Machinists Call for Airline Re-Regulation

[Larry Dighera]

Everyone knows that de-regulation fosters price competition, and that
means lower airline ticket prices for consumers, so it's a "good
thing," right? After all, the most noble goal is to provide reduced
prices over mundane things like passenger comfort, right? And very
body know that government regulation is a "bad thing," right?

If the competition starts charging passengers for pillows and
blankets, it will ripple through the other air carriers, and ticket
prices will fall commensurately across them all, right? And if one
airline in it's attempt to increase revenues reduces leg-room so that
it can carry more passengers in a given aircraft, the other's will
have to follow suit, or become priced out of the market, so ticket
prices fall, right? Competition frees airlines to self-regulate; how
can that be bad? So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
airlines?




http://finance.denverpost.com/mng-denver?Account=denverpost&GUID=5404703&Page=MediaViewer&ChannelID=3197
WASHINGTON, May 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today urged
lawmakers to resist appeals to approve additional airline
consolidation, calling instead for measured re-regulation of fares
and capacity as the only way to ensure safe and reliable air
transportation in the United States.

"Limited re-regulation is the only long-term solution for an
industry that is continually seeking government assistance," said
IAM General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr., at a Senate Commerce
Committee hearing on the state of the airline industry. "This
industry is simply unable to turn away from pricing its product
below the cost of providing it, further perpetuating the chaotic
spiral that brings us here today." The IAM's complete testimony is
available at http://www.goiam.org/issue.cfm?cID=12828 .

"Airlines today compete by cutting standards, eliminating services
and reducing ticket prices to the bone, which makes a profitable
industry impossible," said Roach. "The Government Accountability
Office estimates that median ticket prices have dropped nearly 40
percent since 1980, while the costs of aircraft, airport leases
and fuel have increased dramatically."

"When an industry essential to the national economy can no longer
function, it is the responsibility of elected representatives to
step in and provide the necessary guidance and stability," said
Roach.

The IAM is the largest airline and rail union in North America,
representing more than 170,000 Flight Attendants, Customer Service
Agents, Reservation Agents, Ramp Service Personnel, Mechanics,
Railroad Machinists and related transportation industry workers.
Additional information about the IAM is available at
www.goiam.org/transportation.

Source: International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers


http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=12868
Merger Watch Video

http://www.goiam.org/content.cfm?cID=12882
Washington D.C., May 7, 2008 - The International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today urged lawmakers to
resist appeals to approve additional airline consolidation,
calling instead for measured re-regulation of fares and capacity
as the only way to ensure safe and reliable air transportation in
the United States.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 9, 10:36*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> If the competition starts charging passengers for pillows and
> blankets, it will ripple through the other air carriers, and ticket
> prices will fall commensurately across them all, right? *And if one
> airline in it's attempt to increase revenues reduces leg-room so that
> it can carry more passengers in a given aircraft, the other's will
> have to follow suit, or become priced out of the market, so ticket
> prices fall, right? *Competition frees airlines to self-regulate; how
> can that be bad? *So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
> airlines?

Because some people make a great deal of money off gov't regulation.
In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
certain people. In this case the union dudes are afraid they aren't
getting enough right now.

-robert
.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On May 9, 10:36*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> If the competition starts charging passengers for pillows and
>> blankets, it will ripple through the other air carriers, and ticket
>> prices will fall commensurately across them all, right? *And if one
>> airline in it's attempt to increase revenues reduces leg-room so that
>> it can carry more passengers in a given aircraft, the other's will
>> have to follow suit, or become priced out of the market, so ticket
>> prices fall, right? *Competition frees airlines to self-regulate; how
>> can that be bad? *So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
>> airlines?
>
>Because some people make a great deal of money off gov't regulation.

Which 'people' mad a great deal of money due to airline regulation in
the past?

>In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
>forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
>certain people.

There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I'm afraid I don't understand how government regulation "directs an
artificial amount of money towards certain people," unless your
referring to corrupt government regulators and politicians.

>In this case the union dudes are afraid they aren't
>getting enough right now.
>

I think it's more a matter of those currently employed by the airlines
fearing the inevitable firings usually associated with
consolidation/mergers.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Everyone knows that de-regulation fosters price competition, and that
> means lower airline ticket prices for consumers, so it's a "good
> thing," right?
>

You're right that it's a good thing, but you're wrong when you say everyone
knows it.


>
> After all, the most noble goal is to provide reduced
> prices over mundane things like passenger comfort, right?
>

No.


