Crandall calls for reregulating industry...

[wsuffa]

Link to article

Decrying the “sad state” of U.S. commercial aviation, former American Chairman and CEO Robert Crandall yesterday declared three decades of deregulation a failure and said that treating airlines like a regulated utility must be a part of a broad solution to their current financial crisis.
......................
• Regulating the number of flights scheduled to what runways, terminals and air traffic control facilities at airports can handle......

Reregulating the industry, which will increase airline prices substantially, will in and of itself reduce the need for capacity. Already, at the current "new" pricing levels, a lot of the planes are well below capacity.

 

[woodstock]

My flight back from Munich on Monday was not very full at all. I was in Econ-plus, and I think that whole section was 1/3 full. (my ticket was $1426). I was in the very front (i.e. the seats immediately in front of me were business, so I had tons of leg room) and in the middle row - all 5 seats in my row were empty.

 

[Ghery]

My flight back from Munich on Monday was not very full at all. I was in Econ-plus, and I think that whole section was 1/3 full. (my ticket was $1426). I was in the very front (i.e. the seats immediately in front of me were business, so I had tons of leg room) and in the middle row - all 5 seats in my row were empty.

777, eh? Much more comfortable than their 747s.

 

[ScottM]

777, eh? Much more comfortable than their 747s.

Sounds like it!

I am off to Amsterdam on Tuesday. Direct flight form ORD to Schipol. I was able to upgrade both ways to business weeks ago.

But to the main point of the article. The Crandall may be on to something. Rural airlines are ont eh way out. They cannot make the business sense. So either the industry becomes regulated like a utility or it goes away for a lot of intrer city travel and is replaced by more efficient but slower high speed rail that can make business sense. So the question becomes do we save the airlines at the expense of the railroads?

 

[docmirror]

What the gummint back in? Think Amtrack. Crandall is an idiot. Southwest is right down the street, facing the same challenges that AA is and they are doing fine in this unregulated market. AA is a big bloat that was great in the bloat-times. Adapt or die.

'Gummint intervention' is never the answer when the question is 'what should be do about the economy or market'.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Southwest is right down the street, facing the same challenges that AA is and they are doing fine in this unregulated market. AA is a big bloat that was great in the bloat-times. Adapt or die.

When was the last time you went outside the CONUS on Southwest?

 

[poadeleted7]

What the gummint back in? Think Amtrack. Crandall is an idiot. Southwest is right down the street, facing the same challenges that AA is and they are doing fine in this unregulated market. AA is a big bloat that was great in the bloat-times. Adapt or die.]

Doc,
Crandall is one outspoken dude but I wouldnt call him an idiot. It is ironic that he agresivly led AA through dereg and now he is calling for it. We are at the tip of the iceburg as far as SWA's rules bending goes. I dont wish any ill will but it will be interesting when SWA is forced to meet the same regulatory compliance as everyone else.
Fly Safe
FB

 

[TMetzinger]

Oh please - SWA faces the same FAA scrutiny as everyone else.

What SWA has is an artificially low fuel cost because they wisely hedged their fuel way back when. They also have good labor relations, fanatical customer loyalty, and an accurate reputation. People get what they expect from SWA.

As their fuel costs go up, they will have to raise prices. The "poor" folks who fly on SWA for leisure won't be able to fly anymore (on ANY carrier), but I expect that SWA's performance will mean that as the leisure travellers move away, more business travelers will come in. SWA doesn't do international flying because they couldn't see a way to make it profitable by itself. That may change in the future, I don't know.

If we actually let the market do it's work, we'll see the capacity of the airlines drop to meet demands (and that will likely mean that some airlines will cease operations, while others will retire routes, airplanes, crews, and staff), and we'll end up with a new balance. If we choose to "rescue" some carriers all we do is perpetuate the belief that airlines are less risky than they are, and keep people wasting capital on "new" airlines.

 

[ScottM]

Oh please - SWA faces the same FAA scrutiny as everyone else.]

How come they dont operate to CAT two or three (Certification and training costs perhaps), why dont their planes have ACARS, How do they get to ignore QTA at places like DIA and SLC. Pretty much since their inception SWA has been able to ignore safety policies and practices that have been SOP at all other carriers for years. I wish these guys the best of luck of course, but I would like to see a level playing field.
Let me guess, you fly for SWA .
Frank

Frank you really need to learn how to do quotes. I noticed in another thread that you had some problems in thsio formatting area. You keep truncating the last closing item {/quote} except with square brackets off. Leaving the quotes in tact will really help make you posts more readable.

When you edit out that last /quote code when someone then goes and quotes you post it appears as though someone else said you words. As exampled above it appears that Tim has made the post instead of you.

There are two easy ways to handle quotes with vBuliten. First is to just click the QUOTE key

and stat typing after the quoted text and the closing quote tag. The other way is to do multiple quotes. You do that my clicking on those little boxes next to the quote button that have a plus sign,

on them.

