[stevicus]

Since I joined this forum a couple of months, I've been browsing and reading most of the threads, and I have to say that I'm both fascinated and outraged by what I've been seeing here. I also appreciate the feedback from those who work or worked in the airline industry and are in the know about various ins and outs of the business that might be unclear to the average passenger.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that the culture of the airline industry is such that there seems to be tremendous friction between the upper management and the front-line employees. My sense is that the line employees are under a lot of top-down pressure from management, and this seems to have the effect of rubbing many passengers the wrong way.

I also find it interesting to read that when people write to the airlines to complain, they don't really get much in the way of any responsive answer. It's gratifying to read that some have followed through and won in small claims court, but even then, I'm not sure if I would find that very satisfying, since the airlines don't seem to learn their lesson or change their ways.

Don't the airlines have any kind of response to these occurrences? Do they even care about their image or reputation as businessmen? I've known a few unscrupulous businessmen in my life, but at least they had a little more finesse and style. But from what I'm reading here (and drawing on my own personal experience), their "style" is very shoddy and brutish, like something you'd expect from a third world street vendor.

That's what I'm not understanding about the airline industry. I can understand that they want to make money, just like the oil industry, the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc. But even their executives have PR departments to kind of whitewash whatever sleazy practices they might use. But the airlines seem to be so brazen and arrogant about it, as if they graduated from the Soviet Commissar School of Management.

I just don't even understand how it can be a successful business model. It seems that for most of my life, airlines have had various financial woes. Many airlines have gone belly-up and disappeared entirely. The service is always in demand, and there have always been people who are willing to pay for transportation from one place to another place. It's almost like the funeral business in that there will always be customers. I'm reminded of the movie Wall Street in which Gordon Gekko says, "If he owned a funeral parlor, nobody would die."

So what's the real problem here? What would the airline executives say in their defense?

[azstar]

I don't think the upper level airline management has much contact with the front line employees. What the front line employees are seeing, however, is more work, more passengers, more responsibilities with fewer and fewer front line personnel to handle the increased load. Plus, they see executives claiming bonuses, regardless of profit or loss, while there is constant pressure to freeze, or reduce, regular employees wages and benefits.

[jimworcs]

The reason airline executives behave differently to the other industries is they are not operating in a competitive environment. The airline industry in the US has been carved up into a series of complex monopolies. The "majors" are allowed to merge and form huge "fortress hubs" which operate as regional monopolies. In addition, the international routes operate as part of bi lateral international agreements which protect the rights of the airlines. The domestic market in the US is protected from any foreign competition and the ownership rules relating to US carriers also protect them. As a result, they are not concerned with customer/passenger satisfaction, as the passenger often has very limited choices available. If you are a business customer in Atlanta for example, you will have no realistic choice but to use Delta.

To compound this problem, airlines like Delta have actually been allowed to emerge from bankruptcy with a stronger monopoly. They sustain this outrageous protection, by paying millions in "lobbying" or bribes as they are known to the rest of us.

This explains why airlines are impervious to the complaints of customers.

[Gromit801]

Thus sayeth the conspiracy theorists.

Azstar pretty much has it right.

[stevicus]

Originally Posted by azstar

I don't think the upper level airline management has much contact with the front line employees. What the front line employees are seeing, however, is more work, more passengers, more responsibilities with fewer and fewer front line personnel to handle the increased load. Plus, they see executives claiming bonuses, regardless of profit or loss, while there is constant pressure to freeze, or reduce, regular employees wages and benefits.

Then does this mean that the line employees are resentful towards management? I could certainly understand that, if that was the case.

Originally Posted by Gromit801

Thus sayeth the conspiracy theorists.

Azstar pretty much has it right.

What conspiracy theory would apply here? I don't think anyone is saying that the airlines are controlled by aliens from outer space or something totally outlandish like that.

Just out of curiosity, when you say you're an "Airline Sympathizer," does that mean you sympathize with the employees, the management, or the stockholders? Reading many of the complaints here in this forum, I have to admit that my sympathies probably lie more with the passengers than with the airlines.

[stevicus]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

The reason airline executives behave differently to the other industries is they are not operating in a competitive environment. The airline industry in the US has been carved up into a series of complex monopolies. The "majors" are allowed to merge and form huge "fortress hubs" which operate as regional monopolies. In addition, the international routes operate as part of bi lateral international agreements which protect the rights of the airlines. The domestic market in the US is protected from any foreign competition and the ownership rules relating to US carriers also protect them. As a result, they are not concerned with customer/passenger satisfaction, as the passenger often has very limited choices available. If you are a business customer in Atlanta for example, you will have no realistic choice but to use Delta.