>
> And very body know that government regulation is a "bad thing," right?
>

You're right that it's a bad thing, but you're wrong when you say everybody
knows it.


>
> If the competition starts charging passengers for pillows and
> blankets, it will ripple through the other air carriers, and ticket
> prices will fall commensurately across them all, right?
>

No.


>
> And if one
> airline in it's attempt to increase revenues reduces leg-room so that
> it can carry more passengers in a given aircraft, the other's will
> have to follow suit, or become priced out of the market, so ticket
> prices fall, right?
>

No. Other carriers might tout their greater leg room and some customers
might choose to pay a bit more for it. That's the beauty of a free market.


>
> Competition frees airlines to self-regulate; how
> can that be bad?
>

It's not.


>
> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>

Because it's easier than satisfying the customer.

[Tman]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> I'm afraid I don't understand how government regulation "directs an
> artificial amount of money towards certain people," unless your
> referring to corrupt government regulators and politicians.

Well to start, think about the recent in-group discussions on E85 and
its biofuel ilks. I wouldn't call the politicians "corrupt" per se (not
breaking any laws -- or at least they don't have to !), but simply
effective (at getting elected).

Or for a more formal treatment, try Economics: Private & Public Choice,
by Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel, Macpherson... Ch 6 "The Economics of
Collective Decision Making", or most any other college freshman Econ
text....

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
> airlines?

Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
protection.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22>:

>> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>
>Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
>protection.


How do you think the union stands to profit? Do you believe the union
will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
granted?

Please explain your conclusion by disclosing your analysis?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22>:
>
>>> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>>
>>Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
>>protection.
>
>
> How do you think the union stands to profit? Do you believe the union
> will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
> granted?
>
> Please explain your conclusion by disclosing your analysis?

Are you too young to recall the basic economics of the airline industry
before deregulation?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in :

>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote in <tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22>:
>>
>>>> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>>>
>>>Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
>>>protection.
>>
>>
>> How do you think the union stands to profit? Do you believe the union
>> will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
>> granted?
>>
>> Please explain your conclusion by disclosing your analysis?
>
> Are you too young to recall the basic economics of the airline industry
> before deregulation?
>

Bwawhahwhahwhah!


Like you'd know, kookie boi.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321
@attbi_s22:

>> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate
>> airlines?
>
> Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
> protection.

Oh brother,

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
>>protection.
>
> How do you think the union stands to profit? Do you believe the union
> will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
> granted?

When I say the union stands to make a lot of money, I don't mean union dues.
"Regulation" = "Less Competition" = "Protection" of union jobs. Remember
the days before deregulation, with all the waste/bloat/high-priced tickets?

As much as we all lament the great service of the "old days", I don't think
anyone wants to pay $1K (in today's money) to fly cross-country anymore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[F. Baum]

On May 10, 7:51*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
> protection.
> --
> Jay Honeck

Utter cluelessness Jay. Larry D just likes to post endless news
stories and then mis-interparate thier meaning so he can start
arguments. I am surprised you fell for it. Arent you usualy the one
who posts complaining about the lack of integrity on this list ?
The sad fact of the matter is that (The way it is structured now) the
airline biz in this country will never consistently make money. I dont
know if regulation in some form may be an answer to this or not, but
AIM does not "Ask" for protection. As an organization they have little
to gain from this. They are voted in and voted out just like in a
democracy.
There are definatly pros and cons to industry consolidation, especialy
if you are an airline employee right now. AIM obviously sees a
downside to consolidation as far as its members are concerned. Do you
want to see dedicated career profesionals working at airlines ?
F Baum

[F. Baum]

On May 10, 8:47*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> When I say the union stands to make a lot of money, I don't mean union dues.
> "Regulation" = "Less Competition" = "Protection" of union jobs. *Remember
> the days before deregulation, with all the waste/bloat/high-priced tickets?

First, disreguard my last post. Second, whats wrong with a little job
security. We all stand to gain from a stong viable airline industry.
IAM is AGAINST consolidation (Which would mean less competition). What
waste/Bloat are you talking about.
>
> As much as we all lament the great service of the "old days", I don't think
> anyone wants to pay $1K (in today's money) to fly cross-country anymore.

I lament those hot young flight attendants.
Frank

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I lament those hot young flight attendants.

Now *there* is something we can all agree on!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

F. Baum wrote:

> I lament those hot young flight attendants.
> Frank

The loss of which you can also blame on the government.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:53:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>F. Baum wrote:
>
>> I lament those hot young flight attendants.
>> Frank
>
>The loss of which you can also blame on the government.


