Ok. Airlines are being forced to put up fees. Fuck it - I say NATIONALIZE the airline industry

[Hawkeye-X]

Stop giving golden parachutes to greedy CEOs and idiotic upper level management who is trying to fleece every nickel they are on and cry about having to pay a lot of money for fuel.

Well, it's time to nationalize the entire friggin industry and consolidate 'em to one big happy airline group and never see this industry deregulated until they figure out how to make it less dependent on foreign oil.

Hawkeye-X

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. That makes sense. (So it'll never happen)

[Taverner]

2. Hey I'm all for it

Or at least re-regulate them

[aspergris]

3. easy

"never see this industry deregulated until they figure out how to make it less dependent on foreign oil"

use gliders. duh.

well, if we are asking what are facile solutions to complex problems for 100, alex.

[TahitiNut]

4. It's long overdiue. Taxpayers have 'invested' billions in the airlines and got NO EQUITY.

That's just fucking insane. Who the hell hands ANY business billions without equity, bonds, or product in return? Corporate welfare ... proof that the 'free market' scam is a total fraud on the public.

[AndyA]

5. There was a time when the airline industry was regulated.

It wasn't THAT expensive to fly.

And we had the choice of many carriers to fly on, many of which are gone today.

Service was better, too. It used to be getting on an airplane and flying somewhere was almost fun, an adventure. Now everyone dreads doing it.

I'd like to see real train service return to this country, too. Sleeper cars and all, that would be a lot of fun to start a vacation with a train trip. The current train service is too spotty.

I think we may need to regulate oil as well. It's a necessity in America today.

[onenote]

17. deregulation caused long term problems, but it didn't directly cause fares to go up

Indeed, fares were generally significantly higher pre-deregulation -- a fact that has been shown by numerous studies. The problems were that with deregulation, there was overexpansion. Competition, which generally is a good thing, sometimes creates its own problems. Too offset the lowering of prices, airlines cut back on service, making air travel less enjoyable. And now, with fuel prices increasing and an aging workforce entitled to pensions, the airlines, having planned poorly for the future, are in deep doo-doo.

Also, it was deregulation that created the choice of air carriers. When the government was regulating fares and routes, the industry was insulated against competition and getting approval for new carriers and rate fares -- even reduced fares -- was extremely time consuming and difficult. Again, the problem wasn't deregulation per se, it was the industry's inability to control itself once it was freed from regulation. It overspent, overdiscounted, and basically ran itself into the ground.

[DangerDave921]

58. Couple things

First, flying used to be more expensive before regulation, when you factor in inflation over the past couple decades. Dereg did bring down prices, although the recent oil prices have driven them back up again. And the reduction in service is cost-savings.

Second, the reason we all hate flying now is the security junk -- taking off shoes, taking out laptops, having your toothpaste taken out of your bag (happened to me twice in the past month). All of that wouldn't change under government control. Remember, TSA is federal already.

I would love to see better train travel, although in the east it is very good. It's great for shorter distances, but is tough for longer trips. And sleeper cars are so expensive. I looked at a sleeper from Baltimore to Savannah for my family -- almost $700 per person! No thanks!

[trof]

104. I was a TWA pilot then.

Since the CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) regulated fares and routes, the only way airlines could 'compete' was trying to outdo each other in quality of service.
Mainly inflight service.

You wouldn't believe the food they used to serve.
5 star restaurant quality.

On a purely selfish/personal note, with the coming of deregulation my upward career path stagnated. I had a pretty good working life, better than the poor bastards at Eastern, Braniff, National, Pan Am, etc.
But the cutthroat price competition of all the cheapo, new-entry carriers started a long chain of cutbacks and downsizing for the so-called 'majors'.
:-(

[JCMach1]

128. TWA was the bomb... I remember getting stuck in a blizzard in St. Louis

with my family on the way back from Christmas. Total delay time: only 4 hrs.

TWA actually got the job done.


Flying back to UAE last week and I had a 6hr delay because of CATERING on United.

[SteppingRazor]

6. We do need to recognize that the industry is simple unsustainable. Look at every other nation...

or at least every industrial one -- Air France, El Al, Aer Lingus, Qantas, Czech Air, etc., etc. -- most other countries have already recognized that the airline industry simply doesn't run along the same economic model as most others. The margins are too tight, the overhead too huge. We could probably support two or three airlines comfortably, but no more. After all, the UK has Virgin Atlantic and British Airways. But even in that case, almost 50 percent of Virgin is owned by Singapore Airlines.

[onenote]

22. fact check: Air France, El AL, Aer Lingus, QANTAS are all mostly privately owned

The trend has been away from national ownership.

Air France is currently 81 percent privately owned.
The Irish government currently holds around a 25 percent stake in Aer Lingus.
QANTAS was privatized in the 1990s
El Al went into receivership while government owned in the 1980s, came out of it, became profitable again, and has been in the process of being privatized since 2003 -- the government currenly owns only a 13 percent stake.

Of the airlines mentioned, only Czech Airlines has consistently remained government owned.

[SteppingRazor]

33. Clarification:

I didn't mean to suggest that these were all nationalized air industries, but instead only to point out that other countries lack the highly segmented airline industry of the United States. Thanks for pointing that out though!! :hi:

[billyoc]

7. The airlines should certainly be nationalized.

I'd go for all energy and raw materials too, but the airlines are sinking so quickly they'd probably cheer the loudest! :hi:

[Virginia Dare]

8. At this point, that is the least expensive option..

for the tax payers. Of course we'll have to fund all of those golden parachutes for all of those brilliant executives who all did a heck uv a job running the industry into the ground (no pun intended).

