I thought the Travel Bloggers were on our side? Fees and Politics
May 27, 2013, 2:07 am
#46
Moderator: Lufthansa Miles & More, India based airlines, India, External Miles & Points Resources
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MUC
Programs: LH SEN
Posts: 48,171
The fact that an oligopoly like the US airline industry is unable to make money and dependent on the govt looking away and a number of very large ch11 BKs in the past 10-15 years is a strong indicator of competition in favor of the consumer?
May 27, 2013, 8:06 am
#47
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 167
There are plenty of other cola options (store brands, various ethnic brands, and so on). Besides, the cola market is part of the larger beverage market, which has much more competition.
The airline industry is far less dominated by a small group of players than the cola industry.
And the airline market is also part of the larger travel market
What air route in the country has 10 options?
Doing a search on Kayak for NYC to Chicago, I see options for Airtran, AA, DL, Frontier, Sun Country, Jetblue, Spirit, United, US Airways, and mixed carriers
Doing the same for Orlando and Seattle, I see options for 9 airlines + "mixed carriers"
Choose international routes, and you have even more choices
May 27, 2013, 3:26 pm
#48
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
And there are plenty of other airline companies. Jetblue, Alaska, Frontier, dozens of foreign carriers....
The airline industry is far less dominated by a small group of players than the cola industry.
And the airline market is also part of the larger travel market
The airline industry is far less dominated by a small group of players than the cola industry.
And the airline market is also part of the larger travel market
Also, I think demand for cola is more elastic than for air travel. If the oligopoly raised the prices, or started mistreating their customers, they would stop drinking cola and switch to something else. Barriers to market entry are reasonably low, so another company could easily step up to the plate and fill the demand as well. Coca Cola and Pepsi are aware of this. But with the airlines, demand is relatively inelastic and people have no choice but to put up with whatever the airlines do. Therefore, there is a stronger case for regulation.
If you're willing to take connecting flights (are consumers now entitled to direct flights by the government too?), you can use almost any airline in the US to connect between 2 reasonably sized US airports
Doing a search on Kayak for NYC to Chicago, I see options for Airtran, AA, DL, Frontier, Sun Country, Jetblue, Spirit, United, US Airways, and mixed carriers
Doing the same for Orlando and Seattle, I see options for 9 airlines + "mixed carriers"
Doing a search on Kayak for NYC to Chicago, I see options for Airtran, AA, DL, Frontier, Sun Country, Jetblue, Spirit, United, US Airways, and mixed carriers
Doing the same for Orlando and Seattle, I see options for 9 airlines + "mixed carriers"
May 27, 2013, 8:20 pm
#49
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 167
You didn't choose random "reasonably sized" airports, you choose some of the largest airports in the nation, which are large distances from each other. How about mid-size and small airports (which are the overwhelming majority)? For example, my last few flights have all been within California or to neighboring states. I would be lucky if I had even 2 airlines to choose from.
BUF to JAX - 7 choices + "multiple carriers"
MKE to SAT - 6 choices + "multiple carriers"
And of those, Milwaukee is the busiest at #35 in the country
I'm willing to bet almost any city pair among the top 64 airports in the country (any airport in the country that accounts for at least 0.25% of total passenger enplanements) that can't be serviced through other means of transportation, you can find at least 5 choices to get between the 2 of them
May 27, 2013, 10:42 pm
#50
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,393
So are you still a blogger or not? Honest question. You post on FT as FTG, but then say that IB bought FTG and that you have very little to do with it anymore.
May 28, 2013, 5:06 am
#51
formerly known as Frugal Travel Guy
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Greenville, SC
Programs: UA Gold, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Silver, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 1,925
Good question
Q: "Am I a blogger or not?"
A: "My answer above are the facts. I feel like one foot in and one foot out, but still a travel hacker at heart"
May 28, 2013, 6:30 am
#52
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
And there are plenty of other airline companies. Jetblue, Alaska, Frontier, dozens of foreign carriers....
The airline industry is far less dominated by a small group of players than the cola industry.
And the airline market is also part of the larger travel market
If you're willing to take connecting flights (are consumers now entitled to direct flights by the government too?), you can use almost any airline in the US to connect between 2 reasonably sized US airports
Doing a search on Kayak for NYC to Chicago, I see options for Airtran, AA, DL, Frontier, Sun Country, Jetblue, Spirit, United, US Airways, and mixed carriers
Doing the same for Orlando and Seattle, I see options for 9 airlines + "mixed carriers"
Choose international routes, and you have even more choices
The airline industry is far less dominated by a small group of players than the cola industry.
