Jump to content

Photo

...Stop funding US Airlines and let one crash into the ocean

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1
TorqueWrench

TorqueWrench

    AE Luver

  • Veteran
  • 446 posts
Okay, maybe not literally, but the US Government NEEDS to remove funding to the bankrupt carriers and let one go into the drink along with the likes of Pan Am and TWA...

The current US Market is Over saturated along with the international market. Airlines are certainly operating full capacity but their market yeild is stupidly low and so they cant possibly be making money.

I was hoping that US Airways would be the first to drop but i now think DL are the next candidate...Once the competition is removed, the airlines will be free to re-structure their routes without too much loss in passenger loads...

#2
travelhouse

travelhouse

    AE Winner

  • Veteran
  • 2,066 posts
  • WLM ID:travelhouse007@gmail.com
Many countries prop up their national carriers, but the USA seem to blanket cover all in some way or another, and I agree with your statement (US Government NEEDS to remove funding) Then, we will see who is strong and who is not.

#3
AASuper80

AASuper80

    American Airlines - 80yrs

  • Member
  • 67 posts
  • AIM Screen Name:x0PapaoX
if the United States stopped funding which they should the only carriers that would still be here are American, Alaska, and Continental (as far as legacy). Jetblue, Southwest, America West and Spirit (as far as LCC). As far as I'm concerned AA/CO are the only two who have not needed the Govt help.

#4
airline55

airline55

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,198 posts
I can understand where you are comming from, but if the gov. stopped funding the airlines, its likely that a few would go down. Now I am particuarly concerned about NWA. Remember, I am from the DTW area, and NW flies about +68% of flights. If they went away, there is no other airline to pick up the slack, and DTW is a major airport. No NW would leave DTW a wasteland.

#5
travelhouse

travelhouse

    AE Winner

  • Veteran
  • 2,066 posts
  • WLM ID:travelhouse007@gmail.com

I can understand where you are comming from, but if the gov. stopped funding the airlines, its likely that a few would go down. Now I am particuarly concerned about NWA. Remember, I am from the DTW area, and NW flies about +68% of flights. If they went away, there is no other airline to pick up the slack, and DTW is a major airport. No NW would leave DTW a wasteland.


Exactly why funding should be removed, but it will NEVER happen, as your local (Polly's) protest and make the USA Govt cough cough and keep coughing up.

If it was to ever happen, this then goes back to the original post, (Saturated Market) - you will find a new airline arrive to capture the market left behind by those who fall into the Gulf Of Mexico. I still say, remove the Handouts and see who is strongest.

#6
dreamlinerCP

dreamlinerCP

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 181 posts
Yes I agree! The problem with the current US market, the domestic market especially, is that there is too much capacity. No offense, but you Americans want all those dirt cheap airfares, but these come at a cost. The cost you might ask? None of your national airlines can make any money, except on international flights. Your government should learn to just let the airlines fly freely, kind of like 'survival of the fittest'. Eventually, a few airlines will go down and the market will right itself. Sure, you will have higher fares than before, but it will, in actual fact be better for the economy. Besides, isn't that what the US government meant to do when they initiated the deregulation of air travel?
dreamlinerCP
Founder & CEO of Canadian International Airways
Posted Image
[Canadian International Airways Incorporated; player #6892]
Can you feel the change? It's Canadian International.

#7
airline55

airline55

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,198 posts
"When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody." This is true with our funding system. The U.S. never had an official flag carrier, although we did have two airlines who were considered the national airlines (NW and Pan Am). Because of this, we provide funding to all people, rather than one airline. This stops airlines from going out of business.

Another problem is that there is no longer good airline service. The big 5 have had to cut their service to stay afloat, and with LCCs, well, you get what you pay for.

I don't think we will see a real solution until we have cheap energy, be it oil or something else (say, Hydrogen). Until then, the unwillingness of the pax to pay more, the unwillingness of the Unions to take major cuts, and the high price of having CEO's, will all compound to cause major problems.

