Reality - Deflation and a fare market

[magsau]

piney bob wrote:
Do you forget who was responsible for the breeches in security?? Not the Boston Police! It was airport secirity! and who set up, managed and ultimately selected low bid felon infested security companies? Geez, I forgot who was that again? OHHH That's right THE AIRLINES!!!

Bob,

According to the GOVT. rules at the time of 9/11, the items used in the hijackings were not banned. The hijackers were also asked those security questions that are no longer applicable. The fact is that the system itself was/is flawed. Do you think the TSA is any better than the folks that were doing the job before? The only difference is they all wear the same uniform today as opposed to the multi companies of past. Take a look at the checkpoints and you will see alot of the same old faces from pre 9/11 days. To blame the airlines for a system that is approved by the goverment is not fair in any terms. Everything is govt approved or it is not allowed. That is true now and prior to 9/11.

By the way did you see that the new and improved govt system allowed over 100 NYC airport employees to be arrested earlier this week. How on earth could that happen now that the TSA is running things? Could it be that the bane of you ire, THE AIRLINES, are not the always at fault as you perceive they are.

 

[LDKIAM]

Mags you are wrong:[BR][BR][STRONG][FONT face=Arial size=5]Items Banned by 1994 Airline Rules[/FONT][/STRONG]
[P][FONT face=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif size=2][BR]Monday November 11, 2002 7:40 PM[/FONT]
[P][FONT face=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif size=2]
[P]Items listed in a 1994 airline industry manual that passengers were forbidden to carry beyond airport checkpoints:
[P]-Ammunition
[P]-Axes
[P]-Box cutters
[P]-Brass knuckles
[P]-Carbon dioxide cartridges
[P]-Dynamite
[P]-Fireworks
[P]-Gasoline
[P]-Gun powder
[P]-Hammers
[P]-Hand grenades
[P]-Hunting knives
[P]-Mace
[P]-Meat cleavers
[P]-Oxygen tanks
[P]-Paint
[P]-Pepper spray
[P]-Pistols
[P]-Plastic explosives
[P]-Radioactive materials
[P]-Revolvers
[P]-Rifles
[P]-Starter pistols
[P]-Swords
[P]-Tear gas
[P]-Toy transformer robots (forms toy gun)
[P]-Toy weapons
[P]Among items allowed past checkpoints:
[P]-Baseball bats
[P]-Darts
[P]-Hockey sticks
[P]-Knitting needles
[P]-Letter openers
[P]-Pocket utility knives (less than four-inch blade)
[P]-Scissors
[P]-Ski poles
[P]Source: Checkpoint Operations Guide from Air Transport Association and Regional Airline Association. [BR][/FONT][/P]

 

[chipmunn]

LDKIAM, I have never purposely posted misinformation and let's just agree to disgree, regarding the semantics of what constitutes a negotiation.

However, why do you you refuse to answer my questions?

Chip

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
You still failed to address my question about whether your industry is taxed as heavily as the airline industry? Or about whether your industry is responsible for subsidizing the astronomical costs of aviation security when it's the job of the federal government to ensure the safety and security of its' citizens? I mean let's at least level the playing field a bit before we start debating the success or failures of industries. I'm certainly not a strong supporter of the ATSB process. However, when I consider the obscene level of taxation on this industry, maybe it's only fair that Uncle Sam ride to the rescue to co-sign loans for the very airlines that they see fit to tax to death. Why is it that airlines are too important to the economy to allow labor strikes, yet they're not important enough now? How exactly does that logic work? So if you truly want the airlines to stand on their own two feet, let's put them on a level playing field with the rest of corporate America before we start preaching about their inability to succeed and prosper.
[/blockquote]

All of the taxes on the industry are _passed on to the consumer_. Security, PFC, facilities, etc. Everyone in the industry, therefore, is under the same competitive conditions. Yet, some prosper. This line of debate is a strawman, at best.

In return, the industry is funded (federal bailout) and extended credit where credit would otherwise be hard to come by (ATSB). No other industry is getting that kind of treatment with the possible exception of the agriculture/farm industry. None.

 

[UAL777flyer]

PineyBob,

Hmmmmmmmmm, public access cable show? You mean Wayne and Garth's basement? Talk about high ratings!

Morally bankrupt industry? Ok President Bartlett, you can hop off the campaign stump now. No more morally bankrupt than the rest of corporate America. You think your field is immune? Personally, I think morally bankrupt is exaggerating just a wee bit. But then again, I'm not an executive. And I'll grant you that there are probably plenty of sleazeballs in the corporate suites of every industry, maybe even yours!

You still failed to address my question about whether your industry is taxed as heavily as the airline industry? Or about whether your industry is responsible for subsidizing the astronomical costs of aviation security when it's the job of the federal government to ensure the safety and security of its' citizens? I mean let's at least level the playing field a bit before we start debating the success or failures of industries. I'm certainly not a strong supporter of the ATSB process. However, when I consider the obscene level of taxation on this industry, maybe it's only fair that Uncle Sam ride to the rescue to co-sign loans for the very airlines that they see fit to tax to death. Why is it that airlines are too important to the economy to allow labor strikes, yet they're not important enough now? How exactly does that logic work? So if you truly want the airlines to stand on their own two feet, let's put them on a level playing field with the rest of corporate America before we start preaching about their inability to succeed and prosper.

