How to Lose your Best Customers. or, F&$% Off AA

[3WE]

OK TEE VEE...QUIT YOUR BITCHING ABOUT YOUR RINKY DINK CHANGE FEES AND CHECK THE LINK BELOW!!!!!!

HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU TRASH THE AIRLINES WHEN STUFF LIKE THIS IS ROUTINELY HAPPENING IN THE WORLD TODAY?!?!?!?!?!?

...AND V-NAV...YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?!?!?!?!?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/arena%E2%80%99s-concession-rip-off-discovered--%E2%80%98large%E2%80%99-size-beer-found-to-be-same-volume-as-%E2%80%98regular%E2%80%99-192713418.html?vp=1

[elaw]

(Stuff in bold font and all caps)

Reminds me of all the places that sell soft drinks with unlimited free refills, but that come in multiple sizes...

[Highkeas]

Car rental charges at airports are also overloaded with fees and taxes. Today I paid 22% taxes and fees on a 9 day car rental. I've often pay rentals with fees/taxes up to 50% of total cost.

[EconomyClass]

I seriously would love to see a solution to regulation that was less extreme than Alfred Kahn's kiss off in the 70's. I don't think previous regulation was a good model. But just as we've found out the Greenspan philosophy of financial markets was too extreme, we might agree that Kahn's faith in markets was extreme. Funny how the FAA founding law made it an agency for the prosperity of commercial flight has led to consolidation and less choice. Talk about a boomerang! Maybe "less love" from the FAA would be better for the industry and customers.

[ConcordeBoy]

^ Wait, huh??????

faith in markets was extreme.

So allowing companies to act in whatever way they feel is in their best fiscal interest vis-a-vis the market = bad?

Understand.......

has led to consolidation and less choice.

So those loosely-regulated companies' action to consolidate for an artificial increase in RASM = bad?

Consistent. So far, so good.......

Maybe "less love" from the FAA would be better for the industry

(We're going to guess you meant "DOT," as the FAA branch doesn't often involve itself in merger processes per se.)

........that said, this is the part you lose me on.

You just twice blasted the freeing of carriers to basically do whatever they want-- but then you conclude by saying that perhaps the carriers should be even more free from the regulatory overseeing body.

Your argument seems just as circular as the boomerang effect that you're lambasting here!

[EconomyClass]

Lots of cleverness but I think you don't know FAA's charter laws.

[ConcordeBoy]

Nothing "clever" about it. You clearly contradicted yourself. Regulation and policy considerations don't change that.

I was just wondering why... or if you even noticed.

[ATLcrew]

Lots of cleverness but I think you don't know FAA's charter laws.

I suppose you could enlighten him and the rest of us, as I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you're referring to FAA's regulation of charter carriers, I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the issue at hand. If you're referring to how the FAA itself was chartered, I'm not too clear on what that has to do with anything either.