Stop The Madness!

[Hopeful]

Yet when one airline lowers their fares, and every other airline matches it, that's not collusion? Go figure. Collusion is not a one way street, it works both ways . . . except in the airline industry.

Over supply is hardly what's keeping the airlines in the red. If there were too many seats to sell, then AA wouldn't be stranding hundreds upon hundreds of passengers at MIA due to overbooking, then holding up the "NR" sign when they complain and tell them to go sleep on the floor and they'll put them in a seat when they're damn good and ready.

Lower fares does do one thing for certain, it brings out a lower class of people, sad to say - and it's evident every time you step on one of AA's filthy #### boxes these days which, thanks to depeaking, also get a sporadic cleaning at best.

CRAF flying is going to quadruple in 2005, that'll put some money in the airline's pockets!

[post="241866"][/post]​

In these times of soaring fuel prices, I don't think it is collusion. Fuel prices affect virtually every area of business. You remember when one airline tries to raise fares, some follow the lead, then one bucks the trend, no one calls it collusion. I look at it as survival.

 

[mweiss]

This prevents the unfair advantages that bankrupt airlines have over solvent ones ...

[post="241665"][/post]​

Excuse me...what are these "unfair advantages?" Methinks you are misinformed.

 

[mweiss]

...ANY business in C11 protection that continually LOSES MONEY should be put out of business...

And how long would you allow such a business to lose money? A week? Month? Year? What's your justification?

The politicians and Wall Street are propping up and rewarding CEO's that are incompetent at running anything,especially an airline.

Exactly. You can tell by the market capitalization of the airlines. Oh, wait...WN has the largest market cap! Hmmm...maybe Wall Street knows more than you give credit for.

SWA pays their AMT's much more than AA pays its AMT's and they still make it profit.It is because of their operating effiency and productivity of their employees,not because their employees are UNDERCOMPENSATED.

[post="241704"][/post]​

Absolutely true. No arguments from me on this point.

Yet when one airline lowers their fares, and every other airline matches it, that's not collusion? Go figure. Collusion is not a one way street, it works both ways . . . except in the airline industry.

You're misinformed. The reason it's not considered collusion when the fares are lowered in concert is that there's no economic incentive for the businesses to collude in lowering prices. This applies in all industries.

And that's beside the point. The claim that keeps arising is that if all of the airlines were to raise fares together, that the industry would be better off. How would that happen without collusion? And do you understand why it is, in fact, advantageous to one airline to hold back the fare increase?

Over supply is hardly what's keeping the airlines in the red. If there were too many seats to sell, then AA wouldn't be stranding hundreds upon hundreds of passengers...

You're making a common mistake in interpreting an economic assertion. The term "oversupply" doesn't refer to there being more seats flying than there are passengers willing to sit in them. It refers to there being more seats flying than there are passengers willing to pay a profitable fare to sit in them. Demand isn't a number; it's an equation. Quantity demanded is a number, which can be derived by applying a price to the demand curve. The demand curve represents the number of seats that would be sold at all price points.

So, in other words, oversupply does keep airlines in the red.

Lower fares does do one thing for certain, it brings out a lower class of people, sad to say

Yeah. It's such a shame that air travel has become affordable to people who make the same amount of money as you do.

 

[Bob Owens]

If ALL airlines raise fares the same amount, then you have collusion, which is illegal.

[post="240910"][/post]​

Only if they got cought discussing it. If one raised their fares than everyon else raised it the same it would be no different than when they cut fares and other matched it. Didnt all the gasoline companies raise fuel prices the same within a short period of time?

If all the airlines raised prices so that revenue covered costs, in some cases provide a profit its not collusion, its business.

 

[Bob Owens]

I'm a 19 year AA employee who thinks that ANY business in C11 protection that continually LOSES MONEY should be put out of business AND THAT INCLUDES AA if they end up in C11[very probable].
How long is long enough to prop up incompetent management? Here we are at AA almost 2 years after concessions and overall[a few minor changes] AA is still doing the same old crap the same old way.And they still can't figure out why they lost over 700 million dollars last year?
The politicians and Wall Street are propping up and rewarding CEO's that are incompetent at running anything,especially an airline.

It is easy to blame everything on competition for your failures to fix your own problems.AA is losing money because of its OWN failure to correct its problems in a timely manner.
SWA pays their AMT's much more than AA pays its AMT's and they still make it profit.It is because of their operating effiency and productivity of their employees,not because their employees are UNDERCOMPENSATED.

[post="241704"][/post]​

Well if we provided widgets then the unprofitable companies would be shut down. They would not linger on losing money year after year. However we do not, and the government is not going to allow a large part of the air transportation system to shut down.

The fact is we provide an "essential service". In addition to passengers we also move freight and mail, there is also a strategic military component to our service in that they have a readlily available supply of aircraft to move troops and materiel should an emergency arise.

Do you really think that Jet Blue of SWA on their own could help move troops across the globe without seriously impairing commerce at home?

Our demise is not directly the result of deregulation, although it did play a part.

Our demise is the fact that our unions made sure that no matter what the airlines and the courts did that the labor was there to keep the planes, the people, the mail, the cargo and the CRAF available. They gave us away.

