I saw for myself on 4 different flights. It is true.

The owner of the airline (think of an older version of Richard Branson, with slightly darker complexion) is in the start of the in-flight safety video and claims he selects every KingFisher employee. I believe him, at least when it comes to FAs.

You have go to youtube for the safety video starring actress Yana Gupta in KingFisher stewardess attire. If you are male and heterosexual (KingFisher's pax profile) she is guaranteed to get your attention during the safety briefing.

The only negative is that you can't get Kingfisher beer, or any alcohol on their flights; apparently Indian law regarding domestic flights.

India already has some very good ones. I've experienced Kingfisher, IME the best airline ever. I've heard good things about Jet Airways.

Yes.

Now try starting a business there as an American. Heck, be an Indian businessman and try flying international @:-)

I don't think it's that ironic. When you have one major airline and one major air entry point like Singapore or Hong Kong with SIA and CX it's infinitely easier to upgrade your entire airport system and fleet. And Japan's slightly smaller than California in it's land area for comparison. So, when those countries made the shift they able to pour their funds into creating something efficient, that works. It's just common sense. If the US had one major airlines and one major airport, I would have to believe it would have comparable service.

That's no excuse, but it has to taken into account. It's not a coincidence that other countries with large land areas (US, Russia, China, India, etc) don't have have air facilities and services that can compare to smaller nations like Singapore.
It does sound like an excuse. We just have allowed our once best in the world infra structure to deteriorate.

Somehow, prattling about the caliber of service or excellent image of Kingfisher rings a bit hollow, when one realizes that the average annual income of residents of the subcontinent might not be enough for a ticket to somewhere closeby...

US airlines made a major choice several decades ago, to become the principal means of leisure transportation in the US, sacrificing luxury and frills to replace Greyhound/Trailways and personal autos - the rails having already passed through and beyond the period during which they could quite artificially dominate the market. In Europe, change followed a different pattern, autos not having replaced trains in the 40s, and the "legacy" airlines challenged (at least in Western Europe) by LCCs ready to lug the unwashed and un-rich about - no more plywood Holiday Camps near Brighton for folks who can fly to Morocco cheap! Inexorably, the stature of the old Western European "Flag" carriers declines, and their international service(and EU's version of 19th century protectionism) keeps them afloat.

Meanwhile, over here in FT, "los ricos" and worse, the pompously inflated merchants and technocrats whose employers' stockholders are paying for their ill-gained and mostly undeserved privileges of flying on flat beds and drinking over-price under-qualitied vintages recognized more by label than by content, blather on about all the discomforts of being forced to wait, stand, board, eat or share any of the same space with the hoi polloi.

Were one a crafty forecaster of the future, one might project that only the despots, fleeing fugitives their carryons crammed with looted cash, and robber barons will enjoy luxury at some point in the near future, using charters to avoid the mobs. Meanwhile, just as the luxury liners seeking the Blue Riband and upscale travelers have all gone to the scrappers' yards, the pretty FAs of Asian airlines will grow old and wrinkled, reduced to cadging trade in back street bordellos, and we'll all (at least most of us) will fly in the Economy section (which will stretch from nose to tail (except where the priority of high value freight displaces pax which will be often).

I don't feel bad for the legacy airlines. They treat their customers like crap, they treat their employees like crap, they treat their suppliers like crap, they treat the communities they gobble up like crap, and I wish nothing more for them to liquidate as soon as possible so that real airlines that actually care about their customers who pay them can take over the new market.

Let them go under. All six (well five) of them. Sometimes a problem isn't fixable and you have to start with a blank slate. The quicker this is done, the better. Welcome to the free market. You either adjust or die. I'd rather they just die a quick and miserable death.

Even the airlines who've hedged will be facing the same problems when their hedges run out. They not likely to renew them at the same price they hedged at before.

If the airlines sell tickets that cover their costs+ on the day of ticket purchase and did somethings like allocate an appropriate amount of the money from the ticket sale to purchase fuel forward and/or otherwise hedge for increases in a fundamental primary component and other items that may need to be procured or paid for going forward, then what you mention wouldn't be a problem.

The airlines with issues are in a mess of their own creation -- they should have sold tickets at cost+ and planned for the future, or they should have more quickly gotten out of markets where that wasn't to be realized and just swallowed the necessary medicine instead of making faces and not taking it.

The airlines can cry a river but it doesn't win any sympathy from me when they point fingers at anyone and everyone but themselves.

