Post #54,298
10/1/02 12:32:04 PM
|
Lots of trouble with posting...
so I'll go with the short, short version. :-)
Valujet did carry hazardous materials which is what caused the crash.
However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.)
I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly.
As for the rest, if you want to blame the unions, be my guest.
But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion.
|
Post #54,388
10/1/02 10:03:46 PM
|
Re: Lots of trouble with posting...
However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.) Maintenance violations were not implicated in either crash. Both carriers were grounded until records were updated. I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly. And they're still much much better now than pre-deregulation. And...are the 4 ill-fated Sept flights in that calculation? As for the rest, if you want to blame the unions, be my guest. Are you actually >reading< my posts? I'm putting the blame on management. Unions serve a purpose...but in the case of airlines they have priced themselves out of competitive range. They will either make serious concessions...or they will put their members out of work...permanently. But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion. They most certainly >are< involved in that...because the non-network carriers are >non< union. So in order to meet the market expectation...one of 2 things must occur...the network carriers get their costs in line with non network carriers (union bash...highly unlikely) or the carriers change the market expectation. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,433
10/2/02 9:14:35 AM
|
Sigh..bepatient...you're being obtuse.
I just don't know whether or not your doing it on purpose or not.
>>However, during the investigation of the crash maintenance records were checked and they were found to have violated numerous regulations. (Same thing happened with the Alaska airline.)
>Maintenance violations were not implicated in either crash. Both carriers were grounded until records were updated.
I didn't say that either crash was the cause of bad maintenance -- rather I said that because of the economic model that the carriers were SKIMPING on maintenance. The crashes caused a review of the records and revealed that they were skimping on maintenance.
I'd also point out accidents per flighthour is level or climbing slightly.
And they're still much much better now than pre-deregulation. And...are the 4 ill-fated Sept flights in that calculation?
Sigh - first, look at the chart again. 0.297, 0.296, and 0.312 are much better than 0.241, 0.315, 0.196? Or are you only looking at the fatal accidents? If you read the chart - yes, the sept 11th passengers are included - as are the passengers in the flights of years 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1994 (other years where an illegal act was responsible for an accident.) (However - that was all more moffitt's point than mine)
>But the economic model is a commodity market and passengers have shown that they prefer lower fairs to service regardless of whether it's a network carrier or not -- and unions aren't involved in that equasion.
>>They most certainly >are< involved in that...because the non-network carriers are >non< union. So in order to meet the market expectation...one of 2 things must occur...the network carriers get their costs in line with non network carriers (union bash...highly unlikely) or the carriers change the market expectation.
so, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're arguing that if the major airlines (networks) handle their union problems (if effect, get their costs under control), they'll provide a higher level of service? And you cite Southwest as an example? <Chuckle> - you must have a different definition of service than I do. I do not consider Southwest as a example of an airline offering high service.
|
Post #54,437
10/2/02 9:54:08 AM
|
Really? Differing definitions I suppose.
Safety is regulated. Carriers found to be in violation are grounded. Have a problem with a carriers maintenance..how about making sure the FAA inspection teams do their job (a point made in both the Alaska and VJ situations...# of inspectors at these carriers was inadequate and far lower than at the >network< carriers.
Also...the 2 airlines cited would both be considered >low cost< carriers...so you >could< draw the conclusion that we should not allow new market entrants...because they have statistically poorer maintenance. (nudge nudge)
On the statistics...the chart is all post deregulation. The numbers are much worse further back in time (almost double)
==================
On service.
What is your definition of >superior< airline service...cashews instead of pretzels? Most people consider on time performance, price, and staff helpfulness as service provided...all areas where SW excel...
If you want to add preferred seating, dinner, bigger seats, free drinks...well now you're talking 1st class on a network carrier...and if you want it...pay for it...or fly enough to get upgrades. I've had fine service provided to me by UA, US and NW all within the past 6 weeks. I get upgrades and I pay the higher prices.
Allowing direct control of the staff at the point of service >will< improve the service levels provided.
Example A - Employee is in a bad mood...knows that she cannot be fired for rudeness...
Example B - Employee is in a bad mood...knows that if she is rude to people she will get fired...
Which one do you think will be nicer to you?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,520
10/2/02 3:23:47 PM
|
Chuckle...