[Gormy Cuss]

9. No one is forcing the airlines to put up most of the new fees, like the one for checked baggage.

It's a business decision. They could have moved up the floor on discount fares and accomplished the same thing. But as long as passengers go along with the fees, they'll keep adding these separately stated charges rather than reflect the increase in fares. One airline is already planning to charge for bottled water and has tested premium pricing for aisle and window seats. Next up, charges for the soft drinks and juice too. What's left, charging by the minute for use of the overhead light?

[dysfunctional press]

15. maybe they'll start attatching these to all the seats:

and instead of installing video-screens in the seat backs, they could install video-poker screens...

take out the last two rows of seats, install curtains and an inflatable mattress and sell memberships in the mile-high club

and how about pay-toilets?

just spit-ballin'. i'm all about ideas.

[NightWatcher]

10. before we have to bail them out again after they file Ch 13 (11 or 7) they should be nationalized

[The2ndWheel]

11. Everyone likes their own consolidation of power

The real question is what shouldn't be nationalized. If you take national security, or profits, or the common good into the equation, shouldn't everything be run by one entity? China can't act in its own interests, since that nation undermines almost every law in this nation(other than surveillance, although Britain has everyone beat there). Shouldn't the entire globe be run by one big happy group?

Nationalizing is thinking tooooooo small and 20th century, at best. If "foreign" energy is so important, how can exporting nation be allowed to exist? They have far too much power. You don't want nationalization, you need globalization. You can't regulate global corporations with regional governments. The problem is there too many governments acting in their own interest. Government only works if its a monopoly.

That's why corporations have as much power as they do. Corporations are multi-national, they're global. Government is neither. That has to change, or else welcome to Wal-Mart.

[dysfunctional press]

16. the wto represents the best effort at a 'new world order' since the sun set on the british empire.

although things may be changing...

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL747098220080729

Marathon WTO talks collapse in U.S.-India farm row

[Nederland]

12. Yeah

Cause it worked so well for the rail industry...

:sarcasm:

[YOY]

13. Yeah, because we don't give shit to our rail industry.

Compare other developed nations' dedication to their rail industry (financially and otherwise) and get back to me when ripping on Amtrak.

Taking how much European nations give per year versus how much Amtrak has recived in it's entire history this Amtrak employee thinks we're doing pretty F***ing good with what we've got.

Hell, f*** infrastructure.. We've got a monstrous military industrial complex to feed.

[Nederland]

19. What is your argument?

That airlines suffer from too much competition, or that air travel in an inherently unprofitable activity? I need to know which you believe in order to respond appropriately.

[YOY]

23. Neither. Competition is fine. But passenger trains do NOT make money...not in this day and age.

They just don't. It's been tried. They don't.

There is only one example of a national train carrier making a net gain from passenger fares is India Rail last year. Ever see an Indian Rail train full with passengers? It's not exactly how anyone would "want" to travel.

My arguments is that if you think the rail service in this country is poor then you need to realize that we are getting out of it what we put into it.

And some of the money that the national rail system in this country receives is to basically pay the "glorious" private freight companies for the privilege of using their rails because we don't have enough to buy our own.

[Nederland]

29. If passenger trains don't make money

Then we shouldn't be operating them.

If an industry can't make enough money to survive, it is the market's way of telling it that it is providing a product that the people do not want. If the people don't want something, why should they be forced (by government bailouts, subsidies, etc.) to pay for it?

[YOY]

30. What an imbecilic thought!

It's a necessary service. Just like the police, military, and fire department and FRICKING HIGHWAYS. Just because you've never commuted with a train then you have no right to judge the necessity of their existence. We move thousands of people each day to and from work. If they drove it would push gas prices up further...and believe me ridership is UP and going further UP with each passing day. If prices could go DOWN because of a bit more funding we'd have even MORE folks traveling.

The European and Japanese have put enough money into their systems that roads are often a secondary thought in cross country travel. I can guarantee you if (and when because it is coming whether you think it profitable or not) we had the money that the other countries of the world have then the number of people who commute using us would be in the tens of millions daily! It would take a small fraction of our military budget to do that but we need a new destroyer/satellite/no-bid-contract to outspend a bunch of ass clown fanatics halfway around the world carrying AKs and box cutters!

Sewer systems don't make money either. The postal service gets funds like we do both from passengers and outside.

Maybe they should go all just away according to your poorly thought out "free market" theory?

Not everything is a goddamn business. Wake the hell up. Your taxes go to services and do not just disappear up some bureaucrats ass...although some Iraq money seems to be disappearing up some contractor's asses. Services are the bennies of being part of a society.

The Ron Paul site is that away.

[Nederland]

36. Answer the question

If something is truly a necessary service, people will pay for it. If something isn't a necessary service, or if it is being offered at a price that people don't think is worth it, people will not pay for it.

So again, the quesiton is, if the people don't want something, why should they be forced by government bailouts, subsidies, etc. to pay for it?

[YOY]

40. But they do want something.

That's what you're arguing against.

Jesus. You have never taken the train before have you?

You're not even making sense! It's a wanted and needed comodity!

