This discussion on regulation and mergers, etc., is why I joined this list many years ago. Yes, it's interesting to see a news article or two but discussion among the members is better. Am I the only one to notice that many articles are repeated each day? David R > ...The Bottom line is, > > One very good airline, Piedmont, was ruined by > takeover by a very stupidly run, pro-union, high-cost, > airline...... > > Not a fan of USEless air, > > Bryant Petitt > Cumming, GA > > --- Allan9 <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > In a study sponsored by the National Bureau of > > Economic Research, University > > of Rochester professor Stacey Kole and I trace the > > destruction of > > shareholder value in the US Air-Piedmont deal - and > > in airline mergers more > > generally -- to problems with integrating work > > forces. In the US Air- case, > > large differences existed in the pay scales and work > > rules of the two > > carriers. Piedmont, for example, used smaller crews > > of flight attendants > > than US Air, lowering its labor costs. Piedmont also > > allowed clerks to > > direct planes on the tarmac, while US Air used > > costly unionized mechanics. > > Overall labor costs represented only 32% of > > operating expenses at Piedmont, > > but 41% at US Air. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nick Laflamme" <dplaflamme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:30 AM > > Subject: Re: Re-regulate Again (John Kurtzke) > > > > > > > I'm not John, but.... > > > > > > The classic argument would be the mergers reduced > > competition drastically > > > in too many markets. I can see this argument in > > the cases of Republic & > > > Northwest (upper Midwest) and Piedmont & US Air > > (eastern Rustbelt). I > > don't > > > know how much Delta and Western overlapped before > > their merger, though. > > > > > > Clay asked whether the US government let major > > airlines such as AA, UA, > > and > > > US fail. I think it might -- but local and state > > governments might try to > > > keep those airlines flying. > > > > > > For example, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, and > > Philadelphia all have a lot to > > > lose if US goes under. Not that the Commonwealth > > of Pennsylvania is flush > > > with cash, but can the state afford to let US go > > under? Similarly, Chicago > > > and the state of Illinois would get incredibly > > nervous if both AA and UA > > > were close to shutting down; suddenly ORD is close > > to a ghost town. DFW > > > without AA? SFO without UA? DEN without UA? There > > would huge economic > > > impacts to the O&D traffic to each of the > > mega-hubs, and consequently to > > > the local economies. jetBlue, Southwest, Frontier > > and AirTran couldn't > > > expand quickly enough to fill the voids, no matter > > how much they might > > want > > > to. > > > > > > Nick > > > > > > At 11:03 AM 3/21/2003 -0500, Allan9 wrote: > > > >John, > > > >Why would you say the mergers should not have > > been approved? > > > >Al > > > > > > > >>From: John Kurtzke [mailto:kurtzke@xxxxxx] > > > >>Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 2:25 PM > > > >>Subject: Re: Re-regulate Again > > > >> > > > >>Department of Justice allowed some mergers to go > > forward which should > > > >>have been stopped. (Republic-Northwest, > > Delta-Western, US Air-Piedmont, > > > >>to name a few.) > > > >> > > > >>john kurtzke > > > >> > > > >>kurtzke@xxxxxx > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! > http://platinum.yahoo.com