To compound this problem, airlines like Delta have actually been allowed to emerge from bankruptcy with a stronger monopoly. They sustain this outrageous protection, by paying millions in "lobbying" or bribes as they are known to the rest of us.

This explains why airlines are impervious to the complaints of customers.

Yes, this makes perfect sense and explains a great deal. The irony is that when deregulation of airlines was implemented under Reagan, the idea was that it was supposed to fuel competition and give better service to passengers at a more competitive price. That's the whole idea behind competition and free enterprise, and yet, it's had just the opposite effect.

Obviously, they have no incentive to respond to customers' complaints, but what do their lobbyists have to say in their defense? What if Congress decided that enough was enough and proposed serious punitive measures, with teeth, to deal with the airlines? What would the airlines say in their defense to prevent that from happening? Would they even have a leg to stand on? Even if they have lobbyists, I can't see that they'd be any more powerful than the healthcare lobby or the tobacco lobby, and yet, they weren't strong enough to withstand the wrath of Congress. But by the same token, I know what arguments the tobacco lobby or the healthcare lobby would use in the defense of their industries.

But with airlines, I just don't understand their position. At least the tobacco companies would argue from the standpoint of freedom of choice and the fact that their customers derive some measure of utility from their product. The healthcare industry would argue that they're in the business of saving lives and that socialized medicine could cause a deterioration in the quality of healthcare (and possible loss of life). Please note that I'm not necessarily supporting or agreeing with their arguments, but at least they have arguments, as opposed to the airlines, who don't seem to have any response to the complaints against them.

[Butch Cassidy Slept Here]

…at least they have arguments, as opposed to the airlines, who don't seem to have any response to the complaints against them.

“We don’t need no steenking arguments. We’ve got a checkbook.” That should be the answer, from US-based airlines, to the comment above. In other words when you can pay-off a member of Congress, through a 5-figure campaign contribution, your arguments don’t even have to make sense—assuming you decide to raise any arguments at all!

The irony is that when deregulation of airlines was implemented under Reagan, the idea was that it was supposed to fuel competition and give better service to passengers at a more competitive price. That's the whole idea behind competition and free enterprise, and yet, it's had just the opposite effect.

To this end the DOT should institute limited re-regulation.

The number of airports where take-offs and landings are “slot” restricted should be increased. Atlanta, for example, should have such restrictions. Slot restrictions should also consider historical weather patterns, such as summer thunderstorms.

The DOT should document all requests for police assistance which are initiated by flight attendants or gate agents. Employees who rack-up an unusual number of police calls over a given period of time should be banned from employment in the industry.

The government, not the airlines, should start policing carry-on baggage. This should eliminate major inconsistencies found in the status quo of carry-on enforcement by the airlines. One or more TSA staff should be stationed at a gate to monitor what people are trying to carry-on.

[jimworcs]

All industries, if completely deregulated, behave in this manner. The steel industry, banking and railroads in the late 19th Century produced the "robber barons" (people like Carnegie, Rockefeller and Vanderbilt). They created vast monopolistic monolith corporations, which sought first to gain financial power and then sought to protect their interests by pursuing political power, by any means, fair or foul. This is why regulation of industries were put in place. How quickly we forget the lessons. The seeds sown during deregulation of the financial markets and the airline industry during the Reagan years are now bearing the poison fruit. The solution is not to completely re-regulate, but to regulate intelligently.

My proposals

1. Limit the market share of any airline in a given airport or air market to 25% maximum of the slots, or 20% of the overall passengers. Airlines can be given transitional arrangements to arrange "slot swaps" over 5 years.. eg... AA gives up market share in Dallas to Delta and Delta gives up market share in Atlanta to AA. That is a simplistic example, but illustrates the principle.

2. Drop foreign ownership rules and foreign competition on a bi-lateral agreement basis. Eg, if the EU opens up their market, then the US will be open to European carriers.

3. Regulate abusive practices, such as misleading advertising of fares by creating meaningless "fees" which are mandatory and which are not shown in the headline price.

4. Pass a passenger bill of rights.

5. When an airline goes bankrupt, it should be allowed to fail and other, better managed airlines allowed to fill the market.

The airlines seem to have convinced us all that if they are allowed to fail, it will be disasterous for the economy and for jobs. This is nonsense.. other more nimble, customer responsive airlines would quickly move in and fill the void.

Comparison with the decline of other US industries faced with cheap imports are ridiculous and not analogous. Airlines are a service industry. If Lufthansa wanted to start a base in Atlanta and serve the US domestic market, they would employ US citizens in Atlanta and US citizens to operate their aircraft.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee. The airlines are robbing you and are bribing politicians to protect their ability to do it. Political pressure is your only hope.