And the airline market is also part of the larger travel market
If you're willing to take connecting flights (are consumers now entitled to direct flights by the government too?), you can use almost any airline in the US to connect between 2 reasonably sized US airports
Doing a search on Kayak for NYC to Chicago, I see options for Airtran, AA, DL, Frontier, Sun Country, Jetblue, Spirit, United, US Airways, and mixed carriers
Doing the same for Orlando and Seattle, I see options for 9 airlines + "mixed carriers"
Choose international routes, and you have even more choices
I am not pining for total re-regulation of airline operations...yet. But if the FTC is going to keep approving these airline mega-mergers (and let's be perfectly clear: consumers NEVER win from mega-mergers) I do believe that the federal government owes consumers the obligation to play a powerful role in keeping an eye on the airline oligopoly and investigating anti-consumer practices. And if the oligopoly gets out of line, I hope the feds DO put more consumer protections in place against their anti-competitive, anti-consumer tendencies.
But your analogy to colas is flawed. No one NEEDS cola. Perhaps air travel is not a public good (I could argue either way, really), but it is pretty darn close. Close enough to warrant heavy regulatory oversight in any case.
Further, colas do not depend on government right of ways and taxpayer funded infrastructure (both physical like airports and services like ATC). Without the federal government, the airline industry would not exist.
That's why I think it's dumb to be telling Congress to butt out of the airline industry. It's a bit like folks who carry signs that read:
May 28, 2013, 7:04 am
#53
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 167
AA is in chapter 11
Either they would've needed to cut their costs by severely curtailing union benefits, or they'll have no choice but to fold
The latter would be worse for consumers than not merging at all, the former will never be allowed to happen on Obama's watch
May 28, 2013, 9:21 am
#54
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
What choice does the FTC have?
AA is in chapter 11
Either they would've needed to cut their costs by severely curtailing union benefits, or they'll have no choice but to fold
The latter would be worse for consumers than not merging at all, the former will never be allowed to happen on Obama's watch
AA is in chapter 11
Either they would've needed to cut their costs by severely curtailing union benefits, or they'll have no choice but to fold
The latter would be worse for consumers than not merging at all, the former will never be allowed to happen on Obama's watch
Because what they are doing now is 1) kicking the can down the road by allowing airlines to temporarily salve (as opposed to solve) their poor business decisions via mega merger, and 2) further reducing competition in a market that already has very little competition.
If AA had gone chapter 7 that might have actually been a terrific natural market correction. It could have allowed several smaller or even new players to acquire those assets and either grow or enter the market and drive competition rather than reducing it.
So yeah, the FTC should deny the AA/US merger, imho.
May 28, 2013, 9:45 am
#55
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 167
What choice do they have? Acknowledge that an oligopoly exists in the airline industry and deny further mega-mergers. Force the airlines to stand on their own without having to eat each other to do it.
Because what they are doing now is 1) kicking the can down the road by allowing airlines to temporarily salve (as opposed to solve) their poor business decisions via mega merger, and 2) further reducing competition in a market that already has very little competition.
If AA had gone chapter 7 that might have actually been a terrific natural market correction. It could have allowed several smaller or even new players to acquire those assets and either grow or enter the market and drive competition rather than reducing it.
So yeah, the FTC should deny the AA/US merger, imho.
Because what they are doing now is 1) kicking the can down the road by allowing airlines to temporarily salve (as opposed to solve) their poor business decisions via mega merger, and 2) further reducing competition in a market that already has very little competition.
If AA had gone chapter 7 that might have actually been a terrific natural market correction. It could have allowed several smaller or even new players to acquire those assets and either grow or enter the market and drive competition rather than reducing it.
So yeah, the FTC should deny the AA/US merger, imho.
Because the only way AA will be able to stand on it's feet is by taking it to the union, so that they can compete with other airlines on labor costs
And that's not happening under Obama and the current NLRB
crony capitalism rears it's ugly head in many ways
May 28, 2013, 5:23 pm
#56
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
PIT to IND - 6 choices + "multiple carriers"
BUF to JAX - 7 choices + "multiple carriers"
MKE to SAT - 6 choices + "multiple carriers"
And of those, Milwaukee is the busiest at #35 in the country
I'm willing to bet almost any city pair among the top 64 airports in the country (any airport in the country that accounts for at least 0.25% of total passenger enplanements) that can't be serviced through other means of transportation, you can find at least 5 choices to get between the 2 of them
BUF to JAX - 7 choices + "multiple carriers"
MKE to SAT - 6 choices + "multiple carriers"
And of those, Milwaukee is the busiest at #35 in the country
I'm willing to bet almost any city pair among the top 64 airports in the country (any airport in the country that accounts for at least 0.25% of total passenger enplanements) that can't be serviced through other means of transportation, you can find at least 5 choices to get between the 2 of them
May 28, 2013, 5:25 pm
#57
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,580
That's nice, but it's never going to happen
Because the only way AA will be able to stand on it's feet is by taking it to the union, so that they can compete with other airlines on labor costs
And that's not happening under Obama and the current NLRB
crony capitalism rears it's ugly head in many ways
Because the only way AA will be able to stand on it's feet is by taking it to the union, so that they can compete with other airlines on labor costs
And that's not happening under Obama and the current NLRB
crony capitalism rears it's ugly head in many ways
I don't see what Obama and the NLRB have to do with it, other than Obama perhaps manipulating the FTC.
