Explain to me concrete examples of why that was such a bad system. Don’t just say “centrally planned = bad” or “government controlled = bad” give me examples.
While airline travel was more expensive back then (and I am old enough to remember those days) it was also a hell of a lot more comfortable, with more leg room among other things. The level of civility was much higher. Although overall miles were lower, there was regular service to many smaller cities that simply no longer have such service these days, forcing people to drive to large hubs to get on an airplane. Airlines were much more willing to reschedule you on a different flight if you had a problem such as bad weather or a flat tire on the way to the airport. They were much more willing to put you up in a hotel if they couldn’t get your flight out, and offer meal vouchers. And you certainly didn’t have situations like we currently have at O’Hare where, during peak hours, the airlines schedule more flights in and out of an airport than can possibly be accommodated by air traffic control even in perfect conditions (which is why O’Hare inevitably has delays in the late afternoon and early evening even in good weather). Flying back in the days of regulation wasn’t horrid, in fact, in many ways it was a LOT more pleasant than flying today which really is on the level of riding Greyhound but with smaller seats.
Since all airlines were subject to the same pricing rules no one was forced out of business under regulation due to that factor alone - bankruptcy always involved other factors in those days. The airlines were quite capable of doing business under regulation, it was after de-regulation that we suddenly saw a wave of airlines go under.
But people want cheap fares, as evidence by the lack of these expensive, full-service flights. If the market wanted them, they would exist.
My parents used to tell me about how everyone would dress up to go to the movie theater. Your argument, to me, is like one of my parents saying that he wants the government to control the movie theaters so that he can enjoy his evening out more. Sorry, dad, if there were more of you who wanted it that way, the market would serve it up.
OK, so what?
You’re asking that the government tell everyone that they have to pay more to get the kind of service that you, Broomstick, want. To me, it’s a matter of freedom vs. the government telling me what I have to do.
I seem to recall that people said they wanted cheap flights way back when, but when they tried them, they didn’t like them; and the market returned to the full-service model. Back in the 1970s, there were, as I recall, various experiments with what were called “no-frills” flights; which were similar to today’s standard flights. They didn’t last long. People wanted the meals, they wanted to take all the luggage they were entitled to, they wanted the movies, they wanted to get directly from A to B without going through hub C, and so on. The price of a no-frills flight was less than a full-service one, but obviously, price wasn’t the most important consideration for the 1970s traveller. Times changed, I guess, and now price seems to be more important to the consumer than anything else.
I don’t know about other airlines, but I can offer my recent experiences with Air Canada. Like most, if not all, North American carriers, they have moved to a no-frills model, where you pay for extra baggage, buy food on board, etc. But what they have also done is to be very upfront about your fare options. At the time of booking, for example, you have your choice of a number of fares–the rock bottom one offers absolutely nothing beyond “you get on the plane when we tell you to and we fly you there.” If you cancel, there are no refunds; if you want to change flights, there is a hefty service fee, and so on. You can use cash to buy food in flight and you may be allowed a piece of luggage free; I’m not sure. But there are higher fares at differing levels that allow you to cancel, to change your booking at little to no charge, to take two pieces of luggage, to pay for meals or snacks at time of booking, and so on. Maybe this is an idea that could suit all travellers–from those to whom the cheapest fare is the most important consideration to those who want to see a return to the full-service model.
Spoons, I think a significant difference between air travelers nowadays vs. the 1970s is that back then, tickets were so expensive that it was somewhat unusual to take a non-business trip by commercial airline. Business travelers are less price-sensitive, so it’s not surprising that no-frills failed then.
Your comments about Air Canada sound OK, but consumers also don’t like a bewildering array of choices.
Not true at all. I was in grad school then, and could afford to go and visit my parents, and even my girlfriend, without thinking too much about it. When I was in college up to '73 there were student discounts, and I could fly the shuttle from Boston to New York for about $15. I flew from Champaign to Denver to give a paper on my own dime. Things were indeed a bit more expensive than today, adjusted for inflation (or more expensive than the real cheap seats you can get if you work at it) but not horrendously so. This was before People’s Express, the first of the big discount airlines.
And things were a lot more pleasant. When I missed a connecting flight in Houston due to a weather delay, we were given a voucher for a nice motel and a hefty meal voucher, that paid for a steak. i got one recently when I volunteered to be bumped - it just about paid for some fast food at the airport.