The fact is that this industry generates profits for many others, even, or especially if we are losing money doing it. The only way for us to get our share is to force it out of them by theatening to shut it all down, or actually doing it if need be.

The fact is that those who are in control have an agenda that includes cheap air transportation and low wages for us. Our unions are part of the problem because they only care that they get their dues. If they end up with more members then they will cooperate in our destruction.

 

[mweiss]

Only if they got cought discussing it.

If they got caught discussing it, then it's an open-and-shut case. If they didn't, it makes it harder to prove, but it doesn't make it not collusion.

Didnt all the gasoline companies raise fuel prices the same within a short period of time?

Gasoline is a commodity in a mature, competitive industry. The same cannot yet be said for air travel, and (IMO) should not every be able to be said for air travel. That last comment is my opinion, because I would prefer to have a premium product available at a reasonably premium price.

If all the airlines raised prices so that revenue covered costs, in some cases provide a profit its not collusion, its business.

[post="241933"][/post]​

Of course. But that would apply only if all airlines had the same cost structures. They don't, so the market pricing behaves differently.

 

[FWAAA]

If the oil industry had a couple of LCC startups with much lower cost structures (and/or much more efficient operations), then I think we'd see much the same market behavior that we currently see in the airline business.

 

[mweiss]

FWAAA, you really don't understand the oil industry, do you?

In mature, commodity industries, they are all already "LCC startups." They've all had over half a century of unregulated competition in which to eliminate inefficiencies. Whenever a new, disruptive technology has been developed, the other companies have quickly followed suit.

It's a stable oligopoly.

The same cannot yet be said for the airline industry, but the evidence suggests that it will come in the next couple of decades.

 

[Bob Owens]

Gasoline is a commodity in a mature, competitive industry.

So? Are you saying that because it is an oligopoly that collusion could not exist or that its not neccesary? Isnt it true that by blocking several proposed mergers a few years back that the government prevented the industry from heading towards that?

The same cannot yet be said for air travel, and (IMO) should not every be able to be said for air travel. That last comment is my opinion, because I would prefer to have a premium product available at a reasonably premium price.

So as long as the consumer benifits then cut throat competition, so long as the employees are the ones that do the bleeding, is ok? At this point, as a worker, I would rather see it move towards oligopoly, the quicker the better. Having limited sources is not always a bad thing because in many cases the consumer benifits from increased efficiency.

Of course. But that would apply only if all airlines had the same cost structures. They don't, so the market pricing behaves differently.

Please read the statement again. I took that into consideration when I included "in some cases provides a profit".

 

[mweiss]

So? Are you saying that because it is an oligopoly that collusion could not exist or that its not neccesary?

I'm saying that because it is an oligopoly that collusion would be way too obvious and trivial to prove.

Isnt it true that by blocking several proposed mergers a few years back that the government prevented the industry from heading towards that?

Towards what?

So as long as the consumer benifits then cut throat competition, so long as the employees are the ones that do the bleeding, is ok?

As long as we as a nation decide that we want to live in a capitalistic society, yes.

Please read the statement again. I took that into consideration when I included "in some cases provides a profit".

[post="241966"][/post]​

OK...if that's what you meant, then we're already there without collusion. In case you didn't notice, the current industry, in some cases, provides a profit.

 

[Bob Owens]

Towards what?

Oligopoly

As long as we as a nation decide that we want to live in a capitalistic society, yes.

Funny, I thought we were supposed to be a democratic society.

I think what you really mean as long as we as a nation decide we want to tolerate Capitalism.


What do you call it when the President tells workers that they can not withdraw their labor? Isnt our labor our property?

Seems that people want to pick and choose what parts of private property is recognized when it suits their objectives, not neccisarily their ideology.

 

[mweiss]

I think what you really mean as long as we as a nation decide we want to tolerate Capitalism.

Sure, that'll work.

What do you call it when the President tells workers that they can not withdraw their labor?

Workers can always withdraw their labor. The question is whether or not they are guaranteed the right to return to their jobs after striking. In any case, I'm not going to give justifications for the RLA, as I do not support it.

 

[eolesen]

Oligopoly
What do you call it when the President tells workers that they can not withdraw their labor? Isnt our labor our property?

[post="241977"][/post]​

Well, actually, it's not, according to the Railway Labor Act.

If your contract were to fall under Taft-Hartley, then it really is your property, since there's no PEB provision.

Seems that people want to pick and choose what parts of private property is recognized when it suits their objectives, not neccisarily their ideology.

[post="241977"][/post]​

Sort of how you and others like to pick and choose which parts of the RLA should be recognized, eh?...

 

[Bob Owens]

Sure, that'll work.
Workers can always withdraw their labor. The question is whether or not they are guaranteed the right to return to their jobs after striking. In any case, I'm not going to give justifications for the RLA, as I do not support it.

[post="241980"][/post]​

And what guarantees to striking workers have?

Since Reagan striking workers can legally be permanently replaced.

 

[Bob Owens]

If your contract were to fall under Taft-Hartley, then it really is your property, since there's no PEB provision.

Tell that to the Longshoremen and the Coal miners.

Sort of how you and others like to pick and choose which parts of the RLA should be recognized, eh?...

No, I would like to get rid of the whole thing.