I don't think it's that ironic. When you have one major airline and one major air entry point like Singapore or Hong Kong with SIA and CX it's infinitely easier to upgrade your entire airport system and fleet. And Japan's slightly smaller than California in it's land area for comparison. So, when those countries made the shift they able to pour their funds into creating something efficient, that works. It's just common sense. If the US had one major airlines and one major airport, I would have to believe it would have comparable service.

That's no excuse, but it has to taken into account. It's not a coincidence that other countries with large land areas (US, Russia, China, India, etc) don't have have air facilities and services that can compare to smaller nations like Singapore.

For a long time India, Brazil and Russia had more or less one major airline (or essentially one-owner who controlled the overwhelming majority of the international and/or domestic markets) and service declined as result. Now, India and Brazil have multiple domestic carriers and service on some of them is quite good and better than was the case when there was far greater market concentration (i.e., less competition = more monopolistic/oligopolistic marketplace).

De-regulation is nowhere near the kind of problem that poor airline management has been and continues to be in the US.

Somehow, prattling about the caliber of service or excellent image of Kingfisher rings a bit hollow, when one realizes that the average annual income of residents of the subcontinent might not be enough for a ticket to somewhere closeby..

What does average annual income have to do with airline service? I don't see anyone applauding service on Air Malawi ... and Malawi has an even lower per capita income than India. I do see people applauding service on Singapore Airlines .... and Singaporean FAs flying for SQ have more disposable income than American FAs flying for US carriers.

This issue really has far more to do with how the airline is managed than any outdated linear concept equating low labor costs (and/or average income levels) to better service.

Nope, supply and demand arguments aside, the airlines have done nothing to get rid of the TSA. I have no sympathy.

I don't feel bad for the legacy airlines. They treat their customers like crap, they treat their employees like crap, they treat their suppliers like crap, they treat the communities they gobble up like crap, and I wish nothing more for them to liquidate as soon as possible so that real airlines that actually care about their customers who pay them can take over the new market.

Let them go under. All six (well five) of them. Sometimes a problem isn't fixable and you have to start with a blank slate. The quicker this is done, the better. Welcome to the free market. You either adjust or die. I'd rather they just die a quick and miserable death.

I'm sorry to say, these posts pretty much sum up how I feel about the airline industry right now. Flying is just not as much fun as it used to be. Unfortunately, it will have to get much worse before it gets much better. :(

I've pretty much cashed out my UA miles (260,000 miles redeemed this past month; less than 5K left) and CO miles (100,000 miles redeemed, 382 left) while the getting is good. I have plans for my US and DL miles as well. Like the airlines, I want to reduce my outstanding "liabilities" as much as possible.

I feel bad for the flight attendants. Can't be an easy job to have to deal with irate passengers. The traditional benefits of reasonable work schedules and free flights are pretty much gone.

Mike

I feel bad for the flight attendants. Can't be an easy job to have to deal with irate passengers. The traditional benefits of reasonable work schedules and free flights are pretty much gone.

Mike

The consequence will be upward wage pressure .... eventually. Wouldn't be surprised to see yet more labor-related woes for the airlines too. :eek:

I know i will get flamed here for that comment but don't you realise that some of the most fundamental problems for US based carriers are homemade? The biggest one lies in your silly laws, especially the idiotic restrictions put on foreign ownership of airline voting stock. As long as you cap that at 24,9 % no foreign company will invest in any of those airlines. Yes, i understand that many americans would having a hard time swallowing an "United Luftwaffe Airline" or an "Delta France Airline" but these companies would be much healthier then the current ones. Another problem is your air traffic control system which seems to be as bad as the one in Nigeria.... The inefficiency of the US air traffic system cost additional billions each year.
Keep in mind that the USA is one of the richest countrys in the world but dosn't seem to be able to resolve their airline / air traffic problems.

Your points are well taken. The problem has been prior to the soaring cost of oil there have been newer airlines based upon lower costs, passing those savings along to paxs in the form of lower fares. Legacy airlines fearing serious erosion of market share feel forced to match fares. And eventually legacy carriers lowered their cost structure (some by the benefit of the bankruptcy court) but eventually created a product very similiar to low cost carriers (for the exception of F class, airline clubs, etc.) Possibly, legacy carriers should have foregone market share and instead worked to retain the business traveler, willing to pay more for better service and an enhanced flying experience. But then you look at AA's failed MRTC and wonder whether that was a viable strategy after all.

