Talk:Airline deregulation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Article Reads Like an Advertisement[edit]

And by that I'm assuming there aren't enough positive things being written about deregulation?? The benefit of ticket price reduction has been mentioned on multiple occasions and even defended in quotes and data. That is the ONLY positive effect of deregulation. There are far, far more dimensions to a healthy airline industry than simply what a passenger pays for a ticket. Safety, ecological impact, employee pay, reduction of choices, diminishing service quality, on-time reliability, fleet age, ect., etc., etc. If someone tries to say this article reads like an advertisement then they might as well post the same tag at the top of the article on the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) article because there isn't enough good being written about the virus in the article. I'm moving to have the tag stripped from the article. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Data from Air Transport Labor Relations[edit]

This data point. "while ignoring that they (the labor unions) have imposed seat mile costs on those airlines which end up in bankruptcy court, that are 30 to 50% higher than those costs at the profitable low cost carriers." I find hard to believe. 30 - 50% more? Page number please. jetBlue pilots are non-union. They are paid, equal to their "pilot peers" minus what they'd be paying their unions if they had one. Although things have been changing of late (getting worse). There is no way their peer pilots (an amalgam of pilot pay from Delta, US Airways, Air Tran and American Airlines) is 30 - 50% more. What's more, SouthWest is a profitable, low cost carrier with unionized pilots making the most, by far, of any US pilot on the 737. SouthWest routinely fields ticket prices just as low as their competition. Thus my inability to see Kaps writing this in his book. Even in 1997. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expired Quote[edit]

In the Problems and Controversy section, the Cleveland & Price Study quote is from 1999. That's nearly 15 years ago when there was actually a belief that the airlines woes were over, yet the worst was yet to come. Even the data on employment is expired these days with over 100,000 jobs shed in the first few years of the new millennium. Anyone want to find a quote defending dereg to replace it? It's a little long in the tooth as is.--50.128.155.168 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This invitation to debate the striking of the antiquated quote has been up for two and a half months now. I think it's fair to say its importance to the article is no longer. I'll be removing it, but if anyone wants to debate it back in, I'm open to a friendly conversation on it. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg[edit]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This article need updating and the artical on europe is pure bulls*it. Ryanair Ryanair Ryanair Laz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazairus (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post of 10/13/07 amplifies the context of airline deregulation by relating it to the general transport deregulation movement in transportation in the 1970s and 1980s, now set out on the general deregulation page of wikipedia, and distinguishes the airline deregulation of the 1970s from later measures to address gate access problems. Ordermaven 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this image is no longer in the article. Sorry took the wrong tag out from before. My bad! --173.11.49.60 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globalisation?[edit]

The article deals primarily with the USA. Further details on other parts of the world would be good, or perhaps a separate article per country moving this one to"...In the US"? Just a thoughtHJ Mitchell (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in "benefits" section[edit]

According to a recent article in Health Affairs (comparing the effects of airline deregulation to hospitals) airline deregulation has been a disaster for airlines, many of which have had to seek bankruptcy protection. In addition, less populated areas have been severely burdened. Currently, the only information in that section is Heritage Foundation conservative propaganda.

