[stevicus]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

The reason airline executives behave differently to the other industries is they are not operating in a competitive environment. The airline industry in the US has been carved up into a series of complex monopolies. The "majors" are allowed to merge and form huge "fortress hubs" which operate as regional monopolies. In addition, the international routes operate as part of bi lateral international agreements which protect the rights of the airlines. The domestic market in the US is protected from any foreign competition and the ownership rules relating to US carriers also protect them. As a result, they are not concerned with customer/passenger satisfaction, as the passenger often has very limited choices available. If you are a business customer in Atlanta for example, you will have no realistic choice but to use Delta.

To compound this problem, airlines like Delta have actually been allowed to emerge from bankruptcy with a stronger monopoly. They sustain this outrageous protection, by paying millions in "lobbying" or bribes as they are known to the rest of us.

This explains why airlines are impervious to the complaints of customers.

Yes, this makes perfect sense and explains a great deal. The irony is that when deregulation of airlines was implemented under Reagan, the idea was that it was supposed to fuel competition and give better service to passengers at a more competitive price. That's the whole idea behind competition and free enterprise, and yet, it's had just the opposite effect.

Obviously, they have no incentive to respond to customers' complaints, but what do their lobbyists have to say in their defense? What if Congress decided that enough was enough and proposed serious punitive measures, with teeth, to deal with the airlines? What would the airlines say in their defense to prevent that from happening? Would they even have a leg to stand on? Even if they have lobbyists, I can't see that they'd be any more powerful than the healthcare lobby or the tobacco lobby, and yet, they weren't strong enough to withstand the wrath of Congress. But by the same token, I know what arguments the tobacco lobby or the healthcare lobby would use in the defense of their industries.

But with airlines, I just don't understand their position. At least the tobacco companies would argue from the standpoint of freedom of choice and the fact that their customers derive some measure of utility from their product. The healthcare industry would argue that they're in the business of saving lives and that socialized medicine could cause a deterioration in the quality of healthcare (and possible loss of life). Please note that I'm not necessarily supporting or agreeing with their arguments, but at least they have arguments, as opposed to the airlines, who don't seem to have any response to the complaints against them.