Delta Airlines cuts jobs; who's to blame?
Atlanta based Delta Airlines announced Tuesday that they were cutting 2,000 jobs, their second cutback in six months. Citing rising fuel costs, the airline also says that it will cut back capacity and park 45 airplanes.As the airline despondently pointed out, fuel prices have risen 20% in the last three months while market prices and competition have stayed tight. Under those conditions, how can an airline not be forced to cut back?
The problem, as a function of the egregious gouging by oil companies, is that airline prices have not appreciated correctly with crude and inflation. Increased internal competition and external pressures from passengers to produce the cheapest fares possible have forced carriers to underbid one another to the point of taking losses on many of their flights while operating costs skyrocket. Sure, airlines could enact a unilateral increase in fares across the country, but then some carriers (those perhaps, who locked in their oil prices years ago) could unfairly take advantage of the market.
Besides, are we as Americans going to stand by while airline prices assume their normal level? I guarantee you congress and passengers would be in an uproar and we would have three particular senators crying murder.
But until something drastic happens, we're bound to ride the imploding American skies. Bankruptcies will continue, mergers will haunt our shareholders and the unions will continue to battle management over labor costs. We'll blame a CEO for taking a million dollar bonus and politicians will form committees against the backdrop of your favorite airline stock inching closer to the floor. Through it all, the oil companies will step back and let us fight amongst ourselves, and as we slowly work our way towards collapse they'll silently take our money -- and laugh themselves all of the way to the bank.




















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mar 20th 2008 @ 10:30AM
glebe said...
"Sure, airlines could enact a unilateral increase in fares across the country, but then some carriers (those perhaps, who locked in their oil prices years ago) could unfairly take advantage of the market."
An airline who controls its costs effectively would be unfairly taking advantage of the market? Huh? What sort of definition of "unfair" is that?
Also shareholders tend to like mergers because they usually make money on the deal. It's the rest of us who are stranded at an airport because two years later the two airlines' computer systems STILL aren't integrated that suffer.
And this point tends to fall on deaf ears, but oil companies don't set oil prices, traders do. Oil companies can control their output, which affects prices, but companies right now are racing to increase production to take advantage of high prices.
Anyway, I'm happy to let airlines struggle to find a good business model instead of coddling them. I much prefer today's industry with its plentiful options and relative cheapness compared to the regulated industry of 30 years ago.
Reply
Mar 20th 2008 @ 11:57AM
Matthew said...
The major oil companies have no ability to set oil prices and blaming them for the failure of the airline industry is completely ridiculous.
I lay most of the blame at the labor unions who can't seem to get their mind around the new competitive landscape. The labor unions seem perfectly happy to play chicken with management and each other (DL and NWA pilots) hoping that they won't be working for the airline that will inevitably go under.
Reply
Mar 21st 2008 @ 6:45PM
Ron Stout said...
If the problem is unions how do you account for the fact that Southwest is one of the most highly unionized airlines in the industry while Delta has long bragged that it is non-union?Delta has only one union ALPA(pilots) and they have actively aided management in fighting off unions.A large part of Southwests success in the past came from hedging their fuel price with futures contracts and without those kinds of leverage they are starting to slide downhill financially.