Here is a link to a whole bunch of codes that you can use for message formatting, http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

ENJOY!

 

[poadeleted7]

Frank you really need to learn how to do quotes. I noticed in another thread that you had some problems in thsio formatting area. You keep truncating the last closing item {/quote} except with square brackets off. Leaving the quotes in tact will really help make you posts more readable.

When you edit out that last /quote code when someone then goes and quotes you post it appears as though someone else said you words. As exampled above it appears that Tim has made the post instead of you.

There are two easy ways to handle quotes with vBuliten. First is to just click the QUOTE key

and stat typing after the quoted text and the closing quote tag. The other way is to do multiple quotes. You do that my clicking on those little boxes next to the quote button that have a plus sign,

on them.

Here is a link to a whole bunch of codes that you can use for message formatting, http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode

ENJOY!

Thanks, this is exactly what I have been trying to do but it doesnt work every time. Still learning

 

[Everskyward]

How come they dont operate to CAT two or three (Certification and training costs perhaps), why dont their planes have ACARS

I have no clue if any of this is true or not, but if it is, maybe the cost-benefit numbers don't justify having any of this.

How do they get to ignore QTA at places like DIA and SLC.

You'll have to explain that one to us non-airline folks.

Pretty much since their inception SWA has been able to ignore safety policies and practices that have been SOP at all other carriers for years. I wish these guys the best of luck of course, but I would like to see a level playing field.
Let me guess, you fly for SWA .

I don't think anyone here flies for SWA unless they have been keeping pretty quiet about it. Personally, I have never even flown on SWA. But let me guess, the airline in your past is not SWA...

 

[ScottM]

Thanks, this is exactly what I have been trying to do but it doesnt work every time. Still learning

Put your cursor after the /QUOTE format tag. Not before it. You are somehow deleting it when you start to type.

 

[sba55]

Wow I wonder what his real motives are. No business person in their right mind would call for more regulation. The market is much smarter than the government.

What would really help is less regulation, and no more government subsidies for airlines that should have failed long ago. AA and company are only around because they keep getting subsidies and bailouts.

There is no reason why an airline can't be profitable in today's market. Travel, similar to gasoline, is a very inelastic good. People will always need to go places. Maybe the decade of $40 flights is over, but there's lots of money to be made.

-Felix

 

[ScottM]

Wow I wonder what his real motives are. No business person in their right mind would call for more regulation. The market is much smarter than the government.

What would really help is less regulation, and no more government subsidies for airlines that should have failed long ago. AA and company are only around because they keep getting subsidies and bailouts.

There is no reason why an airline can't be profitable in today's market. Travel, similar to gasoline, is a very inelastic good. People will always need to go places. Maybe the decade of $40 flights is over, but there's lots of money to be made.

-Felix

One of their business incomes is subsidies. The airlines have been complaining that their fuel subsidy is too low, so this is a call to get that raised to a higher level.

 

[TMetzinger]

Oh please - SWA faces the same FAA scrutiny as everyone else.]

How come they dont operate to CAT two or three (Certification and training costs perhaps), why dont their planes have ACARS, How do they get to ignore QTA at places like DIA and SLC. Pretty much since their inception SWA has been able to ignore safety policies and practices that have been SOP at all other carriers for years. I wish these guys the best of luck of course, but I would like to see a level playing field.
Let me guess, you fly for SWA .
Frank

Frank, CATII or III have NOTHING to do with safely landing a plane (as you, if you are the pilot you've claimed to be, should know). CAT II and III allow lower landing minimums, and require additional airplane systems and aircrew certification, which directly translates to higher operational costs. I expect that SWA has decided those higher costs are not justified by the benefits they'd receive (same reason they don't have autothrottles). ACARS is also not directly a safety system - it's just another way of sending information between the airplane and the operator.

I'm not sure what you mean by QTA, but if you mean quality analysis of flight data, there's (again) a cost-benefit tradeoff, and SWA may not have seen sufficient value to do more than whatever is required by regulation.

 

[JohnR]

The restaurant industry has a higher failure rate than the airline industry. Maybe the gummint otta regulate them like they did airlines. Burger King can only sell double cheeseburgers in Kansas City and Detroit, while McDonalds has to stick with Chicken McNuggets in those cities. Yep, that'll help them succeed.

After all, we all have to eat, and mistakes in the kitchen can be as deadly as mistakes in the cockpit. There otta be a law!

[/sarcasm]

 

[poadeleted7]

Frank, CATII or III have NOTHING to do with safely landing a plane (as you, if you are the pilot you've claimed to be, should know).
I'm not sure what you mean by QTA, but if you mean quality analysis of flight data, there's (again) a cost-benefit tradeoff, and SWA may not have seen sufficient value to do more than whatever is required by regulation.