Since you're question is based in ignorance there is no point in answering. It's not supposed to make a profit! They cannot!

[Nederland]

42. It is not enough for something to be wanted

It has to be wanted at the offered price.

I want a Tesla Roadster.

I do not want a Tesla Roadster for $120,000 (or whatever the price is these days).

Yes, people want to travel.

They do not want to travel via train for the price the service is being offered--hence Amtrak's problem.

[YOY]

45. You don't need a f***ing roadster! You technically need 4 functional wheels AND a road.

Rail travel is not a fucking luxury. Jesus. You're not even close.

People NEED TO GET TO WORK! They could drive their 4 wheels and spend tons of money on gas or get a commuter pass or they could take a day vacation from Boston to New York City. Factor out parking and stress and gas prices and you'll see why some people weekend vacation using us.

It's not a thing to privatize. It is not. Can the Adam Smith shit.

This s*** to privatize fails globally. Even the Japanese rails shares are 100% owned by an independant agent of the state so they can "invest".

The price is lowered when we are funded better...but that's further into the tax dollars away from the precious wastes that we currently fund.

[Nederland]

49. What gives you the right to define what I need?

Please answer THAT question, because I really don't want to live in some sort of fascist state where some small group of government bureaucrats gets to define what they think I "need".

FYI, a Tesla Roadster is an all electric vehicle and the best development the automobile industry (and the environment) has seen in decades.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

[YOY]

53. I didn't say that and you goddamn know it.

You and your privitize everything faschist bullshit...You tell me you want a Roadster and then bitch that I'm being when I point out the difference between wants and needs/luxuries and staples and ignore the intrinsic fact that the automobile has become nearly necesary in most American lives as is the need to have a stable passenger rail system. I don't give half a shit of what you REALLY need. I'm not telling you what you REALLY need. That's up to you.

I'm not even a government employee! I get paid from our nice paying passengers.

Like I said, Ron Paul is down the road.

When we see the Tesla in production and big oil doesn't kill it I'll be happy.

[Nederland]

54. You certainly did

You said I didn't need a Tesla Roadster.

You said it in the title of post #45.

[LanternWaste]

82. I think the question would more aptly be...

I think the question would more aptly be "who needs a Tesla Roadster?". It is, for all intent and purposes, an unnecessary item. What I think Adam Smith called 'conspicuous consumption'.

As for a person wanting one or desiring one, that's a completely different animal-- but I do think it would be pretty easy to come up with an objective list of those things we need or do not need.

[YOY]

87. Well if you're going to take it to context tell the living members of this "fascist group" the same.

They dare tell you what you "need" as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo

[Tesha]

121. Actually, in most of the country, people *CAN'T* rationally choose train service.

There ain't no train for them to take whose schedule
makes any sort of sense.

The only way we'd know whether people would choose
trains, plains, buses, or cars is if there were
schedule-competitive trains traveling on the routes.

Here in the Northeast, people *DO* routinely choose
trains over planes, cars, and the Fung Wah bus: Amtrak
is starting to be all full all the time.

But nice attempt to put a Libertarian spin on things. ;)

Tesha

[Hugabear]

74. Then build your own fucking roads

I'm tired of paying taxes so that you can drive on a paved road. :sarcasm:

Like the poster said, not everything is about making money. It's about offering services to people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

132. Seriously. People need to put down the Free Market Koolaid once in a while.

Unfettered "market driven" privatization has NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE. It does not work. These libertarians can never point to a country where their ideas have succeeded.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

130. Yep. If ambulances are losing money because not enough people are using them

Then ambulance service should be scrapped. Drive Dad to the hospital yourself after he had the major coronary! :sarcasm:

As for rail service, I don't suppose it's occured to you that not everyone drives.

[AngryAmish]

39. Japanese rail is privately owned

Japan is kinda a unique case because the rights of way were given to the private companies after the war .. there wasn't a lot of Japan left so their lines could be straighter and run at a higher speed with fewer grade crossings. Also the trains run right downtown in most cases. cheers.

[Nederland]

44. You read my mind

I was just bringing up that very point. Cheers.

[YOY]

46. Look at it closer.

It's hardly perfectly "privatized".

[Nederland]

51. I would agree

But it is a model that I think the US should follow.

You may know something about Amtrak that I do not, so I'll ask. I have read that the government requires (or at the very least, pressures) Amtrak to operate routes that are unprofitable. I've heard it claimed that if Amtrak were allowed to drop its unprofitable routes and operate only the heavy travelled routes in the northeast and on some sections of lower California it would be quite happily profitable and not need to go begging Congress for more funds every few years. Is this true?

[YOY]

55. There are roads in the middle of nowhere that hardly give profit to the podunk towns they connect.

but they are a necesary service to maintain. Should we not maintain those roads because only 4 people live on them miles away from town?

[Nederland]

56. Yes

We should not pay to maintain those roads, the people that benefit from them should. People should have to fully pay for all the costs associated with where they live. If we did that, we wouldn't see the subsidized sprawl that we see today, our living areas would be a hell of a lot denser (like Europe and Japan) and your precious rail system wouldn't have any problems whatsoever operating without government assistance.

The problem is people in government pushing a particular solution, rather than letting the people figure it out for themselves. If Eisenhower hadn't subsidized the automobile industry with a multi-trillion dollar construction project we wouldn't be in this mess. We would have roads only inside cities, rail connecting close cities, and airlines connecting the cities far apart. That is the most sensible arrangement, but government intervention screwed it all up.