They did exist for years post-deregulation. They exist in other countries. You still have the option of purchasing “business class” or “first class” tickets. These options do exist, even today.
However, in many cases you have no choice but the “cheap seats”, no other options are even offered. Deregulation has actually reduced the public’s choice, not increased it.
Government control, or lack of it, had nothing to do with how people did and do dress for the theater. Likewise, government control had nothing to do with how people used to dress up to fly, which they did. Which is why I specifically did not mention it. This “example” is irrelevant.
Actually, I haven’t flown commercial since I got my pilot’s license. I certainly would not want the government to force other people to go that route, it really is quite expensive, though yes I now do get the service I want.
Actually, it’s not so much the inflight movies that I’d like to see, but rather things like rational arrival/departure scheduling. The current practice, where airlines can schedule more flights per hour at an airport than can possibly be accommodated, not only inconveniences passengers daily (who studies show do value accurate arrival times) but I also believe is unsafe as that sort of crowding does increase the chance of accidents either from flight crews trying to hurry to maintain schedules or the potential of two airplanes to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time.
Your “freedom” has bought bankrupt airlines, crowding at hubs, reduced air service to non-hub locations, and practices that are unsafe. It looks to me like the freedom to be miserable.
The government, for the common good, restricts your freedom in other areas. For example, you are not permitted to exceed the speed limit in your car without penalty, or drive on the sidewalk. You are not permitted to rob a bank. You are not permitted to practice medicine without a license. For that matter, you’re not allowed to drive your car without a license, either.
If re-regulating airlines would result in net benefit to society then yes, slightly restricting your freedom may be justified.
And while flying was more expensive between 1938 and 1978 (the years of airline regulation we are discussing) is was by no means out of reach of the common man. Throughout that 50 years more and more people took to the skies, most of the US airports that exist today were built during that time period, and the industry matured and grew. Voyager has mentioned traveling in his grad school days. My family was strictly middle class but flew several times that I can recall during those years - on one occasion my parents decided that flying from St. Louis to Morgantown, WV in a few hours would be better for the family than a car trip of several days and did so and we were strictly a middle-class family with a single income. We bought tickets for six and flew. In 1972 one of my sisters flew to Mexico on money she had save as a high school student working part-time after school. Another sister flew from Detroit to St. Louis in 1974, again using money she’d saved as a high school student. Those fares weren’t like the $89 or $99 fares to Vegas we see today, but they certainly were within reach of people of the time.
Sorry, **Johnny **- the problem is, of course, that EVERYONE seems to fly through O’Hare. Morning flights usually depart/arrive more or less on time but even in the best weather by 4 pm you’re looking at delays. If you look at the overall schedules for the place you’ll sometimes find 10 flights scheduled to depart or arrive at exactly the same time, and another half dozen or 10 scheduled to depart or arrive 2-5 minutes later… I’m sorry, there are simply not that many available runways to allow that with the necessary spacing required for safety. So, inevitably, someone takes off or lands late. In really good weather the delays are maybe 5-15 minutes which people tolerate fairly well, but this is CHICAGO, the weather is often not good! Those two factors are why O’Hare has such abysmal on-time rates.
If you want to route through Chicago but reduce the chance of delays use Midway, although they’re getting a bit crowded, too.
I consider that a red herring, as the safety aspect was NEVER de-regulated. “Deregulation” refers to the entry and price regulations on airlines that were removed in 1978.
Safety has improved, but so has technology. The same could be said for the 50 years under airline regulation. Safety records have improved world wide, whether in “free market”, deregulated situations like the US or government-controlled ones like the USSR/Russia and China.
The FAA has imposed new rules in recent years regarding scheduling limits at certain hub airports, which of course some folks have screamed about, but the number of near-misses at those airports due to crowded skies was getting to be a problem. O’Hare is one of the hubs where “slots” have been limited at times, but as near as I can tell the number granted presumed perfect weather and absolutely no airplane ever being delayed while moving around on the ground. That just is not realistic.