Ouch ! How about I just claim to be a knuklehead who likes to think I know what I am talking about . I have two near and dear friends who fly for SWA and several more that I know casually and they are always the first to tell me about all of the cowboy stuff that goes on over there.
If you sell tickets to a place like KDTW in the middle of winter it would be nice to safely and reliably get there. I wish the crew at Midway would have had this option.
You are thinking of FOQOA (not QTA) and both are not a cost benefit tradeoff, they FAA mandated programs.
I know this will sound like ALPA, IPA, Teamsters, and the whole frieght dog industry from the 90's, but I believe we should have one level of safety for LCCs, Legacys, and comuters alike. If this ads to the cost of a ticket (And it will for some carriers), consider it an investment.
Best wishes
FB

 

[wsuffa]

The problem isnt the cost-benefit #s. Every other airline has to comply (Not just ETOPS).

I don't recall CATII/III being a requirement for airlines. A number of the "commuter" carriers (operating for majors) aren't certified to that level either. Some are, some aren't.

That would mean the Southwest has a choice: certify or don't operate into those conditions. Best I can tell, it's their choice and their business judgement.

I dont understand how they can safely and reliably run a schedule without it. Especially when you consider some of the cities they fly to. It is interesting to hear them on the radio when the RVR is hovering around 1200. (I dont think they use a city fuel program either).

You can make the argument to just park em when the WX gets bad (Which they do) .

OK, again, their choice. But as you note, they 'park em', meaning that they do comply with the rules. It's no different with some of the commuters.

Again, it doesn't make too much difference to me as long as they are complying with the rules, including any waivers they might have. Pax might well get concerned if too many flights are canceled, but from what I can tell, the airline is reliable enough and safe enough that it still has a good passenger base. And no, it's not all about fares 'cause often times WN is not the cheapest.

 

[TMetzinger]

As long as SWA is operating within the envelope mandated by federal regulation, it's their discretion to decide the cost/benefit tradeoffs that determine how close they get to the edge. Every other operator has the same discretion, and gets to live with the outcome.

I think SWA's success is largely due to their focus - they don't try to operate to lots of cities without careful analysis. They don't operate internationally. I don't believe they internally subsidize non-profitable routes with other profitable routes - new routes get a certain amount of time to be profitable or they're cut. Schedules are altered to maintain profitability. So you have an airline where most (if not all) flights are sensible from a profit/loss standpoints. I'm not sure SWA will ever expand internationally unless the market shows that it would be willing to pay the fares that would make each (or most) flight(s) profitable.

Contrast that with many other airlines - with multiple aircraft types, subsidized routes that are now losing money, bad labor relations, etc.

To drift back to the original topic, the only re-regulation I'd like to see is that airlines not be able to duck out of debt they willingly assumed by declaring bankruptcy and yet continue to operate. If they run out of money, they should shut down, period. The recent small airline (can't remember the name) that shut down and paid all their debts recently gets a gold star as far as I'm concerned - those owners showed a lot of class.

 

[SCCutler]

How come they dont operate to CAT two or three (Certification and training costs perhaps)

Francisco:

With the greatest of kind and respectful consideration ,you are talking out of your ass. Southwest is cert for Cat II and Cat IIIa, down to 700 RVR, with 300/300/300 takeoff minimums; they have chosen not to equip for autoland, but their completed ops record shows they lose little for this (and since their IIIa cert does not rely upon autoland, the loss of one of two autopilots does not cause a divert- they hand-fly).

How do they get to ignore QTA at places like DIA and SLC.

Oops, wrong again. SWA's Op Specs accommodate brake temps in landing planning, and in pre-departure brake temp inspection.

Pretty much since their inception SWA has been able to ignore safety policies and practices that have been SOP at all other carriers for years.

...hence, their unmatched record for safety while flying the most heaviest domestic ops of any carrier.

You can make the argument to just park em when the WX gets bad (Which they do) .

And yet, they seem to consistently have an industry-leading record of completed flights.

Ouch ! How about I just claim to be a knuklehead who likes to think I know what I am talking about .

Do, please continue. By all means, specifics help.

I have two near and dear friends who fly for SWA and several more that I know casually and they are always the first to tell me about all of the cowboy stuff that goes on over there.

I do not believe you; what you say is the antithesis of the Southwest culture, and they do not value "cowboy stuff; they are, however, by far the most selective in the current market in selecting new pilot candidates.

More to come, but you are the fish in the barrel on this issue, and this entire line of commentary.

I know this will sound like ALPA, IPA, Teamsters, and the whole frieght dog industry from the 90's, but I believe we should have one level of safety for LCCs, Legacys, and comuters alike.

Based upon actual results, many would say that Southwest's methods and procedures are what other carriers ought to be emulating.

 

[flyersfan31]

Southwest has an enviable safety record.

Far from being a cattle car, I find their operations to be very efficient, unassigned seats or not. In my experience the pax are boarded more efficiently than the legacy carriers.

Moreover, the personnel are SIGNIFICANTLY more pleasant to deal with. Friendly FAs? Imagine that. Not on United (the Unfriendly Skies), or Useless Airways, or any of the other bigs.