As for debating you, you seem unable to debate your position in a professional, respect-ful manner on this forum. Are you to have us believe that you'd do any better in person? But if you'd like, you can send me a 5 x 7 of you in your nice suit and power tie to let me know what I missed out on![img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif']

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 11:58:27 PM PineyBob wrote:

It sucks when the chickens come home to roost.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You're right, the greyhound bus you'll be taking to your next business meeting after the US employees cease to subsidize your travels doesn't have F/As or free drinks.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/22/2002 422 PM ClueByFour wrote:


All of the "taxes" on the industry are _passed on to the consumer_. Security, PFC, facilities, etc. Everyone in the industry, therefore, is under the same competitive conditions. Yet, some prosper. This line of debate is a strawman, at best.

In return, the industry is funded (federal bailout) and extended credit where credit would otherwise be hard to come by (ATSB). No other industry is getting that kind of treatment with the possible exception of the agriculture/farm industry. None.


----------------
[/blockquote]



WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!! Why don't we just raise the level of taxes to around $1000 per segment? All airlines would be equal right? then they could help pay down the deficit. Will you concede that in your world that would have an effect on demand? Why would you think that taxation on the average average ticket of over 25% wouldn't? What airlines are thriving? How about Amtrac? does the government subsidize U's competition in the NE?

 

[W:EXCH:INVOL]

Hey UALFlyer....when you take up Piney's offer to rumble, here's how you'll be able to pick him out of a crowd: he'll be the one with the funny little gold-plated bug on his lapel.

INVOL

 

[UAL777flyer]

ClueByFour,

The continued industry revenue environment is perfect evidence that the airlines have reached a point where they cannot pass on their costs to the consumer anymore. Ceasing the obscene taxation of this industry would put them on a level playing field. But for people to advocate that the government allow airlines to fail without some form of help, while that same government incessantly taxes those very same airlines to death is highly ironic. The fact remains that the feds have used the non-stop taxes of this industry to fund their own pork-barrel projects. For years the taxes/fees earmarked for the Aviation Trust Fund were being diverted to non-aviation related projects instead of being used for what they were designed for, like badly-needed runway, terminal, taxiway and ATC improvements and upgrades. Everyone wants to blame airlines for all the shortcomings of the industry. Granted, they share a large portion of blame in many areas. But there are reasons for this industry's failures that go well beyond the executive suites of each airline and closer to Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/24/2002 9:37:06 AM PineyBob wrote:

BusDrv

We ALL may be ridin' the Dawg sooner than we think!

I must have went to a different school than you. US employees can not by the very nature of free market capitalism subsidize my travel! Profit is the reason US exists! It is NOT or should not be viewed as the personal piggy bank of mr Siegal and friends any more than it should be by the IAM, etc.


in the LONG term, in the short term, the stake holders in U are absolutely subsidizing your travels (when I say your, i'm refering to the average traveler, you may be paying a fair price personally). In they short term, they are merely trying to cover as much of the marginal costs as possible. granted, this is not a valid long term strategy for U or ANY OTHER AIRLINE.



Libertarians like me believe in the power of the individual to accomplish great things when left alone by government! Go and look at your last paycheck from BEFORE any wage cuts took effect and look at what the Government confiscates from your pay.


As a devoted reader of Uncle Milty I have some minor lib leanings, the devil is, however, in the details. the government has some responsibilies IMHO beyond defense. It is in the best interest of the citizens to have a stabile economy. The government has many tools including regulation, monatary policy, fiscal policy and even taxation and grants. there is a great deal of infrastructure in our economy that would be dismantled with each economic downturn, only to be reinvented with each up turn. not entirely efficient. No one is advocating the perpetual subsidation of U or UAL. The hope is that the government would aknowledge it's culpability in the 9/11 tragedy and help the hardest hit industry get through the down turn of a cyclical market. What business are you in?


----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/24/2002 840 PM PineyBob wrote:

Interesting point regarding government culpability for 9/11. I happen to agree with you there, that the Federal Government FAILED in its basic obligation to its citizens to protect us from foriegn invaders. So if we conceed that the feds failed and are Guilty of Negligence if you will, does that not entittle the injured party (airlines) to damages both compensatory AND punitive?

I will be the first to say that possibly the best strategy UAL could have taken was to sue the Bin Laden Group, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan for something on the order of 200 billion. If lawyers can make a case for sueing bars when a patron gets in a car wreck, our lawsuit would be a slam dunk. I'm also thinking that in todays political climate, and considering the US government usually pays judgements against foriegn governments, I'm sure the administration would have done everything possible, including fast track loan approval, to keep that pig out of the court house.


Almost forgot! I am a Sales Trainer with one of the largest Japanese Office Products Companies. A household word. Used to work at Xerox so I am slightly familiar with downsizing and the personal pain it can cause.

Ah, you guys must've been living large when Rubin came in and ran the dollar from 80 yen to 140 yen in less than a year. It's sad that apple took what Xerox pioneered (windows) only to have MS make billions on it.
----------------
[/blockquote]