- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Re-regulation talk on the hill
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
So when is the hearing on what Congress can do to allow airlines to make money? Cause it sure seems like they shouldn't be allowed.
So where are all the fans of deregulation now? The Republicans were the main supporters of deregulation and now they are admitting that it comes at a price to smaller commumnities. Well isnt that what opponents have said all along?
The government is already doing a lot to make sure the airlines make money, from legal accounting tricks, tax breaks,PEBs, bankruptcy laws and court injunctions that fly in the face of the law the government has worked hand in hand to screw over airline workers for the last twenty years.
Why are they concerned about consolidation? Lack of competition? PLease, get real, these airline just put on a show as far as competing. The fact is that flying is usually cheaper than driving so ticket pricing is not the big issue either. Consolidation puts labor in a better position. One strike could cripple the whole industry. With a lot of smaller carriers a strike by any one can be dealt with, the rest of the systems absorbs the passengers. But if the industry was consolidated now any strike would have a major impact.
The government is already doing a lot to make sure the airlines make money, from legal accounting tricks, tax breaks,PEBs, bankruptcy laws and court injunctions that fly in the face of the law the government has worked hand in hand to screw over airline workers for the last twenty years.
Why are they concerned about consolidation? Lack of competition? PLease, get real, these airline just put on a show as far as competing. The fact is that flying is usually cheaper than driving so ticket pricing is not the big issue either. Consolidation puts labor in a better position. One strike could cripple the whole industry. With a lot of smaller carriers a strike by any one can be dealt with, the rest of the systems absorbs the passengers. But if the industry was consolidated now any strike would have a major impact.
OP
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
- Thread Starter
- #4
Funny how you failed to mention Ted Kennedy's part in deregulation. He was the most staunch supporter of the airline deregulation act.
No kidding. I seem to recall that President Carter presided over the law's enactment and that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins (what with Pres Nixon's resignation and Pres Ford's pardon of Nixon still so fresh in the voters' minds).
Sure, Republicans liked the idea of de-regulation. But make no mistake - it happened on the Democrats' watch. It's one of those rare instances of what we used to call bipartisanship that is so rare today. Sometimes, Republican Presidents (and Republican-controlled Congresses as well) champion causes near and dear to the hearts of Democrats.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Blame the Republicans for deregulating telecom's, but deregulation of just about every aspect of domestic transportation took place under a Democratic administration and with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate.
Airline deregulation was authored/sponsored by Ted Kennedy and Howard Cannon, and signed into law by Jimmy Carter.
Yes, all three were Democrats.
The Democrats also deregulated the rail (Staggers Act) and trucking industries (Motor Carrier Act, also authored by Cannon) in 1980 during Carter's tenure.
Reagan finished things off in 1982 with deregulating interstate bus transport.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< ---- Another thing to remember, is the fact that all airline employees displaced by deregulation were to be retrained at the expense of the government! That never happened because your Democratic Congress never funded, $$$, that portion of the Bill!!!
<_< ---- Another thing to remember, is the fact that all airline employees displaced by deregulation were to be retrained at the expense of the government! That never happened because your Democratic Congress never funded, $$$, that portion of the Bill!!!
The problem with deregulation is that it was pretty much a "big bang" implementation. If it had been staged over 10 years with sufficient controls in place, it would have been much more orderly. It would also have allowed the government to say "STOP", if necessary, if too many airlines were going bankrupt or competition had become too cutthroat.
Well it was also another Democrat who screwed the working man. The liberal beloved William "the liar" Clinton signed NAFTA. Now the USA's greatest export is our jobs.
OP
- Dec 21, 2002
- 5,998
- 347
Redbone
Advanced
- Oct 11, 2006
- 179
- 0
"The government is already doing a lot to make sure the airlines make money, from legal accounting tricks, tax breaks,PEBs, bankruptcy laws and court injunctions that fly in the face of the law the government has worked hand in hand to screw over airline workers for the last twenty years."
The airline industry is the most heavily taxed in the economy. It has suffered the loss of over 150,000 jobs in the last 5 years. That is staggering by any standards.
Employees are working more for less. This is an industry where fatigue=death. Motor skills must be at their peak every second on every flight.
What were they thinking (re:deregulation) right after the oil embargo, a recession, and all airlines at their weakest financially. Historically, it was one of the most poorly thought out pieces of legislation ever. Europe did it right...they took their time, phased it in over a decade.
The airline industry is the most heavily taxed in the economy. It has suffered the loss of over 150,000 jobs in the last 5 years. That is staggering by any standards.
Employees are working more for less. This is an industry where fatigue=death. Motor skills must be at their peak every second on every flight.
What were they thinking (re:deregulation) right after the oil embargo, a recession, and all airlines at their weakest financially. Historically, it was one of the most poorly thought out pieces of legislation ever. Europe did it right...they took their time, phased it in over a decade.
The Senators quoted in the article seemed to indicate they wanted to re-regulate to ensure small communities have frequent, cheap service.
How are they proposing that re-regulation will accomplish that? Are they going to force airlines to serve small communities with cheap fares at a loss until they go out of business? Who benefits in that situation?
Or are they going to throw tax money at the supposed "problem" to support unprofitable routes? They can do that now through the Essential Air Services program.
Anyone know what they are thinking by way of how reregulation will create frequent cheap service to small communities?
How are they proposing that re-regulation will accomplish that? Are they going to force airlines to serve small communities with cheap fares at a loss until they go out of business? Who benefits in that situation?
Or are they going to throw tax money at the supposed "problem" to support unprofitable routes? They can do that now through the Essential Air Services program.
Anyone know what they are thinking by way of how reregulation will create frequent cheap service to small communities?
Redbone
Advanced
- Oct 11, 2006
- 179
- 0
Just like they "regulate" the oil industry. (isn't it interesting how oil is driven by "market forces" but airlines are tax to death as if they are a foreign enemy)
THANK GOD we don't have a President from the oil industry!
HOUSTON (AP) - Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company - $39.5 billion - even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.
The 2006 profit topped Exxon Mobil's own previous record of $36.13 billion set in 2005.
Revenue at the world's largest publicly traded oil company rose to $377.64 billion for the year, surpassing the record $370.68 billion Exxon posted in 2005.
Similar threads
