Talk:Airline Deregulation Act

Untitled
"In terms of the airlines the business environment was rather more harsh..."

This does not appear to a valid concern to me. When a market is deregulated, naturally, businesses that were being protected by government laws and subsidies will fail, while more efficient businesses will rise up. The fact that some airlines failed is a marker of success, not failure. MSTCrow 05:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is most certainly a marker of failure as far as those airlines were concerned - and perhaps also as far as many other people are concerned. More "efficient" businesses do not necessarely mean better businesses (Wal-Mart, for example, is efficient - but I doubt its employees like it very much). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:10, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * WalMart is the largest corporation in the world. That sounds pretty successful to me. On what basis can you demonstrate that the alleged lack of liking by its employees, is greater or more severe than what employees in other companies might report? For that matter, what is your standard of measure to support such a glittering generality allegation as that? Do you claim that the employees of WalMart are more dissatisfied with their company, than the unemployed autoworkers are with theirs? WalMart doesn't lay off, since they are constantly expanding. That fact gives their employees tremendous job security. In contrast, hundreds of thousands of employees in the airline and auto industries have lost their jobs (in most cases, in the union companies, whereas the non-union companies have continued to expand and keep hiring, instead of laying off.) EditorASC (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Article seems a bit subjective/biased
"Another common anti-competitive practice of major airlines is to charge substantially less for a round trip on a given itinerary than for a one-way trip, or to charge substantially more for a given segment of a multi-segment itinerary than for the complete itinerary, which constitutes a form of tying."

That comment (from the article) sounds a too bit opinionated for my taste.

The airlines charge whatever the market will bear. Round trip fares are usually extremely restrictive for changes, thus not a good option for business travelers who will pay more for the one way and/or less restrictive fares. Airlines fill the unused seats with the leisure tickets, but care most about the business traveler who will pay more for the convenience. This is neither wrong nor anti-cometitive in any way.

151.193.220.27 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Increases in the average level of safety are sometimes attrubuted to the act . . . based on the technological improvement of aircraft and air traffic control, over time such claims are probably specious."

The author does not consider the causality between deregulation and said technological improvements (such as possibly being driven by market forces), so the assertion that "such claims are probably specious" is probably specious.

--67.161.253.194 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)R.Mangum- 9/29/06

Weasel words

 * Deregulation has led to what some consider to be anti-competitive behavior, and to airlines overextending themselves financially; several bankruptcies and takeovers of airlines in the years following deregulation may be attributable to this. Another common anti-competitive practice of major airlines is to charge substantially less for a round trip on a given itinerary than for a one-way trip, or to charge substantially more for a given segment of a multi-segment itinerary than for the complete itinerary, which constitutes a form of tying.

All the above is unsourced, and sounds more like one user's personal opinion. After all "some others say" you can just buy the round-trip ticket and throw away the other half. --Uncle Ed 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact remains, that adjusted for inflation fares have fallen dramatically, since the ADA was passed. And, that a far greater percentage of the population can afford to fly today, compared to the much smaller percentage before the ADA. The same thing happened when stock brokerage rates were deregulated and the ICC was put out of business. A much greater percentage of the population can now afford to hire moving companies, send their packages, or buy stocks and bonds. There is no doubt that when those industries were regulated by the Federal government, that prices were much higher than they are today, after deregulation.


 * One of the most potent forces in bringing about Airline deregulation, was the existence of PSA, the California Intrastate Airline, that was never regulated by the CAB. It had ridiculously low fares, yet was able to make good profits. I believe the LAX to SFO fare was about $15 in the late 60s. The existence of that airline, and Air California, proved that a free market could provide lower fares to the flying public. EditorASC (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disregard. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)