Ok. Airlines are being forced to put up fees. **** it - I say NATIONALIZE

[Servonaut]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3703188

As a 21 year Airline employee, I think this would be really really bad, but what do I know. 

HawkeyeX  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-30-08 02:40 PM
Original message
Ok. Airlines are being forced to put up fees. **** it - I say NATIONALIZE the airline industry
 Advertisements [?]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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. That makes sense. (So it'll never happen)

 

Taverner  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-30-08 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hey I'm all for it
 Or at least re-regulate them

AndyA  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-30-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
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.

 

DangerDave921 (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
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!

SteppingRazor  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-30-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.

 

Nederland  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yeah
 Cause it worked so well for the rail industry...

YOY  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Yeah, because we don't give shit to our rail industry.
 Edited on Wed Jul-30-08 03:04 PM by YOY
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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Neither. Competition is fine. But passenger trains do NOT make money...not in this day and age.
 Edited on Wed Jul-30-08 03:51 PM by YOY
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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #23
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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. What an imbecilic thought! 
 Edited on Wed Jul-30-08 04:36 PM by YOY
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 ******* 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  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #30
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?
 

 
I like it when DUmmies fight. 

[Lord Undies]

Why is it out of the DUmbasses realm of understanding to grasp that the USA is not Europe?  France is about the size of Texas, and it's the largest country (besides Russia, which isn't really part of "Europe"). 

Whatever the Europeans do about rail travel within their little backwards countries isn't going to help someone in Seattle get to Miami Beach.  Americans don't really want to spend four days on a train.  Idiots. 

[jukin]

Can we call them communist now?

Mussolini was in to trains, are the fascists?

Both are totalitarian and the DUchebags are certainly totalitarian. 

[Lord Undies]

Can we call them communist now?

Mussolini was in to trains, are the fascists?

Both are totalitarian and the DUchebags are certainly totalitarian. 

No.  I use to be a member of a train preservation society.  The old passenger trains were so very classy.  It must have been much fun to take one of those elegant rides from NYC to LA (or wherever).   

[JohnnyReb]

Why is it out of the DUmbasses realm of understanding to grasp that the USA is not Europe?  France is about the size of Texas, and it's the largest country (besides Russia, which isn't really part of "Europe"). 

Whatever the Europeans do about rail travel within their little backwards countries isn't going to help someone in Seattle get to Miami Beach.  Americans don't really want to spend four days on a train.  Idiots. 

My X-wife had had a boyfriend in England when her dad was ordered to Mytle Beach SC. He wrote her a letter saying he was thinking about moving to California. He was planning to hop the train and come see her on weekends.

JOKE: Englishman got on a train in east Texas. A Texan was trying to impress on the Englishman just how big Texas was. The Texan told the Englishman, "Why, Texas is so big, we can ride this train all day and all night and still be in Texas." The Englishman spoke up and said, "Really? We have slow trains in England too."   

[DumbAss Tanker]

There is such a wealth of stupidity in there that it's daunting to even touch bits of it. 

Competitive forces are the only factor keeping the price as low as it is, a single provider would be forced to substantially increase fares because it would have no reason to run as close to the margin of loss as competitors do now.  Service was better and more available 'back in the day' when tickets were cheaper because (1) in those days the wages were much lower, including the minimum wage, so more service could be provided, which relates to (2) the ticket prices adjusted for inflation were insanely expensive back then compared to current prices.

One is tempted to point out how well nationalization has worked for Amtrack but there are fundamental differences.  In the case of Amtrack, the public transportation is a necessary service and a capability which as a matter of prudence is worth maintaining at some minimal level (as it indeed provides, minimally), but the level free market demand made it no longer economically viable for the private sector railroad companies to maintain, particularly in competition with private autos running on publicly-funded highways and airlines operating out of publicly-funded air terminals.  Airlines are a completely different case as there is plenty of demand, it's simply the fuel and labor costs that make profitable private sector operation stressful...a situation totally different from that which gave rise to Amtrack.     

[Chris_]

Why is it out of the DUmbasses realm of understanding to grasp that the USA is not Europe?  France is about the size of Texas, and it's the largest country (besides Russia, which isn't really part of "Europe"). 

Whatever the Europeans do about rail travel within their little backwards countries isn't going to help someone in Seattle get to Miami Beach.  Americans don't really want to spend four days on a train.  Idiots. 

Also, the eu doesn't have a real military -- they know they are safe because of OUR military.  That is a LOT of discretionary income they have for their subsidies.

Also, the eu runs at about 10% unemployment -- that would be considered a disaster here.

[Chris_]

Nederland  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #61
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.

An actual American on DU? TS coming for that anti-State thoughtcrime.