They're not lost. Many of them are still flying (unfortunately). :-)
How do you figure the government bears any responsibility for who air
carriers hire to herd cattle? Is the FAA limiting the issuance of
certificates to flight attendant applicants who don't qualify as being
hot and young? Or are you referring to the fair employment statutes
that prohibit job discrimination based on age (among other things)
throughout our fair nation?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote in
>:

>Larry D just likes to post endless news stories and then mis-interparate
>thier meaning so he can start arguments.

One man's argument is another's discussion:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
dis·cus·sion Audio Help /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation

–noun an act or instance of discussing; consideration or
examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions;
informal debate.

As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
points of view. Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
you?

Further, I'd like to thank you for pointing out my habit of opening
discussion of on-topic issues, thus increasing the newsgroup's
signal-to-noise ratio, unlike those limit their participation to
followup articles.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:53:38 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> F. Baum wrote:
>>
>>> I lament those hot young flight attendants.
>>> Frank
>> The loss of which you can also blame on the government.
>
>
> They're not lost. Many of them are still flying (unfortunately). :-)
> How do you figure the government bears any responsibility for who air
> carriers hire to herd cattle? Is the FAA limiting the issuance of
> certificates to flight attendant applicants who don't qualify as being
> hot and young? Or are you referring to the fair employment statutes
> that prohibit job discrimination based on age (among other things)
> throughout our fair nation?
>

Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.

[F. Baum]

On May 12, 9:24*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> One man's argument is another's discussion:
>
> * *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion
> * * dis·cus·sion * Audio Help * /d?'sk???n/ Pronunciation Key - Show
> * * Spelled Pronunciation[di-skuhsh-uhn]

Thanks for that.
>
> As for your accusation of my alleged misinterpretation, it's not
> possible to have meaningful exploration of a subject without differing
> points of view. *Surely you aren't suggesting that all participants in
> this forum hold the same viewpoint on every subject as you do, are
> you?

Stop calling me Shirley. AIM is going after job security. Based on the
dismal history of airlines since Deregulation, some form of it may be
necessary. They are actually against consolidation, which
theoretically should help consumers. Rest assured AIM (As are other
unions) is a for profit bussiness and they are doing what they are
payed to do.

Frank

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 9, 4:39*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

> >In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
> >forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
> >certain people.
>
> There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
> natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing. *

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
prefer comfort over price the market will change. There is a reason
BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
people.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 10, 7:04*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22>:
>
> >> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>
> >Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
> >protection.
>
> How do you think the union stands to profit? *Do you believe the union
> will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
> granted? *

Unions demands are based on the company's profits. If the gov't
regulates the industry the airlines will make more profit (its
actually a simple proof you do in Econ 101). With more profit, unions
demands more.

-Robert

[alexy]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

>On May 9, 4:39*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>
>> >In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
>> >forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
>> >certain people.
>>
>> There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
>> natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing. *
>
>I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
>many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
>others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
>have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
>(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
>passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
>and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
>create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
>prefer comfort over price the market will change. There is a reason
>BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
>people.

I agree with all your points above, but am not against government
regulation. I think it has its place, where social objectives
over-ride what particular participants in a completely free market
transaction may prefer. For instance, in a completely free market, the
best win-win transaction between a chemical company and a farmer may
be pesticides that, when used, create environmental or health risks to
the rest of us. Regulating the market for those products is more
efficient than trying to police their use. Back on topic, there are
valid social reasons (such as safety) to regulate air travel. But
regulating which carriers can go into which markets, and fixing prices
to force carriers to compete on services that buyers would rather give
up for more attractive prices is not a legitimate government role,
IMHO.

Controlling consolidation is a legitimate role for regulation, but
that is not an airline regulation issue. That is an issue of proper
enforcement of anti-trust laws to preserve competition.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.
>
> So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
> older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
> sex discrimination in the workplace?
>


In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
they were hired to do which is be young and hot.

And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.

You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
disabled. Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of
that. Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
list I see that is OK.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
> older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
> sex discrimination in the workplace?
>

In a free society employers can decline to hire workers for any reason they
choose.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On May 9, 4:39*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>
>> >In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
>> >forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
>> >certain people.
>>
>> There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
>> natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing. *
>
>I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
>many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
>others its a difficult concept.

I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
in providing what the buyers want. But I believe that sort of
thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
want people to see.

Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
inappropriate. The Europeans know that, and are teaching Microsoft
about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20818452/
EU court dismisses Microsoft appeal
Upholds $613 million fine, saying it was guilty of monopoly abuse

In the case of a marketplace like the air carrier market, while a free
market (deregulation) may have provided a positive result in lowering
fares, it has also produced additional negative effects. Competition
has forced less efficient, or less market driven airlines into
bankruptcy or unwelcome mergers and consequent unemployment of former
employees. After all, that is the key to survival: kill or eat the
competition, so that you can dominate the marketplace on the road to
monopolizing it. (While 'eat-or-be-eaten' may be the law of the
jungle, is it an appropriate doctrine for an enlightened society?) As
the subject of this discussion bears out, there is significant
collateral damage to free-market economics, and negative impact on the
lives of people involved in the unregulated industry.

The free-market concept is predicated on the buyers knowing what is
best (inevitably lower prices), but are buyers qualified to direct the
industry? Doubtful. Buyer's don't conduct research and make
intelligent decisions that benefit the industry above their own
personal wants. Take the tobacco marketplace for example; no one
would call tobacco smokers wise or sagacious, yet they built one of
the most poisonous industries ever in a free market place. Regulation
is appropriate at times.

The difficulty with market regulation lies in the bureaucratic ethos
of government regulators. They don't have a financial stake in the
industry they regulate, so they may not be sufficiently motivated to
act at times, and then there's always the question of ethics or the
lack thereof....

So I acknowledge your point, but it overlooks mine to the detriment of
all.

>In a nut shell, as long as producers have to compete for customers,
>customers will get the best value (based on what is important to them).
>In the airline industry passengers have said over and over again that
>they want cheap fares and are not willing to pay extra for comfort.

Have airline passengers said they want the consequent delays that
result when rampant competition forces air carriers to schedule an
unreasonable number of flights into hub airports or face losing market
share? No. Passengers aren't even aware that it is competition in
the deregulated marketplace that is producing those delays. And you
can bet the airlines aren't disclosing the fact that it is their being
forced to saturate hubs in order to survive the intense competition
that is the source of the absurd increase in flight delays**.
Consumers are not always qualified to decide what is best; their
analysis is often superficial and banal. Unbiased experts are far
more qualified to direct markets, but that approach has its drawbacks
too...

And we haven't even begun to consider if it in the best interest of
the world to have 5,000 aircraft in the air over the CONUS (and more
worldwide) the vast majority of which are transporting tourists
(537-million pax annually*) while spewing enough jet exhaust
(20,317,000,000 gallons of jet fuel annually by US air carriers*) to
change the temperature of the planet (born out during the flight ban
subsequent to 9/11***).

>Several have tried to create "premium" airlines but they always fail.
>If someday passengers prefer comfort over price the market will change.

The airline market is changing; there are more defectors to business
jets, and the airlines are attempting to change regulations to
increase the tax on GA to protect their current dominate position.
Business-jet operations are increasing significantly as a result of
the abysmal experience airline travel has become.





* http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/factcard.pdf ~20-trillion gallons!



** http://gettingtomaybe.blogspot.com/2007/02/jet-blue-delay.html
Thursday, February 22, 2007
News broke last week that passengers on Jet Blue flights were
subjected to 10 hour delays inside the plane, while on the runway.
Passengers were forced to wait for many hours due to bad weather
and an unavailability of open gates. ...



*** http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html
Although cars generate more greenhouse gases, airliner exhaust has
an exaggerated effect, scientists say. Is it time to take action?

The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning
the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place.

"Airliners are special because even though their total emissions
are relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting
their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce
Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science
and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the
atmosphere. "It's a special location."

--
So on this day, the 17th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
let us pause to consider how close we are to making ourselves fossils
from the fossil fuels we extract. In the next twenty years, almost a
billion Chinese people will be trading in their bicycles for the
automobile. Folks, we either get our **** together on this quickly,
or we're going to have to go to plan 'B': inventing a car that runs on
Chinese people. --Bill Maher, March, 31, 2006

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:33:42 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On May 10, 7:04*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:51:21 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
>> > wrote in <tLhVj.103766$TT4.6321@attbi_s22>:
>>
>> >> So why is Congress being asked to re-regulate airlines?
>>
>> >Because the union stands to make a great deal of money by asking for
>> >protection.
>>
>> How do you think the union stands to profit? *Do you believe the union
>> will raise the members' dues if their bid for re-regulation is
>> granted? *
>
>Unions demands are based on the company's profits. If the gov't
>regulates the industry the airlines will make more profit (its
>actually a simple proof you do in Econ 101). With more profit, unions
>demands more.
>
>-Robert

I presume you (and Mr. Honeck) are referring to union workers, not the
unions themselves as it appears you have stated.