#8
highspeed

highspeed

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 346 posts

"I don't think we will see a real solution until we have cheap energy, be it oil or something else

If you think you people in the US have expensive oil, kerosine, gas, etc. you should visit Europe some time, lol. What you pay per gallon, we pay per liter. Taxes are quite different (not applicable for international flights I think; that's tax free isn't it?)
Posted Image

#9
rocksandfossils

rocksandfossils

    Banned

  • Member
  • 257 posts

If you think you people in the US have expensive oil, kerosine, gas, etc. you should visit Europe some time, lol. What you pay per gallon, we pay per liter. Taxes are quite different (not applicable for international flights I think; that's tax free isn't it?)


they should consider doing that in the us. then maybe we wouldn't have so many people driving stupid "monster SUVs" with only one person in them.

#10
airline55

airline55

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,198 posts
Gas costs about the same in the U.S. to produce as it does in Europe. However, Europe pays a stupid amount in taxes, which are used to fund their massive social system. I you have not noticed, the compared unemployment rates prove something:

United States: 4.9% (2005)
United Kingdom: 4.7% (2005 est.)
Germany: 11.6% (2005 est.)
France: 10% (2005 est.)
Greece: 10.8% (2005 est.)
Belgium: 7.6% (2005 est.)
Ireland: 4.2% (2005 est.)
Russia 7.6% plus considerable underemployment (2005 est.)
European Union 9.4% (2005 est.)

This proves that high taxes stifle the economy. An economy functions best with lower taxes. I still do not understand why America is blamed so much for this global warming problem so many tout as being a major danger. Take a look at the 2000 U.N. data on the Carbon Emissions PER CAPITA (the important number):

1 Qatar 70.1
2 Netherlands Antilles 46.2
3 Bahrain 28.8
4 Kuwait 21.3
5 United Arab Emirates 20.9
6 Aruba 20.6
[highlight]7 United States of America 20.6[/highlight]
8 Trinidad and Tobago 20.5
9 Brunei 18.9
10 Canada 18.7
11 Australia 18.2
12 Saudi Arabia 16.9
13 Nauru 16.2
14 Singapore 14.7
15 Faroe Islands 14.2
16 Palau 13.0
17 Czech Republic 12.5
18 Falkland Islands 12.4
19 Luxembourg 12.4
20 Belgium 12.3
21 Estonia 12.3
22 Montserrat 12.3
23 Finland 12.0
24 Ireland 11.6
25 Libya 10.9


as you can see, the U.S. does not deserve all the blame we get about emissions. We actually rank a distant 7th. So, I am sorry, but the CO2/SUV argument holds no water with me.

#11
airline55

airline55

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,198 posts
oh, btw, Americans are quite tall (and wide) compared to many of their international counterparts. I myself am not even of driving age yet (meaning below 15yrs.) and I am already close to six feet tall. So please excuse us if the U.S. does not always rush to buy VW bugs and the smaller Asian cars.

#12
rocksandfossils

rocksandfossils

    Banned

  • Member
  • 257 posts

oh, btw, Americans are quite tall (and wide) compared to many of their international counterparts. I myself am not even of driving age yet (meaning below 15yrs.) and I am already close to six feet tall. So please excuse us if the U.S. does not always rush to buy VW bugs and the smaller Asian cars.


Sure. You have your opinion. I have mine.

But to point out some stuff:
-I know plenty of people OVER 6 feet tall. Many (not all) drive Hondas and other "smaller asian cars".
-I think we owe it to ourselves to conserve the gasoline. Higher fuel efficency is obviously better than not. Anyone who buys "8 miles/gallon" vehicles deserves to pay $6/gallon or something. Why should other regular drivers shoulder the payment? Furthermore, we can stop the "dependence on foreign oil" that the bush people keep on talking about.
-Look at history. In the 1970's people bought more fuel efficent cars during the oil crisis.
-And yes, whether you know it or not: I live in the United States, so I know what kind of people live there. :P

About the CO2 emissions, well... have you ever been to a large Asian city (i.e. Hong Kong; that's where I'm from)? The air pollution from automobiles there is terrible, along with all the smog from the neighboring cities of Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Don't you think it's important to keep America's air clean?