Reregulation would be great. Put a government agency in charge of determining schedules, airports served, and ticket prices. Sounds like Stalinism. Sure, the pilots would enjoy those fat salaries and cushy flight schedules, the execs would pocket lots of cash, and mechanics would make out like bandits. However, a large portion of the population would not be able to afford tickets, so would drive instead.

I have a suggestion to legacy carriers. Pay cash bonuses. Put the profits in peoples' pockets and watch how much harder they work. It works for Southwest. Stop bellyaching and run the business.

I get so tired reading Les Abend's column in Flying. It's always a sob story about how tough his life is, bitching about waking at 4am for his commute from Florida to his duty station in New York. Honestly?!!

Reregulation - it's a solution to take management out of the hands of people who have proven that they can't, in fact, manage.

 

[docmirror]

This kinda morphed into a SWA vs AA which was not my intent. All I want to point out, is that we currently have a gummint regulated passenger transportation system. It is very expensive, and almost worthless. There was a company back in the late 70s that was going to run pax trains, and our gummint basically told them to go pound sand!

What a bunch of crap-heads. And Crandall is the biggest of the bunch. I used to work at AA in Ft Worth everyday, and if you want to see cowboy, man I could tell stories.

 

[RogerT]

I was going to resist the temptation to comment .. but what the heck ...
it's amazing how a discussion about deregulation can go off on a tangent
with someone trying to impress those of us who have nothing to do
with the airliines except for riding on them. I'm also wondering if
Bertie the Bunyip has followed the rest to POA.

In my opinion the only additional govt regulation we need is controlling
how the airlines treat their customers. Then let the chips fall where
they may.

RT

 

[flyersfan31]

This kinda morphed into a SWA vs AA which was not my intent. All I want to point out, is that we currently have a gummint regulated passenger transportation system. It is very expensive, and almost worthless. There was a company back in the late 70s that was going to run pax trains, and our gummint basically told them to go pound sand!

What a bunch of crap-heads. And Crandall is the biggest of the bunch. I used to work at AA in Ft Worth everyday, and if you want to see cowboy, man I could tell stories.

Any discussion of the biz is necessarily going to turn into an SWA vs the world discussion. They do it right. Even something so basic as fuel hedging. I was astounded to learn that they're about the only ones with a significant hedging strategy. Amazing.

I blame airline management. Their responses to the challenges consist of grinding out every last dime from the employees, layering nuisance fee over nuisance fee on the customers, meanwhile pocketing significant bonuses. Airline labor shares some blame - work rules are straight out the 60s. Again, read Abend's column to see the bellyaching about stuff that would seem an unbelievable luxury to your average working stiff.

 

[ScottM]

Any discussion of the biz is necessarily going to turn into an SWA vs the world discussion. They do it right. Even something so basic as fuel hedging. I was astounded to learn that they're about the only ones with a significant hedging strategy. Amazing.

I blame airline management. Their responses to the challenges consist of grinding out every last dime from the employees, layering nuisance fee over nuisance fee on the customers, meanwhile pocketing significant bonuses. Airline labor shares some blame - work rules are straight out the 60s. Again, read Abend's column to see the bellyaching about stuff that would seem an unbelievable luxury to your average working stiff.

Time to roll out my clueless airline employee story again.

I work in the telecom industry and we have had a meltdown of epic proportions too. Yet no one ever considered bailing us out. Now there is only ONE US owned telecom company left. My company alone has let go of 110,000 employees (that is no typo either)

Anyways I was on an AA flight from Japan to Chicago in row to of their 777. That is the first row of first class BTW, and the stewardess kept going on to me about how awful it was that AA had to let go of 5000 employees. I looked her straight in the eye and told her my company had laid off 15,000 that week and the whole industry was down by 5,000,000 jobs. She looked me back in the eye again and said "but we had to cut 5000.

She got zero sympathy from me so she turned to the person next to me who responded "I am with him just work for a different company that has let go of 25,000 this month"

She still could not get it through her head that at that time the airlines were not suffering like those of us dealing with the tech bubble bursting.

 

[flyersfan31]

She still could not get it through her head that at that time the airlines were not suffering like those of us dealing with the tech bubble bursting.

And Les Abend ******* about the commute from Florida to NY in the winter. They worry about furlough, and stay on it for years, instead of just getting a new flying job and losing seniority. Regular folks just go get a new job and start over. Somehow that's a tragedy of epic proportions when you're an airline pilot.

Bottom line? Everyone has problems, but when you think it's bad, there are a thousand stories worse than yours.


15,000 in a week!

 

[ScottM]

15,000 in a week!

We went from 155,000 employees to 90,000 in six months back around 2000

 

[poadeleted7]

Dear SCCutler,

Oops, wrong again. SWA's Op Specs accommodate brake temps in landing planning, and in pre-departure brake temp inspection.