[Lord Undies]

Why is it out of the DUmbasses realm of understanding to grasp that the USA is not Europe?  France is about the size of Texas, and it's the largest country (besides Russia, which isn't really part of "Europe"). 

Whatever the Europeans do about rail travel within their little backwards countries isn't going to help someone in Seattle get to Miami Beach.  Americans don't really want to spend four days on a train.  Idiots. 

My X-wife had had a boyfriend in England when her dad was ordered to Mytle Beach SC. He wrote her a letter saying he was thinking about moving to California. He was planning to hop the train and come see her on weekends.

JOKE: Englishman got on a train in east Texas. A Texan was trying to impress on the Englishman just how big Texas was. The Texan told the Englishman, "Why, Texas is so big, we can ride this train all day and all night and still be in Texas." The Englishman spoke up and said, "Really? We have slow trains in England too."   

The most useless highway sign in America is on I-10 coming out of Beaumont.  It reads "Houston 80  El Paso 810".  That's a quarter of the way across the United States.

[Servonaut]

Nederland  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #61
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.

An actual American on DU? TS coming for that anti-State thoughtcrime.

I know what you mean.

I'm starting to like Nederland.

[djones520]

Nederland  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jul-30-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #61
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.

An actual American on DU? TS coming for that anti-State thoughtcrime.

I know what you mean.

I'm starting to like Nederland.

He is confused though.  That IS the function of a liberal government.  What he wants is a conservative government. Someone should use a mole to invite him over so we can edumacate him.

[Carl]

HawkeyeX  (1000+ posts)       Wed Jul-30-08 02:40 PM
Original message
Ok. Airlines are being forced to put up fees. **** it - I say NATIONALIZE the airline industry
 Advertisements [?]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

Seeing how airplanes don`t fly on perverted sex or dope but on FUEL that would mean we would have to supply our own somehow.

Is this DUmmy asking for domestic drilling or just screaming out their ass with no idea what it is they are saying?

Rhetorical question of course.

[Rebel]

So, of the things they want to nationalize:

The Healthcare Industry

The Oil Industry

...and now,

The Airline Industry.

While Europe is moving away from Socialism at light speed because it doesn't work, these f'n morons think they can have better success. 

What's the definition of insanity again?

[Airwolf]

Well if we must do this once again I guess we can.

Hello DUmpmonkies,can anyone tell me just how well that great invention of the Brits and the French called the Concord did while being not only a by product of two nationalized airplane builders but of their respective countries nationaized airline industry?

Ok I'll just tell you, It was a failure it was heavily subsideized by both governments and the cost per ticket went from around 2000 dollars per person to above 7000. I don't know about the rest of us but even at the low end for a one way ticket at the cost of 2000 dollars each is steep to start with.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well if we must do this once again I guess we can.

Hello DUmpmonkies,can anyone tell me just how well that great invention of the Brits and the French called the Concord did while being not only a by product of two nationalized airplane builders but of their respective countries nationaized airline industry?

Ok I'll just tell you, It was a failure it was heavily subsideized by both governments and the cost per ticket went from around 2000 dollars per person to above 7000. I don't know about the rest of us but even at the low end for a one way ticket at the cost of 2000 dollars each is steep to start with.

A one-way ticket across the Atlantic for $7000 had damn well better involve getting your brains ****ed out all the way across.  They might have made a go of it if they'd tried that approach.

[Chris_]

Well if we must do this once again I guess we can.

Hello DUmpmonkies,can anyone tell me just how well that great invention of the Brits and the French called the Concord did while being not only a by product of two nationalized airplane builders but of their respective countries nationaized airline industry?

Ok I'll just tell you, It was a failure it was heavily subsideized by both governments and the cost per ticket went from around 2000 dollars per person to above 7000. I don't know about the rest of us but even at the low end for a one way ticket at the cost of 2000 dollars each is steep to start with.

A one-way ticket across the Atlantic for $7000 had damn well better involve getting your brains ****ed out all the way across.  They might have made a go of it if they'd tried that approach.

Back in the nineties I had the displeasure to fly on one from JFK to Heathrow, and one of the reasons that it failed IMO was that it was uncomfortable as hell to fly for the passenger.......the cabin was not tall enough for me (6 feet) to stand erect, and the seats were miserable to sit in even for three hours.  The cabin pressurization, heating and A/C couldn't be adequately controlled, and the lavatories required serious yoga skills to use for some applications........as a passenger aircraft, it basically sucked.  Since my company was paying, I returned (first class) on a BA 747, and thoroughly enjoyed that leg of the trip......even if it took 4 hours longer......and I don't even want to think about the lousy French food.....

If your only criteria was that you needed to get to Europe ASAP, I guess that it was worth it, but for frequent travellers on those routes, I believe that over time, they learned that the additional cost, when added to the discomfort factor, was simply not worth it.......

doc