But the price of jet fuel has become the big neutralizer. And now all domestic airlines are in a pickle. And because of the size and density of the US much of the industry is based upon domestic flights. Airlines can only expand so much internationally to offset what has become marginally profitable or unprofitable domestic routes (more passengers on any given day want to go from NYC to Chicago than NYC to Paris) and there are only so many paxs that are going to purchase business (first) class seats on International travel. This being the crown jewel of many airlines has already gotten too crowded with competition with most all business airlines forced into liquidation or acquired by other legacy carriers.

While the problems of this industry are complex, the solutions are even more difficult. Certainly, the price of oil almost mandates this become a global business. Rational pricing needs to be reintroduced into the industry and carriers need to somehow get some basic level of service back into the mix. Whether this can be done in a free market place seems to be questionable.

Somehow, prattling about the caliber of service or excellent image of Kingfisher rings a bit hollow, when one realizes that the average annual income of residents of the subcontinent might not be enough for a ticket to somewhere closeby...

US airlines made a major choice several decades ago, to become the principal means of leisure transportation in the US, sacrificing luxury and frills to replace Greyhound/Trailways and personal autos - the rails having already passed through and beyond the period during which they could quite artificially dominate the market. In Europe, change followed a different pattern, autos not having replaced trains in the 40s, and the "legacy" airlines challenged (at least in Western Europe) by LCCs ready to lug the unwashed and un-rich about - no more plywood Holiday Camps near Brighton for folks who can fly to Morocco cheap! Inexorably, the stature of the old Western European "Flag" carriers declines, and their international service(and EU's version of 19th century protectionism) keeps them afloat.

Meanwhile, over here in FT, "los ricos" and worse, the pompously inflated merchants and technocrats whose employers' stockholders are paying for their ill-gained and mostly undeserved privileges of flying on flat beds and drinking over-price under-qualitied vintages recognized more by label than by content, blather on about all the discomforts of being forced to wait, stand, board, eat or share any of the same space with the hoi polloi.

Were one a crafty forecaster of the future, one might project that only the despots, fleeing fugitives their carryons crammed with looted cash, and robber barons will enjoy luxury at some point in the near future, using charters to avoid the mobs. Meanwhile, just as the luxury liners seeking the Blue Riband and upscale travelers have all gone to the scrappers' yards, the pretty FAs of Asian airlines will grow old and wrinkled, reduced to cadging trade in back street bordellos, and we'll all (at least most of us) will fly in the Economy section (which will stretch from nose to tail (except where the priority of high value freight displaces pax which will be often).
Is an airline some how supposed to uplift the income of the masses? Is KingFisher, some how responsible for the fact that the an average resident of the subcontinent can not afford to buy a plane ticket?
If income were some how a factor, why aren't all airlines of high income able to provide god service? Singapore Airline has been providing good service while average income of Singapore's residents grew from third world to first world levels!
Low on facts and logic. In 40's and even in mid 50's trains were still a viable mode of long distance travel in the U.S. High on yawn.

Want cheaper oil? Drill more, mostly here in US territory. As a taxpayer I'd rather buy forage for ANWR's caribou, scenic screening greenery for the West Coast Floridians and beachfronters on the Catalina Channel, and Cadillacs for US "neorich" mineral rights owners than send the cash to oil Sheiks and Venezuelan despots.

ANWR contains about 3 months worth of US oil use... Might get a few people Cadillacs but not going to make much dent in oil prices.

Want cheaper oil? Increase MPG requirements to 100mpg, even for light trucks.

If the airlines sell tickets that cover their costs+ on the day of ticket purchase and did somethings like allocate an appropriate amount of the money from the ticket sale to purchase fuel forward and/or otherwise hedge for increases in a fundamental primary component and other items that may need to be procured or paid for going forward, then what you mention wouldn't be a problem.

The airlines with issues are in a mess of their own creation -- they should have sold tickets at cost+ and planned for the future, or they should have more quickly gotten out of markets where that wasn't to be realized and just swallowed the necessary medicine instead of making faces and not taking it.

The airlines can cry a river but it doesn't win any sympathy from me when they point fingers at anyone and everyone but themselves.

^Agreed. But that doesn't happen when those who run the airline refuse to look beyond the self imposed horizons defined by considerations other than financial health of their airline.

Or the financial health of the "talent". That is first and foremost of the legacies. The consumer and the labor are not even in the picture anymore. Pilots at AA saved 1mill last year on fuel costs. Why? AA still screams losing money, yet execs still cash in? Because they negotiated their bonuses? And employees get nothing in return for their help/sacrifices. This is why you may see labor strife.

