Gulliver

Sure, deregulation has forced airlines to compete on price. But it has also led to the flying cattle cars that business and leisure travelers both love to hate. No food, pay headphones/TV, baggage fees, tiny legroom, shortchanging frequent flyer miles, and let's not forget how many 8-hours-on-tarmac stories it took before Congress finally had enough. Plus an overall decline in quality also includes an overall decline in PILOT quality - witness Colgan Flight 3407.

"We actually regulated the size of sandwiches!"

Weren't the Airline Pilot's unions and the Teamsters Republican oriented that needed to be disciplined by Jimmy Carter's administration? The deregulation of these two industries served the purpose of punishing errant unionists.

Several years later, Reagan got back by opening up the borders to Japanese cars trimming back the UAW. What goes around, came around.

Were coming to end of what Khan hoped to achieve - cheap air transportation. On one side we've got ever increasing fuel prices to look forward to. In the US we're looking at an every decreasing number of major carriers. By the end of this decade it will be down to four. So much for competition. And lastly lets not forget the eco-nut legislators who want to tax the airlines out of the sky (of course for the public good). Of course the airlines will go on is some form but once again it will be for the middle class and above. Everybody else will have to take the bus (or the train in Europe).

It is important to remember that airlines would never have started or survived without decades of Federal government subsidies. When the whole system was smaller than it became by the '70s, it was necessary to keep everyone from competing for a few lucrative routes and abandoning most of the country.

I'll always remember Kahn for speaking out about a "banana" when he was commanded not to mention a recession. We could use some of his straightforward ridicule of political nonsense in our far more ridiculous time.

I'm noting absolutely no evidence provided to indicate that it has been a win. Prices were lower for a time, but then how is that different from any service or product life cycle? Why is that just assumed to be worth the tradeoff in comfort and quality? Was increased plane travel actually an efficient use of resources as opposed to utilizing communication devices or trains? I doubt it. Who really looks to modern air carriers as an example of a successful business model?

I don't care how cheap it is, air travel sucks. It's uncomfortable to the max. I use planes only because I have due because of geography. they stink.

Deregulation is mostly to thank for the practice of weekend trips to see relatives in the dead of winter -- which didn't strike most people as a good idea when prices were higher under regulation. Air delays are an obvious risk for such a short trip at that time of year. Those kind of trips being affordable affected where people chose to live vis-a-vis their families: the cost of a few cross-country air trips a year was factored into location decisions.

People may revisit those decisions if prices rise substantially and the experience stays so unpleasant. Higher prices may not rule out a splurge, but it needs to at least be a pleasant one.

Perhaps air isn't the best way to get around America for trips that are less than cross-country? And for trips that are, one form of airline regulation that's still very much with us is the outright ban on foreign carriers serving domestic routes. An airline flying LA-New York-London can carry cross-country passengers if it's U.S.-owned (no matter how surly and unreliable its service), but not if it's, say, Singapore Air -- which regularly beats all US-owned airlines in customer satisfaction surveys. (No, I'm not an employee or stockholder!)

Opponents of deregulation, and not just for airlines, pointed out at the time that the most obvious downside of not regulating (and thus forcibly dividing up the market) was precisely loss of competition. Letting foreign-owned airlines compete on long-haul domestic routes would be a good first remedy.

Doesn't the airline industry as a whole (at least in the U.S.) continue to lose money ; and if so, wouldn't that suggest that many of the (allegedly) "free market" low prices are actually an illusion ?

He took gold and turned it into dross. U.S. airlines now equal Soviet era Aeroflot in most respects. The final step will be the safety factor when that very shortly becomes the last place to cut costs. He should be in afterlife's economy middle seat on a permanently delayed domestic long haul.

Econwriter wrote: Jan 4th 2011 6:14 GMT

Opponents of deregulation, and not just for airlines, pointed out at the time that the most obvious downside of not regulating (and thus forcibly dividing up the market) was precisely loss of competition. Letting foreign-owned airlines compete on long-haul domestic routes would be a good first remedy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I understand, the foreign ownership rule is due to the fact that despite having the current big 5 legacy airlines (4, if you count a merged United and Continental as one), the US doesn't have an official national carrier that is owned, directly subsidized, or somehow closely affiliated with the government. The thinking was that only airlines majority owned by Americans could be nominally trusted to comply with, say, an FAA or DOD nationalization order during a state of emergency.

I agree that this rule is rather archaic now, as it has been used (abused?) more in the interest of stifling innovation - so much for the free market! - than to further any actual public interest. Just look at the obstacles Sir Richard Branson faced when he tried to start up Virgin America. There really was no national security case to be made against his ownership, rather American and Continental used the foreign ownership law to try to maintain market dominance.

De-regulation of the airline industry was a giant job creations bill and a great thing for the U.S. consumer. Now the average Joe could fly his family to Florida for vacation. There were a few casualities such as Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, etc. But these carriers and their union thugs could not adopt to the new business model.

Thank you Mr. Kahn, you were a true public servant.

De-regulation of the airline industry was a giant job creations bill and a great thing for the U.S. consumer. Now the average Joe could fly his family to Florida for vacation. There were a few casualities such as Pan Am, Eastern, Braniff, etc. But these carriers and their union thugs could not adopt to the new business model.

Thank you Mr. Kahn, you were a true public servant.

As with many ideas that sound good in theory, the deregulation of airlines has turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Yes, many more people can now travel but is that really anything to rave about? If we consider the consequences of increased air travel from qualitative, ecological and other concerns, the negative seems to outweigh what we may have gained with more bodies in buckets.

You commit a logical error, an error of false dichotomy. You state that we could have over priced business fares or cheap ones everyone can use, but say nothing of the right mix which is good service at an affordable price.

Which leads into your second error, you suggest service is about providing good lunches to executives whereas in reality it is more about competent staff, on time flights, and a basic care for all customers.

What this guy did was almost criminal in it's stupidity, it gave away all the good aspects for the cheapest price. This stupidity has been prolonged by the Congress who put nonsensical restrictions (such as the CEO must be a US citizen) and the effective running of most of the industry in a state of "chapter 11" bankruptcy. This last aspect means airlines have to keep cutting until all their good staff are gone and all they care about is filling their planes the consequences of which you have reported on frequently (an which amazes me you cannot see the connection) is bad service, planes cancelled for no reason (and no notification), planes left on tarmacs for hours, etc... I booked a flight on Delta a year in advance and found out at the airport they had move me and my family to a later flight without notification and that flight ended up being 7 hours late all with the requisite attitude like "well, it's a bad storm" and "we don't know why your flight was moved, but I guess it happened".

Gauge this against Singapore Airlines, Cathay, Qatar or Emirites whose flights are only moderately more expensive yet worlds apart in terms of all the above.

US airlines are an abomination and this is a direct result of this little man's little brain which produced a little idea that was hopelessly executed and is maintained by the lunatics in the asylum.

What percentage of America's median income was a ticket from NY to Florida or LA? What is the percentage now? I'd like to see some numbers.