Safety is regulated. Carriers found to be in violation are grounded. Have a problem with a carriers maintenance..how about making sure the FAA inspection teams do their job (a point made in both the Alaska and VJ situations...# of inspectors at these carriers was inadequate and far lower than at the >network< carriers.
so Valujet weren't skimping on maintenance - they just didn't have enough FAA regulators to catch them? Yet, if Valujet wasn't skimping on maintenance, what could the FAA regulators have caught them for? this is getting surreal. (And it's no longer worth debating with you - if you want to claim that there aren't economic incentives for skimping on maintenance - so be it.)
Most people consider on time performance, price, and staff helpfulness as service provided...all areas where SW excel...
If you want to add preferred seating, dinner, bigger seats, free drinks...well now you're talking 1st class on a network carrier...and if you want it...pay for it...or fly enough to get upgrades. I've had fine service provided to me by UA, US and NW all within the past 6 weeks. I get upgrades and I pay the higher prices.
I wish you well on purchasing your 1st class seats on Southwest and Delta Express.
|
Post #54,537
10/2/02 4:46:38 PM
|
You seem to be missing points on purpose.
No purpose debating the maintenance issue any further. Those 2 carriers skimped. There were incentives..and they were allowed to get away with it because the FAA was understaffed.
They got caught. They were grounded. Neither case contributed to the crash as far as the NTSB was concerned. So we're debating a non-issue.
The fact remains that air travel is safer post that pre-deregulation. It might be on a high currently...but that post deregulation high is still roughly half that of pre.
As far as the 1st class seats (not purchased...FF levels allow it)...if I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it?
What...exactly...is >your< point...except to disagree with mine?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,549
10/2/02 5:39:13 PM
|
Fair enough - one last post
Point:
Your argument appears to be that since the crashes of ValuJet and Alaska were not maintenance related there isn't an issue. Merely up the number of inspectors and the problem goes away.
My argument was that deregulation caused a economic incentive to skimp on maintenance and that some had tried. Period, that's it. That's all I was saying.
Point:
Your argument appears to be that safety was increased since deregulation.
Frankly, this wasn't my argument and I shouldn't have gotten involved in it. I don't have the data or the specs to argue it (nor the desire).
If you want to fly first class on SW or Delta Express, be my guest.
But, last I checked, neither service offered it.
And that is my ultimate point - and it has nothing to do with unions or airline mismanagement.
|
Post #54,579
10/2/02 9:21:28 PM
|
Well that was easy.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,638
10/3/02 9:17:11 AM
|
Coming from this end, however ...
[I]f I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it? But coming from Cleveland to visit the folks in Philly, I'll take Southwest to Baltimore and rent a car there. I save enough on airfare to pay for the care for a three-day visit, which is more convenient than asking my parents to borrow the car. (Like staying with your parents for three days isn't already enough to make you feel like you're 16 again.) ===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #54,657
10/3/02 11:24:08 AM
|
If you're coming over a weekend...
...I would double-check...because usually don't pay more than $200 (usually less) to go in the opposite direction...SW usually is about 75 bucks cheaper from BWI...but CO matches. Dunno about you...but that difference would be made up by the rental and I'd be out the 4 hours.
Also...sign up for US Airways eSavers...if you want to come spur of the moment sometime (I've done it)...those are usually about 140 (same as BWI) and Philly Cleveland is in there at least once a month.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,660
10/3/02 11:32:23 AM
|
Last time I came
SW was $89 round-trip to BWI. Cheapest I could find direct was $330 from Continental. I wouldn't be surprised to find that round-trip from point A to point B isn't always the same price as point B to point A.
===
Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #54,669
10/3/02 11:45:59 AM
|
Also wouldn't be surprised to see...
...that SW has moved their price up a bit.
They're starting to bank on customer loyalty...and raising fares between certain cities.
If you book 2 weeks out...usually always CO and SW will match each other...and the Philly direct will usually be about $75-100 higher (except for those eSavers, but you can't really >plan< with them).
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,538
10/2/02 4:47:01 PM
|
You seem to be missing points on purpose.
No purpose debating the maintenance issue any further. Those 2 carriers skimped. There were incentives..and they were allowed to get away with it because the FAA was understaffed.
They got caught. They were grounded. Neither case contributed to the crash as far as the NTSB was concerned. So we're debating a non-issue.
The fact remains that air travel is safer post that pre-deregulation. It might be on a high currently...but that post deregulation high is still roughly half that of pre.
As far as the 1st class seats (not purchased...FF levels allow it)...if I could fly SW or Delta Express I would...unfortunately they don't fly here...and they don't go where I need them to go. I suppose I could drive 2 hours to catch a plane that would connect me 3 times to get to my destination...but that wouldn't meet my service expectation...now would it?
What...exactly...is >your< point...except to disagree with mine?
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