Oops, not quite, although its use is not forbiden, the use of QTLW charts are not encoraged either. This is not something that is covered in ops specs. There is no way to check the brake temp on a Boeing. They dont have guages like some other airliners.

...hence, their unmatched record for safety while flying the most heaviest domestic ops of any carrier.

...Hence, a couple of well publicized over runs. One of which showed such a complete disregard for safety and SOP that it became the poster child for careless and reckless operation.

And yet, they seem to consistently have an industry-leading record of completed flights.

If you only knew how the manipulate the system . I jumpseated on these guys for years when I was commuting and unlike what happens at every other carrier when you close the door and turn on the beacon, every departure was "On time and 5".

Do, please continue. By all means, specifics help.

????????? I dont know what the guy who originally posted this was getting at. All I ever claimed on POA is that I have been flying for awhile. We had a guy over on usenet who would claim to fly airliners and yet he would constantly misuse terms and didnt seem to have a clear understanding of basic stuff that anyone in the industry would know. You remind me of that guy. So make some claims, and by all means, specifics help .

I do not believe you; what you say is the antithesis of the Southwest culture, and they do not value "cowboy stuff; they are, however, by far the most selective in the current market in selecting new pilot candidates.

I dont believe me either ! But I do believe friends freinds who work there. I do believe what I see flying the line every day. I do believe the reports about their recent maintenence issues.
Dont understand the most selective comment. SWA's requirement for a type has spawned a cottage industry of weekend type rating companies. I have seen the curiculum and training materials for a couple of these places and believe me, it doesnt actually qualify someone. Looks good on a resume though.

More to come, but you are the fish in the barrel on this issue, and this entire line of commentary.

I can hardly wait.

Based upon actual results, many would say that Southwest's methods and procedures are what other carriers ought to be emulating.

Should other carriers emulate the part were SWA blew off major AD inspections, bought off some feds and then incured the biggest civil aviation fine ever ?
All I said in the begining was that there are differences in the way SWA gets to comply with regs and everyone else. Much of this is political. The politicans lean on the NTSB and they lean on the FAA and they lean on the POI and so forth. SWA along with other LCCs are darlings in Washington and they get alot done in this manner. Everyone like to bash the legacy carriers (and they deserve alot of it), but you gotta ask yourself why is a level playing field so bad . Employees at legacy carriers have been victims of corporate greed and coruption (and their own union's greed and coruption) and mismanagement. This has happened at SWA as well.
Crandall and others have said that the way the biz is currently structured, airlines will never consistently make money here in the US. Like it or not I think we are going to get regulation in some form.
I emailed your post to a couple of SWA buddies, they got a chuckle out of the fish in a barrel thing. The talking out the ass thing not so much.
FB

 

[wsuffa]

Should other carriers emulate the part were SWA blew off major AD inspections, bought off some feds and then incured the biggest civil aviation fine ever ?

AA certainly blew off the work on the MD-80's resulting in several days of disruption. I don't think WN is alone in tyring to minimize compliance costs.

All I said in the begining was that there are differences in the way SWA gets to comply with regs and everyone else. Much of this is political. The politicans lean on the NTSB and they lean on the FAA and they lean on the POI and so forth. SWA along with other LCCs are darlings in Washington and they get alot done in this manner. Everyone like to bash the legacy carriers (and they deserve alot of it), but you gotta ask yourself why is a level playing field so bad . Employees at legacy carriers have been victims of corporate greed and coruption (and their own union's greed and coruption) and mismanagement. This has happened at SWA as well.

There's level, and then there's level. Would one call the Wright amendment "level"? How about "owned-for-life" (so to speak, 'cause I know the feds do auction a few of 'em) slots at major airports?

I see nothing inherently wrong with a competitive environment. A highly regulated environment stifles innovation. And a well regulated environment required regulators who are as well trained, if not more expert, than the operators. Any of the carriers can request waivers or AMOCs on ADs.

You may differ in your opinion, but from my perch in Washington, having spent years dealing with the regulatory environment, the playing field is as level as it ever was.

Crandall and others have said that the way the biz is currently structured, airlines will never consistently make money here in the US. Like it or not I think we are going to get regulation in some form.
I emailed your post to a couple of SWA buddies, they got a chuckle out of the fish in a barrel thing. The talking out the ass thing not so much.
FB

Crandall has his point of view. Others differ. Should we re-regulate telecom, including rates, because some carriers choose to try and steal market share as opposed to providing service that people want to use? How about cable TV content? Or the internet? All could be classed as utilities.

Regulation won't fix the issues you've mentioned with WN - those matters (maintenance, landing mins, etc) are already regulated. Oh, you mean make WN and other install exactly the same equipment as other carriers, and make them operate to full CATIII standards, and make them do everything the same way as the legacy carriers. Why? If WN has made the business judgement that ACARS is unnecessary, why install it? Let's ask whether the interest of reregulation is truly "safety" or whether it's some form of "protectionism". BTW, the "low fare" argument doesn't cut it - WN is NOT the cheapest game in town (Example: BWI->LAS->BWI this week prices at $780 for WN, $500 for several other carriers).