#13
airline55

airline55

    Senior Member

  • Member
  • 1,198 posts
we could also take a major step to ending the foreign oil dependence if Carter had not made one of the largest oil finds in the U.S. into a Moose House.

BUT, off topic, I am going to suggest that the posts containing the gas discussion be moved into a better forum.

#14
rocksandfossils

rocksandfossils

    Banned

  • Member
  • 257 posts

BUT, off topic, I am going to suggest that the posts containing the gas discussion be moved into a better forum.


I agree with you there. :P

I'm not familiar with the oil find that you're talking about. Could you tell me more about it? Thanks.

#15
TorqueWrench

TorqueWrench

    AE Luver

  • Veteran
  • 446 posts

I don't think we will see a real solution until we have cheap energy, be it oil or something else (say, Hydrogen). Until then, the unwillingness of the pax to pay more, the unwillingness of the Unions to take major cuts, and the high price of having CEO's, will all compound to cause major problems.


The price of gas is having an affect, but the only reason that passengers DEMAND lower prices is because supply is high... remember the graph, as supply goes up demand goes down... The passengers have alot of choice when it comes to flying. If there were fewer carriers they'd be forced to pay the higher prices and tbh, i cant see anyone complaining about a $100 ticket JFK-LAX... if you think thats expensive, walk...

#16
highspeed

highspeed

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • 346 posts

I still do not understand why America is blamed so much for this global warming problem so many tout as being a major danger. Take a look at the 2000 U.N. data on the Carbon Emissions PER CAPITA (the important number):

Why is that the important number? A couple of billion times 20.6 is still way more than a couple of thousand times 70.1 (I'm guessing "billion" and "thousand" here; the exact numbers are not important for my point). A reduction from 20.6 to 20.5 by all US people has a huge impact on the air _I_ have to breath whereas a reduction from 70.1 to 35.05 by all Qatar people has no significant result. The US is "only" 7th. Where's China? Suppose they would emit "only" 20.6 and earn the 8th place?

I did not find more recent numbers but somewhere around the turn of the century the only two countries emitting more CO2 were the US and India. The entire world emissions were actually less... This means 90% of the world had to pay extra so that you and your fellow USers could drive your SUVs. I am 6 ft 3 inches, drive a small car and use 1 liter of gas for 20 kilometers. That's about 45 miles to the gallon if I'm not mistaking. I did my part. Now you.

In relation to this whole airline funding discussion: keeping taxes low is also a form of funding. Your cheap domestick ticket results in higher than necessary carbon emissions. If you would keep your filthy air inside your borders, by all means continue as you do. But as long as you are exporting your CO2, it is only fair that you pay the price for reducing emissions. If you can pay for it without raising taxes, fine. But the Kyoto protocol may already be too late and the US is wiping its a**e with it.
Posted Image

#17
AASuper80

AASuper80

    American Airlines - 80yrs

  • Member
  • 67 posts
  • AIM Screen Name:x0PapaoX

"When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody." This is true with our funding system. The U.S. never had an official flag carrier, although we did have two airlines who were considered the national airlines (NW and Pan Am). Because of this, we provide funding to all people, rather than one airline. This stops airlines from going out of business.

Another problem is that there is no longer good airline service. The big 5 have had to cut their service to stay afloat, and with LCCs, well, you get what you pay for.

I don't think we will see a real solution until we have cheap energy, be it oil or something else (say, Hydrogen). Until then, the unwillingness of the pax to pay more, the unwillingness of the Unions to take major cuts, and the high price of having CEO's, will all compound to cause major problems.