[YOY]

94. I'd like to see an example of this Randian gloriousness where it worked out.

It's a recipe for disaster cooked up by people with inflated senses of self-importance and capabilities.

[wvbygod]

101. You have to be kidding

You want me to pay all for my county road where half a dozen people live AND pay
for your train ride to the cities? Let's hope you are never in charge.

Maybe you don't like to travel the roads of America to see this great country
but many of us do and we would never even think about getting close to a city if possible to avoid it.

I find cities useful for keeping those that like them from filling up the countryside
but not all of us are metrosexual beings. Population control would be better than
forcing everyone into a steel and concrete city.

[RadiationTherapy]

61. Socialism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Socialism, Libertarianism,

I am a socialist in that I am perfectly comfortable telling someone what they "need" or not.

What the other poster's mind block is regarding your point about trains is they do not believe "needs" can be defined and provided for.

I absolutely do.

[Nederland]

66. By whom?

Who gets to define those needs? The majority of voters? Some set of government bureaucrats? What set of individuals gets to force-ably impose their beliefs on another set of individuals? I'm sorry, but that is not the function of liberal government. The proper function of government is to create an environment where people are free to choose what they want and work hard to achieve it for themselves. We are not a hive of bees all working together for the greater good at the expense of individual liberties.

[YOY]

91. Logic.

n/t

[YOY]

100. I'm not really too much of a Socialist.

I believe in competition and fair business are essential to progress and development and that upward as well as downward mobility of "classes" are key to it's success. The rich should be able to fall and fall hard if they truly are pathetic and incapable of survival and the poor should be able to grow and prosper with personal success and capability. A little conservative I know but they often treat the rich as so deserving. I'd like to see some of the inbred blue bloods fall back down to the gutter where they and their dinosaur thinking belong and be replaced by hard working folks from the social strata below them.

That being said I am QUITE for public transportation and socialized medicine. I find the insurance companies of this country fall into what I deem as "parasite industries"...providing a non-exportable needed commodity that leeches off of the public.

It's just the failure of the libertarian to see what unrestrained and uncontrolled capitalism can do and the not everything is a goddamn moneymaker, can be turned into one, and if they were people who need those services and cannot afford them would not be accommodated and would suffer as a whole.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Not quite

There are two rail systems in Japan:

The first is the former JNR, now called JR, which was "privatized" in the 1980s but which still essentially has a monopoly on interregional travel and the Shinkansen bullet trains. The Shinkansen are the most profitable part of the business, and the JR makes up for its shortfall by running hotels and building shopping arcades around its major stations.

(By the way, in Japan, new freeways and bridges have tolls and are required to make a profit.)

The private rail lines are all essentially local commuter rails. They were originally started by department store companies that wanted to get into the real estate business. They built housing developments along their rights of way and had the lines terminate in their department stores, guaranteeing both convenience for the buyers of their houses and daily foot traffic for their departmet stores.

If you haven't experienced rail travel in Japan or Europe (but especially Japan), then you don't know shit about rail travel.

[fudge stripe cookays]

65. ???

It may be one of the few ways to get from one place to another pretty soon.

What a moronic statement.

[Nederland]

67. Well then

If it will soon be one of the few ways to get from one place to another, they won't have any trouble finding paying customers, will they?

[fudge stripe cookays]

79. I'm taking out east in the spring.

If people are pissed about the airlines, I'd recommend checking into other options. We need to keep Amtrak going.

[YOY]

89. I've said it before I'll say it again:

"Thank you FSC for riding Amtrak!"

[fudge stripe cookays]

133. Yay me!

:woohoo:

When I saw that I could get a non sleeper car from Milwaukee to NY and then come back from Toledo for $199 (after renting a car to get between areas in NY, PA, MD, and OH), I was sold.

Now, if reprehensor has a job and we can AFFORD to do that is the next thing.

:D

[MicaelS]

90. For effective passenger rail service

You need a dedicated right-of-way. In other word's no freight trains allowed. That's the only way. Passenger trains cannot operate properly if they have to dodge slow-moving freights, and freights can't operate properly if they have to keep worrying about delaying high-speed passenger trains.

I personally think the future is high-speed mag-lev, and any and all surface transportation funding should be directed toward that goal.

[YOY]

92. and for that you need money.

Amtrak does not get the money.

Instead we "rent" our rails from the parasitic freight rails. Just another easy money maker for private industry.

[MicaelS]

98. Friend, your preaching to the choir

I worked as freight trainman for over a decade. I know the situation by heart. The Class 1 RRs in this country do not want Amtrak on their ROW. They probably make more money off 1 unit coal train than they get from Amtrak in a month.

[YOY]

108. I don't know how much they make off us us.

But I have a distinct feeling it's not pennies. The sentiment is echoed all over Amtrak.

Are/Were you union?

[MicaelS]

109. Yes I was

The UTU.

[YOY]

110. Good on you.

n/t

[TankLV]

105. Great idea - then you can start with the multi-billiiion dollar SUBSIDIZED airline industry...

airlines get BILLIONS in free taxpayer payed subsidies while the trains are expected to GO IT ALONE without ANY subsidies.

I would like to see your stupid argument applied to the airline industry - then it would collapse in a millisecond...