ANWR contains about 3 months worth of US oil use... Might get a few people Cadillacs but not going to make much dent in oil prices.

If you really believe that hogwash (and I suspect you do because it fits with your skewed perspective), then there's this bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale, today only, cheap. In reality, we have no idea how much oil and gas are in ANWR coastal and offshore zones. We've not drilled to find out,....just as we have banned drilling in the Eastern Gulf and off the Atlantic and Pacific Coast. The "3 month" tale belongs to the same "Bag'o Tricks" as the "10 years to realize substantial production from opening new offshore drilling", candy-coated outright fabrications to fit the views of those unwilling to face glaring reality.....that we're a long way from workable alternatives (in any practical, substantial quantities) to fossil fuels and need all we can produce to hope to ever get there (and to be able to pay the bill for the development of alternative energy sources). Meanwhile, there's all the clamor to slow/stop the generation of electricity with coal, a Barnumesque scheme. After all, the folks who "own" the coal could eventually sell it to the Chinese to make steel or generate electricity, eventually leaving us more than unable to pay for electricity to charge our minicar batteries, hydrogen to fill our "fuel cells" or maintenance for wind generators (or for such modest obligations as MEDICARE, MEDICAID, Social Security, or groceries for that matter).

Having lived most of my life with offshore rigs and platforms in view of the beaches on which we swam and recreated, and with rigs and "Christmas Trees" commonplace on the landscape around me, I simply don't get my knickers in a twist with the idea of drilling. And the smooth-tongued conmen and snake oil peddlers telling you that ANWR only has a 3 month supply of oil know not of what they speak, simply shills for goals unreachable without outright lies to the public. Right now, I'm waiting for a driller to buy/lease/rent a rig to punch a 15,000' - 18,000 deep hole on the edge of East Texas to find (a) a whole lot, (b) just some, or (c) not even a modest belch of natural gas. My associates and I have risked the value of the mineral rights under 532 acres of second growth timber and scrub, the driller will be shooting dice to the tune of $5,000,000 or so for a deep well, and the odds of a big payoff are substantially worse than "subprime lending".

On the other hand, if a well "hits", the Cadillac dealers will line up in front of my modest driveway to inveigle me into buying their excess supply, pretty high this week. A few months of $140 oil has begun to have inevitable inflationary push on the price of natural gas, and come Winter, it may not be the gas pump prices that scare you, but the ticking of your gas meter at home (or your electric bill, if your supplier uses/buys power generated by NG).

Personally, I hope our well gets drilled sooner than later, and "hits", and that you have a really big house, use lots of heat, thus taking part in increasing my net worth and the taxes I pay. Prices go high enough, and it won't be ANWR you're worried about, but whether you can smooth talk some wildcatter into drilling in your backyard.

If you really believe that hogwash (and I suspect you do because it fits with your skewed perspective), then there's this bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale, today only, cheap. In reality, we have no idea how much oil and gas are in ANWR coastal and offshore zones. We've not drilled to find out,....just as we have banned drilling in the Eastern Gulf and off the Atlantic and Pacific Coast. The "3 month" tale belongs to the same "Bag'o Tricks" as the "10 years to realize substantial production from opening new offshore drilling", candy-coated outright fabrications to fit the views of those unwilling to face glaring reality.....that we're a long way from workable alternatives (in any practical, substantial quantities) to fossil fuels and need all we can produce to hope to ever get there (and to be able to pay the bill for the development of alternative energy sources). Meanwhile, there's all the clamor to slow/stop the generation of electricity with coal, a Barnumesque scheme. After all, the folks who "own" the coal could eventually sell it to the Chinese to make steel or generate electricity, eventually leaving us more than unable to pay for electricity to charge our minicar batteries, hydrogen to fill our "fuel cells" or maintenance for wind generators (or for such modest obligations as MEDICARE, MEDICAID, Social Security, or groceries for that matter).

Having lived most of my life with offshore rigs and platforms in view of the beaches on which we swam and recreated, and with rigs and "Christmas Trees" commonplace on the landscape around me, I simply don't get my knickers in a twist with the idea of drilling. And the smooth-tongued conmen and snake oil peddlers telling you that ANWR only has a 3 month supply of oil know not of what they speak, simply shills for goals unreachable without outright lies to the public. Right now, I'm waiting for a driller to buy/lease/rent a rig to punch a 15,000' - 18,000 deep hole on the edge of East Texas to find (a) a whole lot, (b) just some, or (c) not even a modest belch of natural gas. My associates and I have risked the value of the mineral rights under 532 acres of second growth timber and scrub, the driller will be shooting dice to the tune of $5,000,000 or so for a deep well, and the odds of a big payoff are substantially worse than "subprime lending".