I'm not with Crandall on this. And yes, I've met the man and had several conversations with him. He's entitled to his opinion.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

AA certainly blew off the work on the MD-80's resulting in several days of disruption.

I don't think that is quite fair. I believe there is more to that issue than is readily apparent. Have you seen the picture of the wire bundle in question? There is NO WAY spacing the ties any closer would have improved the safety of that installation. That bundle could have lasted the life of the airplane without any issues as it was. I am not sure what the FAA was trying to do, but IMO it had nothing to do with safety.

As to whether or not the industry needs to be reregulated, all I really have to say is that the mess we are in now is a direct result of deregulation IMO. As things are now, we will get the airline system we deserve.

 

[Everskyward]

I am not sure what the FAA was trying to do, but IMO it had nothing to do with safety.

No kidding. I think there was some sort of other hidden agenda there. Since no air carrier can be completely compliant with everything all the time, especially when there are a lot of gray areas, anyone can be a target.

As to whether or not the industry needs to be reregulated, all I really have to say is that the mess we are in now is a direct result of deregulation IMO. As things are now, we will get the airline system we deserve.

The world has changed since the 1970s though. People, including me, have gotten used to the airlines being more like a mass-transit system. In many cases I would rather drive myself, but in other cases the distance is too far for the time allotted so I suck it up and buy an airline ticket which is not that much more expensive than driving if you consider meals and lodging along the way. Back in the "old days" if your family member moved across the country you might not see them more than every 5 or 10 years, if ever, depending on your financial situation.

 

[ScottM]

I don't think that is quite fair. I believe there is more to that issue than is readily apparent. Have you seen the picture of the wire bundle in question? There is NO WAY spacing the ties any closer would have improved the safety of that installation. That bundle could have lasted the life of the airplane without any issues as it was. I am not sure what the FAA was trying to do, but IMO it had nothing to do with safety.

As to whether or not the industry needs to be reregulated, all I really have to say is that the mess we are in now is a direct result of deregulation IMO. As things are now, we will get the airline system we deserve.

C'mon Greg, you know that had those tie wraps not been moved by a 1/4" that the entire aircraft was at risk for a serious career ending catastrophe of the FAA inspector.

 

[JohnR]

If the airlines need re-regulating, what specific regulations should be imposed upon them, and what is the desired effect? You can't force a company to be profitable through regulation, if that's the goal.

 

[poadeleted7]

AA certainly blew off the work on the MD-80's resulting in several days of disruption. I don't think WN is alone in tyring to minimize compliance costs.

Bill, AA never tried to bribe the FAA.

I see nothing inherently wrong with a competitive environment. A highly regulated environment stifles innovation.

I dont either. I like some of the things that SWA does. They have done a good job of exploiting the issues with hub and spoke airlines. I wonder what it would be like if we had no choices as consumers and had to put up with the service level of LCCs. It would be interesting. I am not for a highly regulated environment, but I do think some things should be done to stabilize our national transportation system. Others have sugested that we just let everyone go out of bissiness but then what would you be left with ? Too simplistic.

You may differ in your opinion, but from my perch in Washington, having spent years dealing with the regulatory environment, the playing field is as level as it ever was.

You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this one. We paid just into 7 figues for some gates at a certain city in KA. We pulled out and the gates were offered to Air Tran with a subsity of several hundred grand a year. The service was so bad that citizens went too the county fathers and got the subsities ended. I can site several cases like this.

Crandall has his point of view. Others differ. Should we re-regulate telecom, including rates, because some carriers choose to try and steal market share as opposed to providing service that people want to use? How about cable TV content? Or the internet? All could be classed as utilities.

Dont know anything about telecom . I am having a hard enough time keeping up with the airlines

Regulation won't fix the issues you've mentioned with WN - those matters (maintenance, landing mins, etc) are already regulated. Oh, you mean make WN and other install exactly the same equipment as other carriers, and make them operate to full CATIII standards, and make them do everything the same way as the legacy carriers. Why? If WN has made the business judgement that ACARS is unnecessary, why install it? Let's ask whether the interest of reregulation is truly "safety" or whether it's some form of "protectionism". BTW, the "low fare" argument doesn't cut it - WN is NOT the cheapest game in town (Example: BWI->LAS->BWI this week prices at $780 for WN, $500 for several other carriers).

I am not saying regulation will fix anything at SWA and I never made a "Low Fare" argument. Ask yourself how times are reported (and why other carries are compared in this manner). How about crucial updates ;flight plans WX, redispatch, etc. If you want to talk safety (and this is one biggie that my SWA buddies are concerned over) take a look at the varience in de/anti ice procedures. This is but one example where the POI at SWA has clearly interprated on the side of leniency. I dont call this "protectionism" but I would say it runs consistent with the extra hoops we jump through that they dont.
I am headed off to the airport. Happy Fathers day.