[JCMach1]

129. Bogus argument... if rail could provide fast transport when and where people want to go

It is far superior to the torture of air travel...

The US has NEVER invested in the infrastructure of Amtrak. It is a skeleton system.

[YOY]

135. Thank you for your informed and true response.

n/t

[AllieB]

20. That's because federal funds were drastically cut.

Amtrak is also woefully mismanaged. The Bush administration and Congress slashed budgets for public transportation, which of course was politically motivated and benefit the oilgarchy.

[Nederland]

21. Why does Amtrak need public funds?

Why can't it be profitable on it's own?

[YOY]

24. Why can't the fire department or libraries?

Because something just are not supposed to be privatized because they don't make money!

If you think it can be done then I'm sure you aren't in full understanding of just how rail works. Not everything is a business. Somethings are services. You pay for the services but they still are services.

[Nederland]

34. Public Goods Versus Private Goods

Certain goods are public goods, others are private goods. Public goods get provided by government because they cannot be delivered successfully by the private sector. This distinction is well defined and the concept has been around for decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Airlines are NOT public goods. Air travel can and has been provided by private means by dozens of firms for years. The problem is, in this country we reward the idiots that can't figure out how to run a successful airline with government handouts and subsidized loans, and punish the smart business leaders who have figured out how to successfully run and airline by making them compete against subsidized idiots.

THAT is the problem: CORPORATE WELFARE.

[YOY]

35. Well then passenger rail would be a "Public Good"

n/t

[Nederland]

37. It's not

A public good is something that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. Passenger rail is neither.

I suggest you read the link.

[YOY]

41. I suggest that you read up on rail.

It is both.

and making it private is so incredibly stupid that it fails words.

[Nederland]

43. You need to read up on rail

It is obvious that you have a very US centric view of how things "should" be. Perhaps you should read up on how rail operates in Japan. Rail there is private and works quite well. How is it that it works there and not here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan

[YOY]

47. Bullshit.

I work Rail. I've got rail people rolling in laughter at your idiocy.

And as for US Centric...the idea that someone is telling me to privatize everything that they can speaks volumes for how US Centric you think. Please tell it to my Eurorail collegues. I am sure they will find it twice as absurd as I. I've lived there. 4 years of my life.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

As for Japan...scroll down a bit and read more.

[Nederland]

52. Geographically, the US is not Europe or Japan

That is the root of the problem.

The US is too spread out geographically for rail to compete against the airlines effectively. It's not a question of bad management, poor government funding or anything else, it's simply a matter of geography.

That, and the fact that automobiles are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars a year... :)

[DangerDave921]

62. Yup

I can fly to Chicago (from east coast) in two-plus hours. Or I can take a train that gets there in about 18 hours. Or take the bus and get there next week.

Train is simply not a viable alternative unless you're on vacation and have two weeks to kill. For today's business travelers, no one is going to spend 18 hours on a train each way. I don't care how cheap it is.

East coast Amtrak is fine -- a lot of big cities close together that make it financially sound (Washington - Baltimore - Philly - New York - Boston). But longer trips? Nope!

[YOY]

96. That's going to change if gas prices continue the way they are going and Amtrak gets funding

If Amtrak gets the funding HSR will come to small town America. A transcontinental train with High Speed capabilities would be a step in the right dirrection.

That would take money. DOD level money...and I don't see "concerned Republicans" doleing it out. They'd rather let the midwest rot and that airflight become a commodity for the wealthy.

[YOY]

111. and population dispersion will change. Gas prices are seeing to that.

People will begin moving closer to the city just as they moved further away in the cold war period...a migration that was promoted by fear of Nuclear attack and "white flight"

With the exception of remote workers (via the internet) infill will fade away and urban development will boom.

Geography will remain the same...population centers will grow.

[TankLV]

106. Why do the AIRLINES need BILLIONS in subsidies?

Why can't the AIRLINES be profitible on their own?

I want my money back that we already gave to the fucking airlines...

[YOY]

27. As an Amtrak employee I find that a little offensive.

We work DAMN well with what we have.

[AllieB]

50. No offense intended.

I think it's the Bush appointees who are inept, not the regular employees. It would be good if the federal government helped Amtrak as much as the auto industry and oil companies. As a Northeasterner who relies on public transportation, I think Amtrak does a great job, but lack of federal funds to combat infrastructure degradation hurts.

[YOY]

134. The latest one seems to have done semi-good.

He settled a union dispute that fared WELL for our boys and didn't cut the legs from the rest of the company.

[RedLetterRev]

14. Nationalize? That's long overdue. Or just let them go bust.

And good riddance. For forty years, they've golden-parachuted, gilded-CEO'd, jiggled stock, pissed away money as if it flowed like the River Ganges, been bailed out time and time over on the public dime -- and yet, they keep sucking us dry.

Fluck 'em. Drown 'em. Someone with some brains and a notion of responsibility will come along and we'll have decent air transportation again.

Or bullet trains. Really, it's up to them. No more public dole for thieving businesses. Period.

[Bluebear]

18. "Or just let them go bust" - reminder that tens of thousands of ppl work for those companies

Nationalize, yes. Oust the gilded-CEO's yes. but leave the working people out of it.

[RedLetterRev]

31. Honestly I have no problem

with nationalizing them. I used to work in the aircraft parts industry, at what was once the world's largest supplier. It's not just the airlines jobs that would vanish. Believe me, I'm more sensitive to the problem than you might think.