In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
we'll never have an opportunity to find out.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
> in providing what the buyers want. But I believe that sort of
> thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
> significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
> want people to see.
>
> Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
> inappropriate.
>

In a marketplace dominated by a monopoly a free market is nonexistent.


>
> The Europeans know that, and are teaching Microsoft
> about it.
>

No, the Europeans are displaying their dislike of free markets.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I presume you (and Mr. Honeck) are referring to union workers, not the
> unions themselves as it appears you have stated.
>
> In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
> believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
> profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
> employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
> cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
> we'll never have an opportunity to find out.
>

An airline ticket often shows a departure time from point A and an arrival
time at point B that is pure fantasy. The number of scheduled operations at
hub airports often exceed the maximum even in good weather. The airlines
are selling a service they can't possibly deliver and they know it. In what
other industry do the customers put up with that?

[alexy]

Larry Dighera > wrote:


>In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
>believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
>profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
>employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
>cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
>we'll never have an opportunity to find out.

Actually, in a free market, marketing experts have the freedom to
research what passengers are willing to accept, and if they determine
that passengers would "accept the slight per-seat increase in cost if
it meant fewer and shorter flight delays", they would promote their
on-time performance. However, in a managed market, I agree that we
will have the opportunity to find out. Passengers would indeed "accept
the slight per-seat increase in cost if it meant fewer and shorter
flight delays", because they would not have the freedom to do
otherwise; some bureaucrat would make that decision for them, and it
would be forced down their throats.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.
>>
>> So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
>> older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
>> sex discrimination in the workplace?
>>
>
>
>In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
>sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
>to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
>fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
>thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
>they were hired to do which is be young and hot.
>

Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
discrimination in the workplace?

>And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
>Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
>Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
>an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.
>
Given a few more years of RNC influence in our government, I wouldn't
be surprised to see political orientation listed among them. :-)

>You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
>statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
>safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
>disabled.

Humor is either funny or it's not humorous. In a written forum,
without benefit of voice inflection nor visual cues, one cannot be
certain if an author's statement is sarcasm or not. My personal
policy is to treat all comments as literal unless sarcasm is denoted
with a :-). Was there a smily appended to the humor to which you
refer?

>Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of that.

This smells a lot like a personal attack.

Perhaps you are man enough to take responsibility for your
contribution to any misunderstanding you perceive.

And is that the royal 'we' you used, or do you believe you speak for
the readership of this newsgroup.

>Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
>list I see that is OK.

--

DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
--

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
> regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
> and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
> to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
> discrimination in the workplace?
>

Can you justify the ban against age discrimination in the workplace?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:20:36 -0400, alexy > wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>>In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
>>believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
>>profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
>>employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
>>cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
>>we'll never have an opportunity to find out.
>
>Actually, in a free market, marketing experts have the freedom to
>research what passengers are willing to accept, and if they determine
>that passengers would "accept the slight per-seat increase in cost if
>it meant fewer and shorter flight delays", they would promote their
>on-time performance.

That is only true if logistics permit it.

In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
we'll never know.

> However, in a managed market, I agree that we
>will have the opportunity to find out. Passengers would indeed "accept
>the slight per-seat increase in cost if it meant fewer and shorter
>flight delays", because they would not have the freedom to do
>otherwise; some bureaucrat would make that decision for them, and it
>would be forced down their throats.

In a managed market place, there would be no need to offer reduced
delay flights for an increased fare, because it's wouldn't be
necessary for air carriers to overload hubs as a competitive tactic.
Responsible regulators would manage flight schedules, and all would
run smoothly. (Now you tell one. :-))

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 13, 7:58*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
> believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
> profits for airline companies. *Is that a bad thing for them or their
> employees? *Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
> cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? *In a free-market
> we'll never have an opportunity to find out. *

If you believe pax would pay a bit more for a low-delay airline then
why don't you get rich by creating one. In a non-regulated market the
person who creates a product that hits the mark with customers is
rewarded. Most non-"act of God" delays are a result of airlines
keeping planes and crews very busy (no slack in the system). That is
done to reduce costs but if pax were will to pay extra airlines could
have more planes available and more crews. To date it appears pax have
been unwilling to pay for that but you are certainly welcome to enter
the market and prove them wrong.