On the other hand, if a well "hits", the Cadillac dealers will line up in front of my modest driveway to inveigle me into buying their excess supply, pretty high this week. A few months of $140 oil has begun to have inevitable inflationary push on the price of natural gas, and come Winter, it may not be the gas pump prices that scare you, but the ticking of your gas meter at home (or your electric bill, if your supplier uses/buys power generated by NG).

Personally, I hope our well gets drilled sooner than later, and "hits", and that you have a really big house, use lots of heat, thus taking part in increasing my net worth and the taxes I pay. Prices go high enough, and it won't be ANWR you're worried about, but whether you can smooth talk some wildcatter into drilling in your backyard.
First of all, good luck on your endeavour.
Firstly, Brooklyn Bridge is not up for sale. I hope you knew that. ;)

Secondly, what does your entrepreneurship have to do with the original topic or the post to which you responded?

How many Cadillacs will you buy? One for each day of thne weak? One of each colour? We have a budding Richard Branson in the making. Soon you will be hobnobbing with Mallya threatening to start a BLR-IAH, or will it be BLR-DFW?^

If you really believe that hogwash (and I suspect you do because it fits with your skewed perspective), then there's this bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale, today only, cheap. In reality, we have no idea how much oil and gas are in ANWR coastal and offshore zones. We've not drilled to find out,....just as we have banned drilling in the Eastern Gulf and off the Atlantic and Pacific Coast. The "3 month" tale belongs to the same "Bag'o Tricks" as the "10 years to realize substantial production from opening new offshore drilling", candy-coated outright fabrications to fit the views of those unwilling to face glaring reality.....that we're a long way from workable alternatives (in any practical, substantial quantities) to fossil fuels and need all we can produce to hope to ever get there (and to be able to pay the bill for the development of alternative energy sources). Meanwhile, there's all the clamor to slow/stop the generation of electricity with coal, a Barnumesque scheme. After all, the folks who "own" the coal could eventually sell it to the Chinese to make steel or generate electricity, eventually leaving us more than unable to pay for electricity to charge our minicar batteries, hydrogen to fill our "fuel cells" or maintenance for wind generators (or for such modest obligations as MEDICARE, MEDICAID, Social Security, or groceries for that matter).

Having lived most of my life with offshore rigs and platforms in view of the beaches on which we swam and recreated, and with rigs and "Christmas Trees" commonplace on the landscape around me, I simply don't get my knickers in a twist with the idea of drilling. And the smooth-tongued conmen and snake oil peddlers telling you that ANWR only has a 3 month supply of oil know not of what they speak, simply shills for goals unreachable without outright lies to the public. Right now, I'm waiting for a driller to buy/lease/rent a rig to punch a 15,000' - 18,000 deep hole on the edge of East Texas to find (a) a whole lot, (b) just some, or (c) not even a modest belch of natural gas. My associates and I have risked the value of the mineral rights under 532 acres of second growth timber and scrub, the driller will be shooting dice to the tune of $5,000,000 or so for a deep well, and the odds of a big payoff are substantially worse than "subprime lending".

On the other hand, if a well "hits", the Cadillac dealers will line up in front of my modest driveway to inveigle me into buying their excess supply, pretty high this week. A few months of $140 oil has begun to have inevitable inflationary push on the price of natural gas, and come Winter, it may not be the gas pump prices that scare you, but the ticking of your gas meter at home (or your electric bill, if your supplier uses/buys power generated by NG).

Personally, I hope our well gets drilled sooner than later, and "hits", and that you have a really big house, use lots of heat, thus taking part in increasing my net worth and the taxes I pay. Prices go high enough, and it won't be ANWR you're worried about, but whether you can smooth talk some wildcatter into drilling in your backyard.

OK, so 4 months. The United States Energy Information Administration, who estimate a low and high total resource production from ANWR of between 1.9 billion and 4.3 billion barrels, with a mean of 2.6 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/results.html). The same US government organisation says in 2007 the US consumed roughly 20.7 million barrels a day (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm).

Assuming the mean, that represents 125 days, or just over 4 months of US consumption. Even using the high resource case, 207 days or around 7 months.

Keep your bridge.