But the constant suckling at the public tit has got to stop. The infant is forty years past when it should have been on its own feet and running. Instead, it grew greedier and got sharper teeth. If an airline does go under and isn't (once again, at great public expense) rescued, will the outcry THEN be enough to get middle America off its fat, dead arse and throw the neocons out?

The flip side to the whole equation is that we do need mag-lev and other high-speed forms of transportation as-yet-to-be invented. What the hell happened to American ingenuity or did we ship that offshore, too?

We've got great talent in this country and great motivation. I say, whatever pressure it takes to wake us up, to bring our great strengths and talents to bear (no puns, being somewhat bear-ish myself!), to shake us from this long, shell-shocked stupor of neocon-induced haze, let's do something. Even if at first it's wrong, for Dog's sakes, we'll fix it as we go. We can't continue to sleepwalk.

We have so much talent, so much heart, so much... well, so much. We're literally wasting in our tracks. We're worth ever so much more.

The neocon fatcats and gilded CEOs will never ever change. For every bailout there will be a slew of golden parachutes. There will continue to be great payola into DC to lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseam. They have not fixed the problem, nor are they willing to so long as We The People continue to be the pocketbook for more parachutes-and-payola.

We are the ones we've been waiting for. It may be up to us to catch a brother or sister or two. I'm willing. But the constant cycle of theft and payola has to stop or we'll be having this same discussion 10, 20 and (Dog willing I should live so long) 30 years from now.

Peace and B*B

[TankLV]

107. Too bad - nobody cared about the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who worked in STEEL...

so why should we care about this ONE group of people - fair is fair - or are some people better than others...???

Your argument stinks on face value alone...

Don't get me started about the manufacturing industry in which MILLIONS lost their jobs...

[Nederland]

26. Let them go bust

Airlines that cannot compete need to be allowed to fail. It is the only way you are going to weed out the inefficient providers.

[Initech]

25. According to the good folks at airliners.net, the Spanish government is investigating these fees.

If they determine that these fees are illegal, all US airlines that fly to Spain (United, US Airways, Delta, and so on) are opening themselves up to huge fines, probably in the six figures, and they'll drop them like a ton of bricks.

Read more:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4084801/

[Occam Bandage]

28. Hope you enjoy your $600 New York-Chicago flight, running twice daily.

[RB TexLa]

59. Everything would run through Minneapolis, Oberstar chairs the house transportation

committee. Don't think the senate chair could get everything routed through Hawaii.


It would be something, 80% of international flights out of Minnesota, you know leave a few out of the President's home town or state.

Talk about raising some funds, want a few flights to Orlando on the schedule? Oh . . . I'm having a $20,000, er I mean $50,000 a plate fund raiser tonight Mr. Disney CEO, perhaps a couple hundred of your employees would like to attend, you can just write the check for them now and collect the money from them.


Gravy Train Air!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Oh geeze, what is this, snide libertarian greedhead pile-on day?

You're certainly old enough to remember when the airlines were regulated. That's NOT how it was, and you know it.

[cobalt1999]

83. It wasn't good then either.

Overall cost per mile using inflation adjusted dollars was much higher. There were no real hubs and if you didn't live in a major city and were not flying to a major city, your route was sometimes a bizarre set of hops.

I remember those days well, and as someone who travels weekly, I have no desire to go back to them either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. It's not a bizarre set of hops now?

I'm speaking as someone who did job interviews all over the country in the late 1970 and early 1980s when deregulation was still new.

If you don't live in a hub now, you have to go through a hub to get anywhere, and if you're in an airline's major hub, you have little choice of airlines because the hub airline dominates so overwhelmingly.

[cobalt1999]

99. Nowhere near as bad as back then.

I've been traveling extensively for years and have been through both systems (regulated and de-regulated).

If you live in a hub city you will be hit with a higher airfare, but you'll have lots of flights to your destination. If you live outside of a hub, once you get to a hub, again, you have lots of flight options.

Back then, I'd have to fly from one small town to another small town to a city then due to lack of flight options, maybe spend the night there before catching another flight. It was horrible and twice the cost. The fact that everyone was extremely pleasant and you got food/drinks didn't make up for the deficiencies in the system.

[hogwyld]

125. I would trade a day or two of traveling "ease"

for decent service. Right now, it just feels like cattle lead to the slaughter anymore.

[onenote]

63. ah, someone else who remembers the not so good old days

Deregulation itself wasn't the problem. It was a number of things, including poor management. But back before airline deregulation -- which occurred 30 years ago, so its probably beyond the recall of many younger DUers -- there were fewer choices and higher prices. Better service, though.

[cobalt1999]

102. Another old timer with a good memory.

The "good old days" were not really that good.

[Mr. Blonde]

32. Why not just not bail them out next time

before too long we will be down to just Southwest anyway.

[insleeforprez]

38. It's because owning an airline is romantic.

In most industries, a company won't enter the market unless it can be profitable. In the airline industry, similar to, say, owning a sports franchise, some companies will enter into the market just because it's such a "fun" thing to do. See: Virgin America, SkyBus, etc.

If regulation fixed this inefficiency, I would not be opposed, but it would almost certainly go too far.

[DangerDave921]

48. Yes Yes Yes!

Everything you're unhappy with now should be run by the government. That will solve everything!