-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is only true if logistics permit it.
>
> In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
> airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
> forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
> they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
> we'll never know.
>

If air carriers had to deliver what they sell they wouldn't schedule more
flights than hub airports can accommodate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:03:02 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On May 13, 7:58*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
>> believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
>> profits for airline companies. *Is that a bad thing for them or their
>> employees? *Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
>> cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? *In a free-market
>> we'll never have an opportunity to find out. *
>
>If you believe pax would pay a bit more for a low-delay airline then
>why don't you get rich by creating one.

Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. And that's also
the root cause of the delays. I thought I made that clear.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 13, 7:52*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 22:32:00 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
> > I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
> in providing what the buyers want. *But I believe that sort of
> thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
> significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
> want people to see.

The whole point is that there is no "man behind the screen" There is
no guy in a secret layer setting fuel prices. Its all the natural
forces of the market.

> Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
> inappropriate.

Monopoly = no competition. I support regulation that encourages
competition.

> In the case of a marketplace like the air carrier market, while a free
> market (deregulation) may have provided a positive result in lowering
> fares, it has also produced additional negative effects. *Competition
> has forced less efficient, or less market driven airlines into
> bankruptcy or unwelcome mergers and consequent unemployment of former
> employees. *

Less efficient airlines are expensive to customers so I see it as a
good thing that they went out of business. You really have to ask
yourself what the purpose of the airline is. Is it to employ airline
employees or is it to move customers around. If you want to create an
airline who's primary purpose is to employ people you are welcome to.

> As
> the subject of this discussion bears out, there is significant
> collateral damage to free-market economics, and negative impact on the
> lives of people involved in the unregulated industry.

Employees ultimately do better in a free economy because there are
more jobs. If you regulate the industry and unionize the employees you
just end up with a few people that have golden jobs and a bunch of
other people who can't find work (i.e. supply and demand are out of
wack)

>
> The free-market concept is predicated on the buyers knowing what is
> best (inevitably lower prices), but are buyers qualified to direct the
> industry? *Doubtful. *Buyer's don't conduct research and make
> intelligent decisions that benefit the industry above their own
> personal wants. *

It’s a fundamental concept in liberalism that people are too stupid to
make their own choices. Please understand that there are others of us
that consider that ability to be sacred.

> Take the tobacco marketplace for example; no one
> would call tobacco smokers wise or sagacious, yet they built one of
> the most poisonous industries ever in a free market place. *Regulation
> is appropriate at times. *

No, you miss the point. Tabacco exists because people want to smoke.
What right does the gov't have to take that away from them? Its their
free choice.

> The difficulty with market regulation lies in the bureaucratic ethos
> of government regulators. *They don't have a financial stake in the
> industry they regulate, so they may not be sufficiently motivated to
> act at times, and then there's *always the question of ethics or the
> lack thereof....

I agree, the best solution is to keep the gov't out with regard to
number of producers and pricing. They don't have a natural stake in
the game so they can't make pro/con decisions.


> Have airline passengers said they want the consequent delays that
> result when rampant competition forces air carriers to schedule an
> unreasonable number of flights into hub airports or face losing market
> share? *No. *

Yes, they've said they want low fares over low delays. The airlines
could have extra aircraft and crew (which they used to to some extent)
but pax are not willing to pay extra. They'll just go to the less
expensive airline. If you disagree, get rich and prove me wrong by
starting another airline(I won't mind).

-Robert

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
> competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
> airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. And that's also
> the root cause of the delays. I thought I made that clear.
>

No, the root cause of delays is the air carrier's practice of booking MORE
flights than possible into hub airports.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 13, 9:12*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Because in the current unregulated marketplace the air carriers'
> competitive practice of booking as many flights as possible into hub
> airports prohibits anyone from offering that service. *And that's also
> the root cause of the delays. *I thought I made that clear.

And that is because of gov't influence. If the airports were owned by
private companies they would charge a fee that represents the scarcity
of the resource. However, you don't fix gov't mess ups with gov't mess
ups.

-Robert

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I understand that a free market promotes competition, and that results
>> in providing what the buyers want. But I believe that sort of
>> thinking is a bit simplistic and shortsighted, and overlooks some
>> significant issues that the "little man behind the screen" doesn't
>> want people to see.
>>
>> Certainly in a marketplace dominated by a monopoly, a free market is
>> inappropriate.
>>
>
> In a marketplace dominated by a monopoly a free market is nonexistent.
>
>
>> The Europeans know that, and are teaching Microsoft
>> about it.
>>
>
> No, the Europeans are displaying their dislike of free markets.
>
>