May 28, 2013, 8:10 pm
#58
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 167
It's not really an exclusively Obama thing.... all politicians from both sides engage in this sort of crony capitalism. It just so happens that this specific case involves Obama's special interest groups
Jun 8, 2013, 12:56 pm
#59
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
It is amazing to me how many 'Libertarians' can find excuses to give in to Big Brother when it makes their lives a little better.
Oct 27, 2013, 6:40 pm
#60
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
Another anti-government-trying-to-protect-consumers rant that I let myself get sucked into:
http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthew...s-3-hour-rule/
Predictably, his readers disagree in the comments.
As one commenter points out, something tells me that if VFTW was on one of those 'only' 13 planes stuck on the tarmac for over 3 hours by Smisek and crew, the post would read very, very differently.
More to the point, though, it's bizarre that a points and travel blogger would take the airlines side against the government after the airline had tortured passengers. As I say in the comments:
Is VFTW putting his dogma over his customers/readers (again)?
http://boardingarea.com/viewfromthew...s-3-hour-rule/
Regular readers of this blog know that I’m no United Airlines apologist. But the story underscores just how silly fining United is for circumstances outside of its control, where it’s likely doing the very best for its passengers under very difficult circumstances.
It was a day of terrible thunderstorms. Lightning and poor visibility limited aircraft movements. In some sense, United was fined for a force majeur event.
The Department of Transportation holds airlines responsible for overcoming such circumstances. They fault United for not implementing their delay mitigation plan, for which Wandering Aramean characterizes United as “admitting” whereas I’d point out not an admission of fault but making the point that even a delay mitigation plan wouldn’t have helped under the circumstances.
...
United successfully deplaned 1156 flights that day without triggering the 3 hour rule. They cancelled 121 flights rather than risk exceeding the three hour rule. On the whole they acted well, with only 13 flights exceeding a 3-hour delay.
Of those 13 flights, four exceeded three hours by less than 10 minutes. Not a single flight exceeded three hours by 90 minutes.
And all of this despite the severe weather coming as a surprise — forecasts had been for only a 30% chance of rain. That hardly seems deserving of fines.
It was a day of terrible thunderstorms. Lightning and poor visibility limited aircraft movements. In some sense, United was fined for a force majeur event.
The Department of Transportation holds airlines responsible for overcoming such circumstances. They fault United for not implementing their delay mitigation plan, for which Wandering Aramean characterizes United as “admitting” whereas I’d point out not an admission of fault but making the point that even a delay mitigation plan wouldn’t have helped under the circumstances.
...
United successfully deplaned 1156 flights that day without triggering the 3 hour rule. They cancelled 121 flights rather than risk exceeding the three hour rule. On the whole they acted well, with only 13 flights exceeding a 3-hour delay.
Of those 13 flights, four exceeded three hours by less than 10 minutes. Not a single flight exceeded three hours by 90 minutes.
And all of this despite the severe weather coming as a surprise — forecasts had been for only a 30% chance of rain. That hardly seems deserving of fines.
As one commenter points out, something tells me that if VFTW was on one of those 'only' 13 planes stuck on the tarmac for over 3 hours by Smisek and crew, the post would read very, very differently.
More to the point, though, it's bizarre that a points and travel blogger would take the airlines side against the government after the airline had tortured passengers. As I say in the comments:
It’s one thing to be trapped on a plane in international FC wearing airline jammys. It’s quite another to be trapped on a CRJ for hours on end.
I don’t like the fines because they are just passed along to the customers.
I would prefer that management be forced to sit on a cramped CRJ going nowhere for every second that they force their customers to sit on a plane past the 3-hour limit.
But either way, government has a proper and very positive role to play in this matter.
I don’t like the fines because they are just passed along to the customers.
I would prefer that management be forced to sit on a cramped CRJ going nowhere for every second that they force their customers to sit on a plane past the 3-hour limit.
But either way, government has a proper and very positive role to play in this matter.