Can the government take over my local dry cleaner because it knocks the freaking buttons off my shirt collars??? I am so tired of that!

Government is OK running trash removal and snow-plowing. Other than that, I really don't want the government actually running industry.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Oh sure, use ridiculous examples

Argue just like the right-wingers who post on my local newspaper's website.

[DangerDave921]

81. of course it's ridiculous

My point, however, is serious. That I don't think the government is very efficient or talented at running industry. It's just not.

How are the local schools in your area?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Some are good; some are not

As elsewhere in the country, schools are locally controlled. They're as good as the local voters allow them to be.

[Hawkowl]

57. Could I get a federal pension?

As a pilot, I'm all for nationalization. It would be like many cities public transportation systems. Makes sense to me.

[Nederland]

60. How much do you make?

Are you prepared to make as much money as government pilots (i.e. military) make?

[Hawkowl]

64. Yes.

I make about $80 per flight hour and that is after 10 years with the same company. The hourly rate is based on per flight hour, m=Meaning the clock starts once the door is closed and stops when the door is opened. Pilots are limited by federal law only working 30 flight hours per week, 100 flight hours per month, and 1000 hours per year. The majority of pilots I know would trade the russian roulette volatility of the industry for a federal job. In fact, most military pilots will no longer leave the military to come fly for the airlines.

[Imagevision]

68. Only a matter of time when the planes start falling from the skies because of

cutbacks on maintenance,

[Hippo_Tron]

69. People would stop flying

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. There were zero deaths due to accidents on commercial airlines last year and so far this year

[SoCalDem]

70. Anyone remember the '70s??

There were LOTS of airlines.. they made money..they competed..the passenger was KING..

what happened"

REAGAN & his deregulation and the climate of corporate cannibalism happened..

We had the BEST air travel system going, and we all stood by and watched it butchered, and sold of in little bits..

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. Yee-up

Deregulation lowered fares--and turned flying into the something worse than the Greyhound bus.

At first it favored upstarts like People Express and Laker, which offered lower fares for no service. But then the legacy airlines tried to undercut them and kill them off by offering the same fares (which were not sustainable for a full-service airline).

The majors should have said, "Okay, let People Express be the Greyhound of the skies. We'll cater to the business traveler and the long-distance leisure traveler and keep our fares high."

But in killing off Laker and People Express, they trained the public to expect low fares, like expecting to fly from New York to San Francisco (a distance equivalent to that between New York and Europe) for $200.

Bad move, and ultimately it led to their current troubles (with a lot of help from corporate raiders).

[onenote]

75. I remember them, Just not the way you do.

First, deregulation of the airlines occurred with the enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 during Jimmy Carter's presidency, not during Reagan's (although much of the chaos that occurred from deregulation occurred during the mid 80s when some of the old major carriers like Eastern, National, Pan Am and TWA ran into trouble because of competition from smaller discount airlines like People's Express, New York Air and Laker).

Which brings up a second point. It was deregulation that resulted in the growth of the number of carriers, at least at first. A lot of small airlines that had provided regional service expanded their routes and new regional carriers were started. For example, Texas Air was a small regional carier, but it became an aggressive pursuer of larger airlines, swallowing up Continental and then going after Eastern. Prices were slashed compared to the pre-deregulation days. But there were major problems as well. With discounted prices came reductions in service. Flying on People's Express was like being packed in a cattle car. The amenities of flying began dropping off. As time wore on, incredibly bad management (Frank Lorenzon anyone?) and overexpansion put a lot of pressure on some of the big name carriers and they either had to allow themselves to be swalloed up or go out of business.

Deregulation had its pluses, but in the long run, the chickens came home to roost and, now,with a troubled economy, high fuel costs, an aging fleet and heavy payrolls, the airlines are in deep doo doo.

[Dreamer Tatum]

120. Most intelligent and fact-based post I have seen in a LONG while nt

[cobalt1999]

84. And it cost a fortune to fly back then.

Sure the airlines made money and the passenger was KING. You had to pay a king's ransom back then and flying was for the elite.

No thanks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. People still got around

:shrug:

[cobalt1999]

95. You mean the wealthy still got around.

The average family drove to vacations. The whole tradition of piling the family into the car and driving across country went away with cheap airfares.

[Marrah_G]

118. Those were the best vacations ever. I saw most of the country before I was 10.

Flying we never would have had the experiences we had. I saw more in half dozen summers then most people see in a lifetime. Then gas prices shot up and that was the end of the month long cross-country camping trips.

[cobalt1999]

122. Same here.

Lots of memories and LONG days in a car with the family.

Unfortunately, the concept of 2-3 week vacations in today's corporate controlled world has gone the way of the dinosaurs.

[Marrah_G]

123. MY dad taught public school so summers were the perfect time to see the country

Always someplace educational, I am so thankful for the experiences now. I wish I could do the same for my kids.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

126. My father was a Lutheran pastor, and he always negotiated for four weeks of vacation

In addition, my parents wouldn't let my brothers play Little League, because they didn't want some coach telling them when they could leave town. (My brothers are no worse for the "deprivation.")

By the time I was 15, I had visited both coasts, the South, and Canada many times. My parents always made a point of stopping at historic and scenic sites along the way as we drove about 300-400 miles a day and camped. That was far more educational and memorable than flying to Disney World.

[fed_up_mother]

112. CARTER started deregulation, including airlines - not Reagan

Let's get our history straight.