Very true and the best thing MS could do would be pull all oh their
product out of the EU including the termination on the licenses already
in place. The EU economy would crash and burn LONG before someone could
fill the gap.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
> believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
> profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
> employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
> cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
> we'll never have an opportunity to find out.
>


Slight my ass. Prior to deregulation prices were WAY higher than they
are now.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:20:36 -0400, alexy > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In any case, from your statement above, it would appear that you
>>> believe that government regulation would result in increased corporate
>>> profits for airline companies. Is that a bad thing for them or their
>>> employees? Would passengers accept the slight per-seat increase in
>>> cost if it meant fewer and shorter flight delays? In a free-market
>>> we'll never have an opportunity to find out.
>> Actually, in a free market, marketing experts have the freedom to
>> research what passengers are willing to accept, and if they determine
>> that passengers would "accept the slight per-seat increase in cost if
>> it meant fewer and shorter flight delays", they would promote their
>> on-time performance.
>
> That is only true if logistics permit it.
>
> In the current air carrier free market, it is impossible for an
> airline to offer "shorter flight delays," because market competition
> forces air carriers to schedule as many flights into hub airports as
> they can to reduce competitors' operations into those airports. So
> we'll never know.
>
>> However, in a managed market, I agree that we
>> will have the opportunity to find out. Passengers would indeed "accept
>> the slight per-seat increase in cost if it meant fewer and shorter
>> flight delays", because they would not have the freedom to do
>> otherwise; some bureaucrat would make that decision for them, and it
>> would be forced down their throats.
>
> In a managed market place, there would be no need to offer reduced
> delay flights for an increased fare, because it's wouldn't be
> necessary for air carriers to overload hubs as a competitive tactic.
> Responsible regulators would manage flight schedules, and all would
> run smoothly. (Now you tell one. :-))


Responsible managers would do that now and the free market would take
care of letting the passengers self select when they got to a location
IF there were a truly free market now. Most all airports are owned by
state and local governments and for some reason have chosen not to let
the free market set the cost of the good they are providing i.e. landing
spots. If they were to do that the cost of taking off from JFK at 8:00
am on Monday would cost a hell of a lot more than taking off from JFK at
2:20 am on a Saturday. This price difference would then be passed along
to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>> The difficulty with market regulation lies in the bureaucratic ethos
>> of government regulators. *They don't have a financial stake in the
>> industry they regulate, so they may not be sufficiently motivated to
>> act at times, and then there's *always the question of ethics or the
>> lack thereof....
>
>I agree, the best solution is to keep the gov't out with regard to
>number of producers and pricing. They don't have a natural stake in
>the game so they can't make pro/con decisions.
>

I agree, that the government may not be the best choice for regulating
the air carriers. If the air-carriers could manage self-regulation,
that would be a boon for them and consumers alike. While it's
difficult I'm sure to get competitors to agree on being bound by an
independent group of their choosing, it would certainly be in
everyone's best interest.

Consider how the dismal state of affairs that currently exists in the
airline industry might motivate good-faith players in the marketplace
to create their own industry oversight entity. It might be structured
something or government, with the number of representatives elected by
a given air carrier commensurate with its size in one Congress-like
body, an executive branch with cabinet ministers overseeing various
departments charged with specific areas of regulation such as hub slot
assignments, passenger rights, employee issues, training and
certification to enhanced standards, etc.

Of course implementation of something like this would require a
responsible group of sincere, honest, and competent airline executives
able to subordinate their competitive bias in the interest of
bettering their industry. Such maturity does not seem evident in the
Wall Street we've seen in the last few decades. The likelihood of all
the players being mature enough to self regulate isn't too great, but
one can hope they are mature enough to see that the present situation
will not lead to a solution they will embrace willingly either.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:54:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote in
>:

>This price difference would then be passed along
>to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.

So you agree that air fares are artificially low and unsustainable
currently?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:19 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, that is exactly what I'm referring to.
>>> So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
>>> older workers. How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
>>> sex discrimination in the workplace?
>>>
>>
>> In general no I don't. There are certain situations though where common
>> sense should override the normal rules. Example, Hooters should not have
>> to hire or continue to employ waitresses that get old or fat. Just as
>> fashion designers should have to to continue to use models that the same
>> thing happens to. Mainly, because they are no longer able to do the job
>> they were hired to do which is be young and hot.
>>
>
> Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
> regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
> and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
> to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
> discrimination in the workplace?
>

Sure, common sense. But that is something that is in short supply in our
government and in our courts. A few phrases along the lines of
"...except where market forces require otherwise..." and then some
verbiage to layout when those forces can come into play wouldn't hurt.