The article may be found at: Health Affairs 25, no. 1 (2006): 11–21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.63.192 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has been a "disaster for airlines," has been labor unions at the Legacy Airlines that imposed seat-mile-costs upon their employers that were 1/3 to 1/2 higher than the same costs at LCC airlines, like Southwest, Jet Blue, and other "startups." Your complaint is the typical airline union propaganda, which ignores the extra burden they have imposed on airlines like United, Northwest, Delta, Continental, TWA, Pan Am, Braniff, and others. While those airlines were forced into bankruptcy, forced to layoff workers, forced to park planes in the desert, cut back on routes and miles flown, the LCC airlines were hiring, buying new planes and expanding their route structures and miles flown, all while they were making profits.
The difference in labor costs were so great, that United had to hire 1/3 more pilots than Southwest, just to be able to fly the same amount of seat miles as Southwest. That forced United to charge higher fares than Southwest, so the passengers deserted United in droves and went to SWA. United's unions refused to compromise, until after the airline was forced to file for bankruptcy.
It has not been Airline Deregulation, that was a failure. It was the power of airline labor unions to strangle their golden goose to death, that led to those bankruptcies and the loss of so many of the Legacy Airline jobs, pensions and health care. Overall, until the crash of the U.S. economy in 2008, the total amount of airline jobs kept growing and expanding. The LCC airlines added more jobs than the Legacy Airlines were forced to cut. It simply was a matter of the passengers going where they could get the best airfare bargain---a basic fact of real world economics, which the unions at the Legacy Airlines refused to acknowledge for many decades. It was their own head-in-the-sand greed that brought so much misery to Legacy Airline employees. EditorASC (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article confuses Consumer Welfare with Hospital Welfare. The bankrupcy of the major airlines was accompanied by the creation of new low-cost airlines. On average consumers have more flights, to more locations, at lower prices, and they are safer. A few communities with low rates of demand for airline seats did have less service. Often low-cost airlines with pt-to-pt links went to new communities. This is a reflection of actual costs. Again, the well-being of airlines is not the same as the well-being of passengers. Similarly, the well-being of Hospitals is not the same as the well-being of Patients. The way things improve in economics is creative desstruction, we find better methods and stop doing what does not work as well. The information in this section is not conservative propaganda, but simple economics.ITBlair (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the adults here can agree that change of any sort will affect parties unequally, if only in that one will benefit more than the other. If so the debate above becomes rather uninteresting.--GregoryCJohnson (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Deregulation and US Deregulation Act[edit]

Even if we Americans were the only people that mattered, I would still question the conflation with any one piece of legislation with deregulation in general.--GregoryCJohnson (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations[edit]

Three of the citations are direct links to the front page of Brookings and George Mason websites, along with the DOT website. Links to the actual studies would be appreciated, otherwise the citations are useless and the facts not verifiable. Most of the article's citations come from policy papers published by the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Liberty Fund - all think-tanks supporting deregulation as part of a political or economic philosophy, not primary sources. Many of the policy papers listed don't even cite sources or cite them in such a manner as to be unverifiable. Using these as the sole basis for the article is neither NPOV or scholarly. Large parts of the article also read as if they were directly lifted from these policy papers, making no distinction between quote and fact. Several rather bold statements are made without sourcing - I have added citation-needed tags accordingly. 69.196.143.146 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations I added balance added to article.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bias and other issues in Whole Article[edit]

Introduction

- "After more than 20 years of airline deregulation, air travel is again at the head of public policy" - this statement isn't clear as to when this statement applies nor is it clear what "air travel is again at the head of public policy" means

- "Airline deregulation has provided and continues to provide enormous benefits to the average traveler" - This is written from a biased point of view. Perhaps "It has been claimed that airline deregulation has provided and continues to provide enormous benefits to the average traveler." This would also change the next statement about support for this statement into a clarification as opposed to an argument.

Airline Deregulation Act

- "The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 removed many of these controls, thus changing the face of civil aviation in the US" - If "thus changing the face of civil aviation in the US" this article would appear more professional and no instruct the reader in his or her conclusions.

- "It also dismantled the notion of a flag carrier." - The act did no such thing. As the linked to article indicates there is still a notion of flag carriers in the US (if not formally recognized) and foreign flag carriers still serve the US in significant amounts.

- The rest of the section is confusing as to the claims being made and the impact of these practices

Open Skies

- "A global industry would work better with a globally minded set of rules that would allow airlines from one country to establish airlines in another country and to operate domestic services in the territory of another country." - this is an opinion and should either be removed or restated to reflect that while serving a professional purpose.

- "These agreements still fail to approximate the freedoms that most industries have when competing in other global markets" - This isn't explained, isn't made appropriate, and may be disputable.

The Need for Deregulation

- "The airline industry's darkest days did not come until turbojet-driven planes entered commercial use in the late '50s and early 1960s" - it is unclear what this statement means and the use of "darkest days" may not be appropriate

- "This steady increase in air travel began placing serious strains on the ability of federal regulators to cope with the increasingly complex nature of air travel." - this statement is unjustified and disputable

Hub and Spoke Networks

- There are contradictions in this section. It is claimed that both the hub and spoke network and point to point are cheaper then the other.

