HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » The Velveteen Ocelot » Journal
Page: 1

The Velveteen Ocelot

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Minnesota
Member since: Sun Oct 26, 2003, 11:54 PM
Number of posts: 76,572

Journal Archives

I think, quite a lot. Before the Airline Deregulation Act,

passed in 1978, airlines were treated pretty much like public utilities. Before that, the Civil Aeronautics Board regulated all interstate airline routes by setting fares, routes, and schedules. Airlines had their fares and routes approved by the CAB, and were able to charge enough to make a profit but prevented from overcharging - pretty much the way your electric company is regulated by your state utilities commission. If you're old enough to remember air travel before 1978, it was fairly expensive but it was also reasonably pleasant. The seats were wide enough; there was leg room; the food was decent; and passengers weren't treated like cattle.

But then some free-market enthusiasts decided it would be a good idea to get rid of the CAB and let the airlines compete among themselves, which, it was thought, would result in more airlines and lower fares. For awhile this was true. A lot of low-fare, minimum service new airlines were created, like People's Express and ValuJet (unfortunately some of these new airlines were also low-safety). Eventually and inevitably, however, the big ones started eating the little ones, and there went most of the competition the ADA was intended to create. Because of the need to keep fares low, most of the amenities were discontinued.

The basic reason the ADA was a flop is that airlines are very expensive to run and their profit margin is tiny. Their fixed operating costs - mainly fuel, equipment and maintenance - are very high (labor costs are also high, but when fuel and maintenance get too expensive and the airline isn't making money, guess who gets screwed, thanks in no small part to the Railway Labor Act, which grossly favors airline/railroad management over labor). So, now airlines are "free" to compete for passengers, but passengers have become used to low fares. In order to compete with the other airlines by keeping fares low, airlines started ordering planes with smaller seats in order to carry more passengers; they started charging more for baggage; there were no blankets, little or no food; etc. (to reduce weight). Most of the things (other than the TSA) that make air travel unpleasant these days are a result, directly or indirectly, of the ADA.

And before the ADA they didn't overbook because they didn't have to. The rationale for overbooking is that the airline's "product" is seats on the plane, and once the airplane takes off with empty seats, those "products" have become worthless. So they calculate the historical number of no-shows for any given flight, and if the expected number of people don't show up they can either re-sell those seats or accommodate standby passengers. (Note: I'm not defending this practice; I'm merely explaining it.)

So, I'd be in favor of repealing the ADA, reinstating the Civil Aeronautics Board and re-regulating airline fares and routes. I think air travel is sort of like health care: there is no "free-market" solution that actually works. It would be more expensive again but might incidentally encourage the development of better ground transportation, like high-speed rail. Not that the GOP would ever let any of this happen...
Posted by The Velveteen Ocelot | Mon Apr 10, 2017, 04:58 PM (0 replies)

I don't agree with Lawrence O'Donnell's theory

that Putin planned and arranged the whole thing. Putin would be taking an enormous risk by intentionally setting up a scenario that would operate as justification (for domestic purposes, mostly) for any kind of military action. I'm sure Putin realizes that Trump is unpredictable and acts, without thought or analysis, in a fashion he believes will offer him the most benefit. If Putin had told Assad to go ahead with the sarin attack so Trump would retaliate and thereby provide cover for his connections with Russia, Putin could not be sure what Trump would actually do, since he's completely unreliable. Military people might have talked him out of the missile strike, or maybe he could have decided to do something far more damaging than the strike that did occur. Putin couldn't count on his erratic puppet to do exactly what he wanted. Furthermore, Putin has other, more pressing interests than merely helping Trump deflect suspicion in the US. The money connections are sufficient to keep Trump obedient, and Putin has already succeeded in his efforts to cast doubt on the legitimacy of our election and generally sow chaos.

I think Trump acted exactly as he always does: he saw an opportunity to make himself look good and he took it. The fact that it was completely opposite to the position he took when Obama was president was not important to him, because facts don't matter. Consistency doesn't matter. Policies don't matter. He does what he wants to do at a particular moment because he thinks it will benefit him, period. He does not think ahead. He does not understand or appreciate complexity. This was an opportunity for a twofer: deflect from the Russia investigation (temporarily) and look strong and manly and mighty. And, of course, our stupid media ate it up.

It won't last, thought. Everybody thought Bush was the bee's knees at the beginning of Shock 'n' Awe; but that all went to hell, along with W's popularity, tout suite. I just hope smarter people will take SCROTUS' missiles away from him before we get Iraq Redux.
Posted by The Velveteen Ocelot | Sun Apr 9, 2017, 05:38 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1