>> And, for the record, I hold in my hand an EEOC form 5, "Charge of
>> Discrimination" form. Race, Color, Sex, Religion, National Origin, Age,
>> Disability, and also retaliation are the things that can be claimed in
>> an EEOC case. Political isn't one of them.
>>
> Given a few more years of RNC influence in our government, I wouldn't
> be surprised to see political orientation listed among them. :-)
>

RNC... HA, it is the the followers of the DNC that have burdened us with
political correctness.


>> You do realize that the response that started this sub-thread and the
>> statement that it followed were in the nature of humor? So I guess it is
>> safe to say we have found yet another area where you are socially
>> disabled.
>
> Humor is either funny or it's not humorous. In a written forum,
> without benefit of voice inflection nor visual cues, one cannot be
> certain if an author's statement is sarcasm or not. My personal
> policy is to treat all comments as literal unless sarcasm is denoted
> with a :-). Was there a smily appended to the humor to which you
> refer?
>
>> Not to worry we won't discriminate against you because of that.
>
> This smells a lot like a personal attack.
>

No that wasn't a personal attack. The personal attack was later in the
post when I called you an asshat.

> Perhaps you are man enough to take responsibility for your
> contribution to any misunderstanding you perceive.
>

I would but I perceived no misunderstanding. You di.

> And is that the royal 'we' you used, or do you believe you speak for
> the readership of this newsgroup.

The royal we.

>
>> Though we might because you are an asshat and checking the EEOC
>> list I see that is OK.
>

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:54:54 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> This price difference would then be passed along
>> to the consumer and the slots would naturally balance themselves over time.
>
> So you agree that air fares are artificially low and unsustainable
> currently?


Yes but the free market, in this case charging more for better landing
slots, is the answer. As it is now the government be it local, state
and/or federal is subsidizing the prime spots and over charging for the
bad ones.

[Robert M. Gary]

On May 13, 7:50*am, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > So you believe that employers should be able to discriminate against
> > older workers. *How do you feel about racial, religious, political and
> > sex discrimination in the workplace?
>
> In a free society employers can decline to hire workers for any reason they
> choose.

And are profit motivated to hire the most qualified regardless of age.
If older workers represent good value employers will not turn away the
opportunity to use them.

-Robert

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On May 9, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

> >In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
> >forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
> >certain people.
>
> There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
> natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing.

I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
(based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
prefer comfort over price the market will change.

-> Just like self serve gas.


There is a reason
BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
people.

-> But interesting how many Beemer owners prefer to pump their own gas.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:BPnWj.42289$KJ1.18150
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> news:a45ee966-f621-46f1-96cb-
...
> On May 9, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2008 16:11:13 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
>
>> >In fact, that is what gov't regulation does. It disrupts the natural
>> >forces of the market and directs artificial amount of money towards
>> >certain people.
>>
>> There's little question that government regulation "disrupts the
>> natural forces of the market," but I don't see that as a bad thing.
>
> I understand, and I understand there are a lot of people like you. For
> many of us the natrual forces of the market are very intuitive but for
> others its a difficult concept. In a nut shell, as long as producers
> have to compete for customers, customers will get the best value
> (based on what is important to them). In the airline industry
> passengers have said over and over again that they want cheap fares
> and are not willing to pay extra for comfort. Several have tried to
> create "premium" airlines but they always fail. If someday passengers
> prefer comfort over price the market will change.
>
> -> Just like self serve gas.
>
>
> There is a reason
> BMV sells better cars then Kia and its not because they are nicer
> people.
>
> -> But interesting how many Beemer owners prefer to pump their own
gas.


I got three!

Nyah nyah.


And I make Okies pump my gas.

Bertie

[Steven P. McNicoll[_2_]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Those seem like issues that demand special consideration; the
>> regulations were no doubt written to cover the majority of employment,
>> and thus fail to address special cases. Have you a suggestion on how
>> to deal with such situations short of eliminating the ban against age
>> discrimination in the workplace?
>>
>
> Can you justify the ban against age discrimination in the workplace?

It appears you can't.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> I got three!
>
> Nyah nyah.
>
>
> And I make Okies pump my gas.
>
> Bertie
>

And do you always have to push them home like you do your motorcycle, or do
you not work on them yourself.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I got three!
>>
>> Nyah nyah.
>>
>>
>> And I make Okies pump my gas.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> And do you always have to push them home like you do your motorcycle,
> or do you not work on them yourself.
>
>
>
>
>
I don't push Okie's home. I push them to the brink.



Bertie