 

[ScottM]

and what is the desired effect?

To once again slow down rail growth for high speed passenger service.

The airlines are employing the market share at any cost model of business. Instead of trying to be profitable they just want to be so needed that they can extort subsidies form the government.

If the airlines are forced to actually be profitable a lot of rural air service will cease. Over all flights will decrease due to lower demand, and ATC will also have more free time on their hands. But people will still need to get form A to B. So it is entirely possible that faster rail service becomes more cost effective and profitable. It could conceivably be likely that people in Madison Wisconsin will have to take the train to Chicago to use an airline. But their over all cost is still less than what it would be if they took an airline form Madison without the airline getting government subsidies to provide the service from that location.

You might also see air service between cities actually stop. Perhaps Philly to DC is no longer served by an air route but by a rail service that can do it cheaper and faster while making a bigger profit.

Re-regulating the airline industry will only continue to cause us to be over reliant on air travel.

As a pilot I hate saying those things but it is the truth that I see. I travel to countries that have great rail service. It is really nice being able to travel between downtown areas in a couple of hours instead of having to travel to an outlying airport, spending 2 hours clearing security to fly 2 hours, and then landing at another outlying airport and traveling into town for an hour.

 

[Everskyward]

I wonder what it would be like if we had no choices as consumers and had to put up with the service level of LCCs. It would be interesting.

When I have a choice I pick the LCC which operates from my city over any of the majors. This has little to do with price since they are usually close. I think the service is better. I have not yet flown on SWA but may give them a try someday since they are becoming a bigger presence here.

I am not for a highly regulated environment, but I do think some things should be done to stabilize our national transportation system.

What, for example? And who is going to make the decision of who survives and who doesn't if it's not the market?

 

[JohnR]

To once again slow down rail growth for high speed passenger service.

I don't see regulation as having any positive effect on the airlines.

Rail is supposed to be growing, but maybe only for places with existing rail service. For us in Flyover Country that's only a pipe dream. We have some local rail nuts that push light rail so hard it makes them look like wackos. I love trains, and I'd travel by rail if it existed, but where I live it doesn't. I've taken Amtrak a couple times out of here, but it leaves a lot to be desired.

But if the airlines do get screwed up bad enough, travel by GA will start to look more attractive.

 

[flyersfan31]

I fly SWA over any of the legacies, any day. It's nice to check-in quickly, board quickly, and not get snarled at by FAs and CSRs. Lots of sniping at the LCCs, and some of the fly-by-nites deserve it, but those who operate poorly have fallen by the wayside. Lots of the flak directed at SWA is by bitter pilots at other carriers who want SWA pilots to sign a contract with less flying time, instead of having to increase their own flying time to improve carrier efficiency.

AFA pax rail is concerned, unless a RR could own its track, it'll never work here. Only the NE Corridor works for HS rail because Amtrak has dedicated tracks. Everywhere else pax service rides at as a second class citizen to the freights who own the rails. Besides, I think HS Rail is only really competitive for maybe a 300mi trip in terms of time.

 

[astanley]

I fly SWA over any of the legacies, any day. It's nice to check-in quickly, board quickly, and not get snarled at by FAs and CSRs. Lots of sniping at the LCCs, and some of the fly-by-nites deserve it, but those who operate poorly have fallen by the wayside. Lots of the flak directed at SWA is by bitter pilots at other carriers who want SWA pilots to sign a contract with less flying time, instead of having to increase their own flying time to improve carrier efficiency.

AFA pax rail is concerned, unless a RR could own its track, it'll never work here. Only the NE Corridor works for HS rail because Amtrak has dedicated tracks. Everywhere else pax service rides at as a second class citizen to the freights who own the rails. Besides, I think HS Rail is only really competitive for maybe a 300mi trip in terms of time.

I get pretty good service from AA; but then again, unless on an Eagle segment, I'm about 50/50 up front right now. So that colors my judgement.

Airline travel, as a whole, sucks; but it sucks less than driving myself to most of these places, or taking a boat. So I deal with it.

Re-regulation is not the answer. It never will be. In other words, none of the airlines have become "too big to fail". We have to let the industry shake out and find its path -- shake off the bonds of poor organized labor / management relations, shake off years of poor infrastructure investment, shake off hopelessly complicated pricing and management schemes that take a litany of corporate drones and OR PhD's to execute. On another board I read, people take potshots at WN for heralding the age "of the US-based Ryanair", but what they are doing is opening up our market for true competition. Let's not get started on the foreign ownership rules, either (which are a protectionist vestige from the days of the big nationals running everything)

RE: rail, I think it is interesting to note that EU zone rail received EUR $75B in subsidy during FY07. The airlines? EUR $27 to $35B (depending on how you classify subsidy, although there is no treatment in the analysis I read of EADS subsidy and nationalistic-biased pricing).