- Balanced discussion of customer service and benefit is missing from this section.

Impact

- The price discussion omits other factors present in the industry that also drive down price

- The safety section implies that the increase in safety is due to deregulation omitting other factors like increases in safety technology. It has been claimed (frontline) that deregulation has put pressures to decrease safety.

- "On the vast majority of these counts, the overall quality of airline service has improved since deregulation" - this is missing a great deal of discussion. The claim that service has decreased since deregulation is a viable claim. The rest of the section seams to back up this conflicting claim. Perhaps instead of claiming that service has improved the discussion could be presented as claims.

Problems

- "Although the gains of economic liberalization have been substantial," - this isn't clear and it's disputable

- The problems section only talks about claims regulation hasn't fixed yet.

- "For example, the airlines unionised workforce, established and strengthened under regulation and held in place by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), gained generous salaries and inefficient work rules compared with what would be expected in a competitive market" - the costs of the unionized work force vs. the benefits are disputable from the perspective given. Claims that unionized work practices are inefficient are also disputable.

Others

The above is not an exhaustive list.

From a GAO report link the fallowing points of information are found contradicting the bias shown in the article:

- It cannot be determined with certainty the reasons for the dropping fairs.

- "Passengers are making more connections to reach their destinations." - This indicates and area of decreased service

- The report suggests decreases in on-time arrival and increases in lost luggage both measures of customer service

- The report notices the "loss of service to some communities."

- The report points out a loss of pensions amongst airline employees that cannot be attributed to or not to deregulation

Summery

This article presents a bias that is almost uniformly that deregulation has produced nothing but positive results. This is a disputable position and an opinion. Perhaps the article would be best be structured by stating the facts of deregulation and then giving space to both the opinions that deregulation has been positive, that deregulation has been negative, and that deregulation has made trade offs but it is imposable to determine whether or not the overall result is positive or negative

BS20 5 (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some substantial changes to the Problems section, just to get the ball rolling. Please feel free to revert, modify and or change what you like, but expect debate from an industry expert in return. Just giving you fair and friendly warning. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now updated, modified, edited and added text and a photo for neutrality to this article. Please consider removing the bias warning. Thanks.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the user that tagged this as Bias and added the POV tag has ceased to exist. I will be removing the POV tag and letting those who disagree, come to me. We can put it back up if debate so dictates. But the champion of deregulation that this article once was, I think, has been neutralized. Let me know. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason University and Brookings Institute Citations[edit]

Both of these citations which support the quote in the Problems and Controversy secion are links ONLY to the splash pages of the institution. The citations don't cite the quote. I like the quote, and want to keep it in there for article neutrality, but they need to go to the quote. Don't ya think? --XB70Valyrie (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Successful Airline deregulation in Europe[edit]

This whole section is biased, right down to the name. It reads like a puff piece, and the entire thing only has one citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.195.76 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems to (partially) to be a copyvio. I've added the relevant amboxes. David1217 What I've done 03:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I give up! Why should any of us keep trying fix what is unfixable in this article? So much of it is just duplicating the same subject and issues that are found in the Airline Deregulation Act article. [[1]] What is the advantage of having TWO articles on essentially the same subject? If anyone thinks that is a good idea, then you can have them both. I am not wasting any more of my time on these. EditorASC (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airline deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Airline deregulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalization resources[edit]

Here are some links i found with regard to airline deregulation outside of the US:


Bonewah (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Industry consolidation and reduction in competition between carriers" is dubious.[edit]

This section is dependent mostly on the Forbes article Why American Airlines Employees Loathe Management. As the name suggests it's an article written in 2013 which mostly complains about labor management disputes around 2011 American Airlines bankruptcy. It's written in a clearly biased manner. The author was afraid that the then pending merger of US Airways and American Airlines would lead to drastically increasing prices. The wikipedia article misleadingly takes this as proof of increased prices following deregulation. However, prices didn't increase drastically. As the wikipedia article mentions elsewhere, decreasing prices was the major effect of deregulation. This whole section needs to be rewritten, especially the false claim of increasing prices. Czar-peter-123 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Airline_deregulation&oldid=1198211175"