Assignment due September 30th

So far we have discussed ways to "level the global playing field" for the US airlines and the multiple ramifications of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010. One common thread between these two subjects is money. In terms of leveling the global playing field, one question raised is how do we maintain a high level of standards while not increasing the consumer's ticket price. One money-related question in the discussion of the ramifications of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act is how can there be an increase in training requirements, including more required hours, without increasing starting pay at the regionals? According to management at the regionals, ticket prices would have to be raised to account for an increase in pilot pay and that may be "unacceptable" to the general flying public.

So the topic this week is more philosophical than research-based (although you will probably need to do some historical research; there is still the "one link" requirement).

Answer the following:

-Should the ability to take a commercial flight on an airline to get from point A to point B be affordable to most of the public? Or should it be a luxury? For example, there are many locations which the cost of flying on an airline to that location is the equivalent of or even cheaper than driving to that location. Therefore, if you can afford to drive, you can afford to fly.

-Why is it that you can now often fly on a route for cheaper than or equivalent to the cost of driving that route? What's changed (there obviously may be multiple factors)?

-Let's say that the airlines did raise their prices, making flying commercially less accessible to the general public. What would the industry look like? How would this change the way airlines are structured?

Please feel free to add any additional thoughts.
Have fun!
Ms. Wall