porciuscato

No. The government blocking both foreign and domestic competition and failing to enforce existing antitrust statutes in the airline industry is what caused it.

porciuscato

This should help clear the fog:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/20...rican-aviation

The bottom line is that Govt. legislation prevents 1) Foreign competition 2) Foreign ownership of U.S. airlines 3) The ability of US citizens to sue airlines for contract breaches. Local govts like San Francisco's have compounded the problem by allowing politically preferred airlines to monopolize gates and landing slots. As a result, US airlines provide passengers with the worst value proposition in the world (with FF programs being part of that proposition).

Remember how crappy American cars used to be back in the 70s? When foreign competition was allowed in, the US mfgrs really upped their game. Now you can buy some really great American cars. Let's get that dynamic working on the airline industry.

spin88

I roughly agree with this except, (3) you can sue an airline for breach of their contract of carrage, but you can't sue for fraud or under state consumer protection laws. This makes the right to sue basically worthless. Thank Wolins for that. The airlines were the first example of an industry insulated from fraud liablity, now (courtesty of the Supreme Court's arbitration jurisprudence) cell phone, banks, credit card companies, and more and more employers are exempt from suit effectively, and free to rip off people.

I don't know any major city - and certainly not SF - which has favored the main carrier. SFO actually has done all it can to free up gates for competitive airlines. Dallas has repeatedly tried to free up gates at DAL is another e.g. Houston with adding space at Hobby has also upset UA greatly.

nerdbirdsjc

Ever fly much on foreign carriers on itineraries wholly outside North America? Inflight experiences aside, the cost, fare restrictions, and FFP elements of the value proposition are often far weaker for the consumer than we're accustomed to in Amurrica. For example:

1. With few exceptions, same-day flight changes at no/low cost do not exist -- except for expensive unrestricted tickets;

2. Complimentary elite upgrades are severely limited to nonexistent (except giving elites priority treatment during cabin oversales);

3. Ticket rerouting/rebooking restrictions tend to be far more onerous, and customers often get nickled and dimed to death with agent service fees on top of change fees;

4. Mileage earning and status qualification is often comparatively more difficult; and

5. Forget about a flat tire rule if you happen to arrive late to the airport.

I'll take the paradigm US -based customers enjoy over the "rest of the world" every day of the week.

porciuscato

All the time. Do you know how easy it is to get and renew SA Gold status on Aegean? Once you get it, you get a lot of the benefits you describe here -- including much more frequent upgrades than you would ever get with that status on United.

I'm flying RT from IST to NAV next month on Turkish, whose service is X times better than United (where X is an arbitrarily large integer). The price: $45. A similar flight (say MFR to SFO) on pathetic United with its surly flight attendants and filthy cabins runs about $400.

With the $300+ difference I guess I can handle a cancellation or change fee. Hell I can rebook from scratch 9 times (!) and I would still be better off than I would be on United. Give me a break.

It's not just Turkey. Take a look at Air Asia. Again, the fares are so much lower, you can just discard a ticket you want to change and you'll still be way better off than on United. Plus, you get nice service from FAs who take pride in what they're doing.

HNLbasedFlyer

Many of us like that Foreign Carriers aren't flying domestically within the United States (as other countries don't let US airlines fly domestic routes). I like that foreign ownership of US airlines (a controlling interest) is not allowed. And quite frankly, allowing consumers to sue for every delay, cancellation, irrops, etc - doesn't seem to be in the best interest of US consumers.

The size and scope in the airline industry is unmatched in the US compared to the rest of the world. That may change someday with China, who in second place, and fly half the passengers as the US does.

porciuscato

Yeah that perfidious Richard Branson. Threatening us with his nefarious insistence on customer satisfaction, top-notch service and unexcelled quality. It's Un-American. Or should I say "un-United." Need to keep scum like that out.

wanderingkev

I am with you on this, there are several (not all) regions of the world where this applies

wanderingkev

Any politics aside, I am curious why would it concern you if you had more options with a better product and service?

GeauxTigersGeaux

Agreed; IST, ANA, LH, AC are all options that are preferable flying out of IAH, nearly always for cheaper with better service. However, corporate purchasing rules and convenience create inflexible demand, which keeps prices high. My M-I-L would not have my F-I-L drive 3 hours to Dallas or 90 minutes to Austin to save $1k per business class seat to Europe.

dilanesp

I understand both the political reasons for cabotage rules and the argument (which can be argued both ways) about extending non-reciprocal trade benefits. Those are really outside the scope of this forum.

But as an airline consumer, there's no doubt that the cabotage rules harm consumers. Because foreign countries who subsidize their airlines clearly benefit the customers of those airlines, by allowing them to offer a higher level of service and to fly on routes that would otherwise be unprofitable. (Indeed, EAS subsidies help a lot of Americans in smaller cities in much the same way.)

The same way that, for instance, American consumers got better cars because we allowed Japan to compete with American auto makers even when Japan kept its markets closed in the 1970's. Without that, the economy car market would have been dominated by Pintos and Chevettes, which were really substandard.

HNLbasedFlyer

Probably not a good example as we shouldn't exactly let go of the fact it has been years since they've made an annual profit - so whatever Sir Richard has been doing, it hasn't exactly been working financially in the strongest worldwide economy in decades.

porciuscato

As a passenger, I choose airlines based on the service they provide to me, not how much profit they make. And even though profits are irrelevant to me as a passenger, I would note that Amazon was unprofitable for 14 years. Innovation and superior service tend to prevail in the long run.

So why again should we cosset and protect airlines like United, which provide execrable service, whilst blocking airlines like Virgin that provide superior service?

LC757

Because some people have spent a lot of money on an airline and they need to rationalize their decisions, and the circumstances that led to those decisions.

HNLbasedFlyer

36 years for Virgin. I’m sure they’ll figure out how to make a profit someday. Sounds long-term to me.

I don’t care if Virgin flies in the US domestic market as long as US airlines are allowed the same courtesy in Europe