I believe American Airlines is the national carrier which as to why it gets what it wants without Govt hesitation...no?

#18
Maestro69

Maestro69

    El Original Mod, AE Beta Tester

  • AE Moderator
  • 4,008 posts

User's Awards

2    3   

This proves that high taxes stifle the economy. An economy functions best with lower taxes. I still do not understand why America is blamed so much for this global warming problem so many tout as being a major danger. Take a look at the 2000 U.N. data on the Carbon Emissions PER CAPITA (the important number):

1 Qatar 70.1
2 Netherlands Antilles 46.2
3 Bahrain 28.8
4 Kuwait 21.3
5 United Arab Emirates 20.9
6 Aruba 20.6
[highlight]7 United States of America 20.6[/highlight]
8 Trinidad and Tobago 20.5
9 Brunei 18.9
10 Canada 18.7
11 Australia 18.2
12 Saudi Arabia 16.9
13 Nauru 16.2
14 Singapore 14.7
15 Faroe Islands 14.2
16 Palau 13.0
17 Czech Republic 12.5
18 Falkland Islands 12.4
19 Luxembourg 12.4
20 Belgium 12.3
21 Estonia 12.3
22 Montserrat 12.3
23 Finland 12.0
24 Ireland 11.6
25 Libya 10.9


as you can see, the U.S. does not deserve all the blame we get about emissions. We actually rank a distant 7th. So, I am sorry, but the CO2/SUV argument holds no water with me.


airline55, regarding this emissions, im wondering, which out of the Top 20 countries on that list has a greater population than 100 mil poeple? oh btw, Per capita, stands for each single person, so i can hardly imagine Qatar and Netherlands Antilles been REAL CO2 polluters, then again, we can all twist the figures the way we wish :P

dleLlDN.png?raw=1


#19
travelhouse

travelhouse

    AE Winner

  • Veteran
  • 2,066 posts
  • WLM ID:travelhouse007@gmail.com

airline55, regarding this emissions, im wondering, which out of the Top 20 countries on that list has a greater population than 100 mil poeple? oh btw, Per capita, stands for each single person, so i can hardly imagine Qatar and Netherlands Antilles been REAL CO2 polluters, then again, we can all twist the figures the way we wish :P


Having visited the following places I find this hard to take that India or USA are not in the top 5.

Carbon Emissions PER CAPITA (the important number):

1 Qatar 70.1
2 Netherlands Antilles 46.2
3 Bahrain 28.8
4 Kuwait 21.3
5 United Arab Emirates 20.9

But now I know why and this is my assumption:

The USA bags all their Carbon Emissions and packs it into their many Airbus A380's then they fly to those TOP 5 places and open the cargo doors, just as the United Nations test guys take their samples. :)

Well a Joke, but hard to understand the figures ;)

#20
drv4truk

drv4truk

    AE Winner

  • Veteran
  • 2,273 posts

But the Kyoto protocol may already be too late and the US is wiping its a**e with it.


Blame it on the Govt. and the high paid industry lobbyists (automobiles, oil, etc.). They could have placed stricter emmission and MP Gallon requirements on vehicles a few years earlier. The current requirements haven't changed much for a few years. Part of the problem is funding. It's not like the oil industry wants money to go into research on other sources of energy. Plus if a new low emmission, high mileage engine comes out, the oil industry will be losing money. The other thing is that the last time the standards were raised, automobile manufacturers had a fit and said that development would cost that Millions. So, standards were not as strict as they could have been.

I know the most of the Transportation Industry in the US needs to be trashed and started over again. Railroads are horrible (AMTRAK is government funded and they are horrible) and air travel comes next. Container ships and trucking (except for the 7-12mpg diesel engines) are about the only areas where things are right and those are mainly because of pressure from other industries (retail and wholesale).
Posted ImagePosted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users