CARTER deregulated airlines, trucking, railroads, oil, and interest rates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. The Airline Deregulation Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 1978:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d095:SN02493:@@@R

Ronald Reagan was not President then. Does anyone remember who was President then?

[Jack_DeLeon]

77. How about we just let the airline industry die out...

better to focus on building up rail and other forms of transportation that can actually do double duty and haul goods (i.e. food) aswell long distances rather than just hauling people. So that way we can work to reduce the number of trucks being used.

[MicaelS]

97. Won't work as you envision

For effective passenger rail service to replace air travel, you need high speed trains, that means in excess of 200 mph. For that type of rail operation, you MUST have a dedicated right-of-way. In other words no freight trains allowed, period, that's the only way. No highway crossing at all. Bridges and / overpasses anywhere trains and roads intersect. Passenger trains cannot operate properly if they have to dodge slow-moving freights, and freights can't operate properly if they have to keep worrying about delaying high-speed passenger trains. Now, all that is very expensive. In excess of $1 million per mile of new track, and that's just the actual cost of building the track, not the leasing or buying the ROW or building bridges and overpasses. See why we don't have effective passenger rail service in this country? Except in the northeast corridor where we have multiple ain line track. That means one (or more) track for one way, and one or more for the opposite direction.

I personally think the future is high-speed maglev, and any and all surface transportation funding should be directed toward that goal. I would love to take a 350+ mph maglev train.

[TexasObserver]

78. Do you really want the ruling party to control air travel in America even more?

If I thought the federal government could run any airline competently, I might give your idea a second thought, but even then, I'd be concerned about what the GOP would do to travel if they ran government and controlled all commercial air travel.

[rucky]

80. Aeroflot. n/t

[Egalitariat]

85. That way service would be better and fares would be cheaper**

nm

[AngryAmish]

103. Great idea! Government employees running air travel. What could possibly go wrong?

[Thothmes]

119. Think FEMA

[Lydia Leftcoast]

127. FEMA did fine (think Grand Forks) until the Republicans took over

This is how conservatives work:

Take a government agency
Put somebody incompetent in charge of it
Make sure that it channels government contracts to political insiders, not to the most competent contractors
Make sure that its projects favor large business interests over small business or employees (redevelopment of New Orleans)
Encourage the private sector to develop alternatives that are of higher quality, but at a price
Voila! "Government doesn't work."

They've done this time and time again (in the UK as well as in the US) and Libertarians and other small-minded greedheads who can't see past their own pocketbooks fall for it every time.

[Thothmes]

136. Of course

you can guarantee that the Democrates will be in control of the Government for the next century or so.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

137. If you can guarantee that private sector companies will never be controlled

by callous CEOs and CFOs who will literally do anything to add another million or two to their already overflowing coffers, the type of executives who continuously reduce product/service quality and raise prices while maintaining a monopoly or oligopoly so that consumers have no realistic choices.

[Dreamer Tatum]

124. It looks like you want to nationalize to lower the pay of about 5000 people

Which is silly if you want to really attack the issue.

The FACT of the matter, which is NOT up for debate, is that competition was up and airfares were down in the wake of deregulation. That is pro-consumer, and there is no getting around it.

We have an example of a profitable airline that has endured in every crisis for decades: Southwest Airlines. Their target customer is the VERY PERSON that benefitted most immediately from deregulation.

Someone down thread said it well: busting hub monopolies and allowing more competition at that level would incent more airlines to emulate Southwest. If it means that American Airlines has to go down, then so be it. They have enough Harvard and Chicago MBAs to know deep down that their business model isn't working.

[DemoTex]

113. As a retired airline pilot, I am 100% in favor of nationalizing the airlines.

I've watched the airline industry from the inside for a long time and it ain't purdy. Airline CEOs and their mouthpiece in Washington, the Air Transport Association (ATA), have made sure that profits and safety are almost totally incompatible.

[bdab1973]

131. Southwest Airlines...

That's all I'll say. I'm not an airline pilot, but I have several friends that do fly for SWA. And they love their jobs, they are paid well, and their airline makes money. Not a lot of money, but they do stay in the black. Smart business models and a corporate culture that puts the company first ahead of personal gains is what keeps that company going when others in the same industry fall down.

All the majors now charge something for checking one or two bags. SWA does not charge, at least not when I used them a few months ago. The "legacy" airlines have business models still built around the days prior to deregulation. I've met airline pilots that flew for legacy carriers that said they would refuse to work for SWA, because they would actually have to fly more. Gee, that's how your company makes money, is flying. Not sitting at the gate while you get coffee.

Here's something that impressed me...in the days after 9/11, when airline passenger traffic fell dramatically, the senior execs at SWA went without pay so they didn't have to lay off employees or reduce the pay of their employees. THAT is leadership. They cats at the top of SWA knew they could make it just fine on what they had saved in stocks, and rode the storm out with their people.

And then you see airlines like AA, USAirways and Delta cutting people, cutting salaries, all while the CEOs walked away with huge compensation packages.

[redqueen]

114. No - just enforce antitrust laws and remove the monopoly-type power that hubs have. (nt)

[librechik]

116. Mass transit, Resources (Oil) and Healthcare and Daycare need to be nationalized like crazy

and people need a place to live, too!

How dare they call simple human charity Stalinism?

They are the ones killing folks in large numbers!