Talk:Airline Deregulation Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||
|
|||||||
"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)
[edit] 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
[edit] Weasel words
- Deregulation has led to what some consider to be anti-competitive behavior,[citation needed] 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)