I’ll have to disagree with your remarks about non-business travel. Like Voyager and Broomstick, I and my family also did some non-business air travel across the country back in the 60s; and even as a teenager in the 1970s, I was able to afford a few flights on what I made at summer and odd jobs. In my somewhat larger experience, I recall enough radio/TV/print media advertisements for domestic and international vacation destinations that lead me to believe that non-business travel was more common than you seem to think it was. At any rate, you’d be correct in saying that flying wasn’t an everyday event, and fares were not cheap; but for personal travel, they were certainly manageable, especially if you budgeted and planned for them.
Yes, perhaps I wasn’t quite as clear as I might have been–I made it sound like the way you used to buy a car: picking and choosing between hundreds of options. In fact, the purchaser of an Air Canada ticket may only have between three and five fare/amenity choices. “You want to be able to change your flight? Then you’re gonna have to take the free second piece of luggage. Whether you want to or not.”
Seriously, though, your statement begs for a cite. Consumers don’t like a bewildering array of choices? But they face such a bewildering array of choices every day: Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai? McDonald’s, A&W, Burger King, Arby’s, Carl’s Jr.? Nike, Adidas, Reebok, New Balance? Coffee, moccacino, latte, iced coffee, frappuccino? Small, medium, large, venti, grande, big gulp, mega-thirst, drum-o-soda?
How is something like this any different? Buy a cheap ticket that gets you there but let’s you do little else? A slightly more expensive ticket that lets you cancel and rebook at a low additional price? A more expensive ticket that does all of the above at no additional charge and allows you extra luggage? The top-of-the-line, most expensive, full-service treatment, with all of the above plus dedicated check-in, premier lounge access, meals, and fancy soap in the lav? Seems to me that, based on the bewildering array of choices consumers are offered every day, they don’t mind being presented with only a few.
It’s not a red herring at all. Prior to deregulation the airlines were assured of a certain tidy profit (or at least of not making a loss). Post-deregulation, there was no such assurance. Do you really believe no airline has cut corners on safety or overhaul procedures in order to reduce costs?
Then increase safety regulation and oversight. Attacking the problem (if in fact there is one - airline safety is not getting worse) through the back end of economic deregulation and all the problems that creates is a really back-asswards way of addressing safety.
For all the fond memories of more legroom, let’s bear in mind they didn’t dump regulation just for the hell of it. Administration of the airline regulations was hellish - it often took YEARS for the simplest of requests to be reviewed by the government, and their rulings were often based on bizarre grounds or none at all. Fares were vastly higher than today (accounting for inflation) and remember that when fewer people fly, more people drive, and that means more people die. Airline deregulation has indirectly saved thousands of lives; it was one of the most effective government intiitiatives of recent times in terms of increasing public safety.
Oh, I’m absolutely certain there is cost-cutting - and equally certain it’s been present since the early 1900’s. It occurred under airline regulation, too, since someone is always greedy to squeeze a few more pennies out, consequences be damned.
I can understand that argument that de-regulation might have decreased safety but reality - that is, accident statistics - do not bear this out. The evidence does not show that effect. Indeed, some argue that de-regulation increased safety based on that, but as I said, safety was never deregulated, only routes and prices.
From what I know of the situation at O’Hare (and I caution that I have never flown as a pilot into or out of that airport, solely as a commercial passenger, and in this matter I’m for the most part an interested layperson with a little knowledge of aviation) it’s based upon the available runways and the necessary time and space requirement for a safe distance between airplanes. In theory, this is a matter of physics and facts. As I said, they also seem to assume the weather will always be perfect and everyone else operate absolutely without flaw. In reality, it rains and snows or gets dangerously windy, sometimes pilots dawdle when moving about the airport, or someone drives a ground vehicle down the wrong bit of pavement and requires a plane to stop and let it pass, or deer get onto a runway or taxiway, or a flock of geese lands or takes off, or somebody drives the big jet off the pavement into the grass/mud…
There are experiments on this, covered in most books on behavioral economics. There have been studies done showing that putting a lot of varieties of something like soda on a grocery store shelf actually decreases sales. Too many choices and we shut down, choosing none. That may be why there are so many repeat customers for one brand of car, and why we subset our choices of restaurants. The reason the young age group is so valuable to sponsors is that they are somewhat more open to new choices - once you get to my age, you are locked in.
Here is an article by a marketing guy. Here is an article from Slate with some academic references.
