airforcevet123

Would be interesting to hear pros and cons viewpoints regarding Government Re-Regulation of the Airline industry.

I remember back in the 50(s) and the early 60(s) when all airlines had just three classes of airfares, First, Coach and Military-Government.

All airlines competed to provide the best possible service.

I would love to see Government re-regulation and then we can see Airline service back to the way it used to be.

FreFly

This would be too much regulation, and will lead to higher prices or poor availability of popular routes during popular times.

oly_flyer

so instead of letting companies compete, you want the government to fix things.....just like everything else the government touches (post office, medicare, the bail out!!). I'd rather see bad companies fail, then kept afloat by the government = you and me

Ocn Vw 1K

Please visit this thread in its new home, TravelBuzz. (I'll re-title the thread slightly and, just for clean-up purposes, delete the most apt member suggestions that this thread be moved.) Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, United and TravelBuzz forums.

shiv666

north america can do with an overhaul...the problem here is airlines are victims of the unions... the unions guarantee that employees get raises without any effort and that they cant get fired easily for doing a .... job with the customer service, they can give bad customer service because they are protected, if an emirates or singapore employee was that bad with customer service and a pax complained, they would actually get into trouble and there ...... service would come back to them... allot of foreign airlines put us to shame because they run in countries with laws that better suit airlines...

allot of asian airlines hire cabin crew via contract...and most fas in asia are only fas for a few years, there being an fa is considered a temporary job before moving on to bigger things, in north america its treated as a career.

its funny how domestic flights in the us on any carrier are about the same regardless of price...here delta, united, northwest or continental are pretty much the same as a budget domestic carrier like southwest or jetblue, no free meals or booze, nothing to show for the extra money you payed. the only time you get a free meal is on trans atlantic and pacific routes... in europe and asia you can actually notice the difference between full cost vs a budget airlines...

another thing thats not helping aviation in the us is all the bailouts...i dont get why the govt even bothered... in any other industry if a company goes under, the competition will pick up the slack and the employees will get new jobs with the rivals, all the customers will also start spending with the new co...

the us however thinks its a better idea to use taxpayer money to bailout companies that essentially failed...why should we bail out the airlines if they did a bad job and lost money? if your friend opens a restaurant and its not doing so well does the government swoop in and save you? no! so why should airlines be anny different?...let the .... ones get taken over by the successfull ones... i thought business was about survival of the fittest...

You want to go where?

The problem with U.S. airlines is neither specifically because of unions or the legal framework in which U.S. airlines operate. There are airlines without unions in the U.S. There are good (at least better than U.S.) airlines in Europe with unions. The problem is more complex than you suggest, although I agree that for some airlines, the unions aren't helping the situation.

Trying to link poor U.S. airlines to the 'bailouts' that are being given to some U.S. banks, AIG, and the auto industry doesn't make sense to me. U.S. airlines have had problems for years, long before the current financial crisis.

I would leave the rest of your discussion on bailouts for OMNI, it doesn't really fit here.

tjl

Couldn't you just buy first class tickets to get the service that you want, at prices approximating the regulated days (adjusted for inflation)?

EricH

Excellent point, except that current first class fares are probably lower than inflation-adjusted coach fares from the "good old days."

LoneStarMike

Speaking of fares from the good old days, I was looking at an October 27, 1974 Braniff Timetable, which listed the fares in each market (both F and Y)

Examples for markets ex-DFW:

DFW-BOS - Y $126 F $164
DFW-ORD - Y $73 F $95
DFW-DEN - Y $64 F $83
DFW-DTW - Y $88 F $114
DFW-IAH - Y $30 F $39
DFW-MCI - Y $47 F $61
DFW-MIA - Y $95 F $125
DFW-MSP - Y $77 F $104
DFW-BNA - Y $60 F $79
DFW-MSY - Y $48 F $59
DFW-NYC - Y $113 F $148
DFW-MCO - Y $82 F $106
DFW-PHL - Y $108 F $140
DFW-PIT - Y $92 F $120
DFW-PDX - Y $130 F $175

I noticed that F was generally about 30% higher than Y when fares were regulated.

What's the fare differential between Y and F today?

And what should it be?

Unimatrix One

No, because even when you buy first class tickets the service sucks. Flights are late, planes are dirty, FAs are surly, luggage gets lost or stolen, and airport security is terrible. First class doesn't fix any of these things.

Unimatrix One

Let's list some of the disadvantages of deregulation:

Service is worse
Delays are up
Lost/stolen luggage is up
Small communities have lost service
Employees have lost wages or lost their jobs entirely (some have been through multiple bankruptcies)
Investors in airlines have collectively lost money in the years since deregulation
Non-refundable fares (and various other byzantine rules) are ubiquitous, even for very high-priced tickets
Regional jets on former mainline routes

The only benefit I see to deregulation is that certain segments of the flying public now have lower fares. Other segments (people who live in monopoly markets) now either pay very high fares (which are usually non-refundable) or (in small cities) have no or drastically reduced air service. There is also the segment of people (business travelers or people like me) who are willing to pay for better service but cannot get it because even in first class you can't escape delays, dirty planes, grumpy FAs, lost luggage, and TSA.

So other than certain segments of the traveling public who benefit from lower fares, pretty much everyone (including employees and investors) has gotten screwed.

I live in Japan, where the market is much more restricted and controlled than the US. Obviously service is FAR better than in the US. But are fares so high? Consider that a one-way first class ticket from Tokyo to Osaka (on a 777, with 50 inches of pitch, an extensive menu of food, and airport lounge access) costs between $250 and $300. On AA last year the only refundable coach fare from Chicago to Peoria (much shorter distance) was almost $800 (one way) on a crappy regional jet.

I would never, ever trade the Japanese air travel system for the US one.

LoneStarMike

Well, as you point out, deregulation initially brought lower fares, which enabled many more people to fly. Had deregulation (and lower fares) not occurred, many of the employees who have lost wages (or their jobs entirely) might not have ever been hired to begin with.

tjl

Unfortunately for you, the "certain segments of the traveling public" who benefit from lowered airfares greatly outnumber those with sufficient money (or generous companies) to pay for things "the old way". Also, as pointed out before, the employees losing pay or jobs now in the airline industry may never have had those jobs to begin with under a high fare, fewer passenger industry, since the jobs would not have existed due to fewer jobs being needed to service fewer passengers.

Also, greater ability for people to afford flying helps the tourism industries in many places.

Osaka is a small town comparable to Peoria?

But for your example trips, why fly when you can:

a. Take the train from Tokyo to Osaka in 2:38 for about 14,100 yen ($143).
b. Take the bus from Chicago to Peoria in 3:40 for about $35.

?

inyourvillages

xxxxx

ksandness

It is unfortunate that no U.S. airline decided to maintain high levels of service after deregulation. They all joined the race to the bottom, so that even a first-class domestic upgrade means little more than a bigger seat and free booze, not even any food.

When I was pricing tickets to Europe a couple of years ago, I noticed that on U.S. airlines, advance purchase Y was about $1200, but C was $5000 or more and F was $12000 or more. I took Y, but walking through the cabins on my way out after landing, I saw nothing worth the $10,800 price difference for F or even the $3800 (about what I spent IN Europe for land arrangements) for C.

I wish U.S. airlines would offer a premium economy option like the one that European and Asian airlines offer. I have no plans for trans-oceanic travel till 2010, but I'm going to look into flying across the ocean in comfort in a foreign airline's premium economy for about $2000.