Interestingly, the rail subsidy is pretty evenly split between infrastructure and fare subsidy, whereas all of the subsidy in the Airline scheme centers around tax relief (VAT and fuel tax exemptions, which arguably impacts fares)

What's most interesting in the airline world is how everyone blames each other. Airline execs blame GA and the unions. Unions blame the execs and the FAA. The FAA is too inept to do anything.

Sigh...

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[wsuffa]

I don't think that is quite fair. I believe there is more to that issue than is readily apparent. Have you seen the picture of the wire bundle in question? There is NO WAY spacing the ties any closer would have improved the safety of that installation. That bundle could have lasted the life of the airplane without any issues as it was. I am not sure what the FAA was trying to do, but IMO it had nothing to do with safety.

I agree, Greg.

On the other hand if the legacies are going to ask for "strict" enforcement on WN, they need to have their own house in order to the quarter-inch. It was intuitively obvious from the picture that it wasn't going to be a safety problem.... but then again, for each of us, the call that it was "safe" was a judgement call we made from looking at the picture. In the regulated world, rules are substituted for judgement... meaning that even if it is intuitively obvious that... until some regulator decides that it's OK, it's not OK. And regulators lack the expertise, so they go to the manufacturer. MD/Boeing specified, agency enforced.

The discussion here was whether or not WN was too liberal in its judgement and interpertations. They very well may have been. Or they may have been within reasonable doubt, especially if they had an approval from the agency. AA may have been OK, but it didn't technically meet the letter of the law. From the agency's perspective, if it enforces against one, it's gotta be equally strict with the other.

Was the agency as a whole too slack? Perhaps so....

As to whether or not the industry needs to be reregulated, all I really have to say is that the mess we are in now is a direct result of deregulation IMO. As things are now, we will get the airline system we deserve.

And perhaps it is, or perhaps it is that the legacy carriers failed to adapt quickly enough to the competitive environment. Under regulation, we wouldn't have viable competitors, increased service, and other benefits of vigerous competition - and there would be no incentive for the existing carriers to improve their efficiency. SO... we might have more comforts in the cabin, but at a much higher price. FWIW, the legacy carriers have had a virtual lock on the international traffic - and some of them have been clamoring for access to airports like LHR.

Personally, I don't see regulation as being the solution to the issues facing the airlines. And I do see the current moves to cut capacity and increase fares as being positive.

Bill, AA never tried to bribe the FAA.

I dont either. I like some of the things that SWA does. They have done a good job of exploiting the issues with hub and spoke airlines. I wonder what it would be like if we had no choices as consumers and had to put up with the service level of LCCs. It would be interesting. I am not for a highly regulated environment, but I do think some things should be done to stabilize our national transportation system. Others have sugested that we just let everyone go out of bissiness but then what would you be left with ? Too simplistic.

And if there was bribery at WN, then I hope it's prosecuted. Not just firing folks, but prosecution for the briber and bribee.

First, I don't think everyone will go out of business. At some point fares, capacity, and traffic will balance. Yeah we may lose a couple of carriers, but I also think that some should have gone down earlier. We lost PA and EA and it wasn't the end of the earth. Oh, yeah, how can we forget the first real LCC that hit the dustbin: PeopleExpress. Cheap fares, flawed business model.

I really don't want to draw rail into this because it is not really the same. But one can take some lessons from Pennsy, NY Central, Santa Fe and the others.

You and I will have to respectfully disagree on this one. We paid just into 7 figues for some gates at a certain city in KA. We pulled out and the gates were offered to Air Tran with a subsity of several hundred grand a year. The service was so bad that citizens went too the county fathers and got the subsities ended. I can site several cases like this.

See, I'd be opposed to the subsidies. That's not free market. It's more akin to regulation - the government is favoring an entity over another. You'll also find that I'm opposed to local subsidies to build sports stadiums and similar structures. If the franchise can't support the operations, including infrastructure costs, maybe there's a reason.

I do draw a difference on ATC because it's a common service used by all to the benefit of all. It is, in fact, more like traffic lights and city roads, than it is a subsidy to attract one entity. If FAA said "we'll give start-up airline a rebate or subsidy for landing fees or let 'em charge 50% less percentage on passenger taxes", that would be problematic. But setting a rule that says "everyone pays 10% in tax" is a rule that applys to all.

I am not saying regulation will fix anything at SWA and I never made a "Low Fare" argument. Ask yourself how times are reported (and why other carries are compared in this manner). How about crucial updates ;flight plans WX, redispatch, etc. If you want to talk safety (and this is one biggie that my SWA buddies are concerned over) take a look at the varience in de/anti ice procedures. This is but one example where the POI at SWA has clearly interprated on the side of leniency. I dont call this "protectionism" but I would say it runs consistent with the extra hoops we jump through that they dont.
I am headed off to the airport. Happy Fathers day.

Sounds like you need a new POI But seriously, if it's a matter of interpertation, and then maybe we need a changing of the guard. And frankly, you won't get any argument from me that a LOT of things need fixing at the FAA.

Have a good flight.