The US's biggest airline has cancelled 900 more flights after safety concerns forced it to ground 300 planes - nearly half its passenger-carrying fleet.
It is the third day of cancellations by American Airlines. Nearly 2,500 flights have been affected, causing delays for 100,000 passengers.
The action follows an inspectors' warning of problems with wiring repairs on the MD-80 aircraft two weeks ago.
Other major US carriers have also been forced to ground planes for inspection.
Alaska Airlines has cancelled more than 40 flights, and Midwest Airlines 10, to inspect their own MD-80 jets.
Delta Air Lines, which operates 117 of the twin-engined craft, was likely to call off "a handful of flights", the Associated Press reported the airline as saying.
Full responsibility
American Airlines has said the cancellations are likely to continue until Saturday.
| | It's my fault and I take full responsibility Gerard Arpey Chief executive |
Chief Executive Gerard Arpey apologised profusely for the inconvenience to passengers.
"We are doing everything we possibly can to reaccommodate our customers," he said.
"It's my fault and I take full responsibility."
Mr Arpey added that the cancellations would cost the airline "in the tens of millions of dollars".
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been tightening up its inspections since it was discovered last year that fuselage cracks on Southwest planes had gone undetected because of missed inspections.
The FAA said it had checked several American MD-80s a fortnight ago and decided that improvement work carried out did not meet its standards.
From BBC.co.uk
This is a great example of the one of the key problems with too little regulation of industry. The extent to which major US carriers ignored the airworthiness directive, stonewalled investigators, and even bullied FAA directors to curtail investigations (and even issued threats against investigators that pushed the issue) is ridiculous and frightening. To hear the airlines tell it, they weren't quite following each and every precise, specific, and minute safety check...but it was really no big deal. As someone who flies quite a lot, I find this really, really disturbing. We trust that the FAA issues specific regulations for the safety of the millions of passengers that fly each year, and that the airlines comply in part because it's the law and in part because if failure to do so results in a crash they suffer a drastic drop in passengers--this would the market "righting" itself. But apparently they have disregarded the law and are willing to gamble on safety. I am amazed that airlines get away with what they do. In all honesty, most should have been dismantled and sold repeatedly (but oh right, they always get bailed out and then their CEOs still get massive bonuses). Yeah market! Good job on the housing and mortgage thing too. God forbid that there be any regulation. Let the market work itself out...even if means unsafe aircraft and the collapse of a major sector of the US economy.
10 comments:
Though I have heard this story off-and-on on NPR (and the Southwest story before it), I am not on top of what is all going on or how long they had to implement the regulatory changes (if any). That is to say, I am not well versed in what is happening with this. But on the surface, I surly agree with you Reed.
The news reports have been pretty damning of the industry as a whole, as well as the FAA. So the regulatory agency in this case deserves a fair measure of blame as well. It seems that in many cases grunt inspectors raised the issue with the airlines, who did nothing. And when they went to their superiors to press the issue and call for punishment or action they were often met with open hostility and threats--like "just let it go if you want to keep your job." And apparently the "just let it lie attitude" has come from the upper echelons of the administration. I am not saying Bush had anything to do with it, just that someone far enough up in the current regime was pressuring the heads of regulatory agencies to overlook a lot of potential problems so as not to cause any more headaches for the already troubled airlines. Economically that is fine, especially if you don't like oversight and regulation as is (and the Bush admin certainly does not). But this is really, really frightening if the issue is cracks in fuselages, failure to check wiring harnesses, malfunctioning fire supression systems, etc. To prevent inconvenience and save money somebody (or many more likely) were willing to gamble with commuter lives. I find that repugnant.
Ok, since Reed went to all the trouble to provoke me with the anti-free market rhetoric, I'll oblige him with a response. :)
In all fairness, if the government had not interfered on their behalf and LET failing airlines die, then much of this would be a non issue. It's a bit pedestrian to toss in the anti-free market rhetoric over a problem that is largely a result of government interference in the first place. The government has no business bailing out private industry when its failures are the fault of their own business practices. That's just fucking retarded. Especially when the boards of directors are handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in golden parachutes, rewarding CEOs REGARDLESS of their performance. It boggles the mind. The smart thing to do is let the motherfuckers sink under the weight of their own dumbassity, and allow some equilibrium to return to the market.
Now: I think any reasonable person wants strong government regulation of safety standards for airlines. I know I sure as hell do. That is not in dispute, as far as I am concerned. And in all fairness, the FAA's fastidiousness is largely exemplary compared to its peers worldwide. When one remembers that we're not yet hyper-evolved superhumans who are 100% successful at 100% of the things we do (especially when it comes to manually inspecting every single mind dumbing rivet on 747 by hand), the safety record of our native airlines are actually pretty amazing. Not perfect by any means, but not too shabby, considering it's safer to fly anywhere than it is to drive to the grocery store. (Or walk, if you live in D.C. or Baltimore :P)
That said, however, this safety record can only be maintained and improved upon with extreme diligance. As of late, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the FAA has become a little too close to the airlines themselves, and has lost some of the impartial objectivity that is absolutely necessary to perform it's obligations to the public.
As far as I am concerned, safety regulations should never EVER be laxed. Most of the safety/inspection regulations on the books today are there precisely because of an investigation into a prior incident revealed its necessity. It's one thing for a crash or a malfunction to occur because of a failure of imagination on the part of the designers/inspectors. It's another entirely if one occurs because lessons learned from prior mistakes were ignored for economic reasons. That is absolutely unforgiveable.
See, once in a (great) while we do agree. I am one-hundred percent against bailing out failing airlines as the government has done time and time again. And rewarding CEOs for crap policies and performance is ridiculous. It is pretty repugnant when you think that the bonuses given to these guys for their ass-hatery could provide benefits for hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of employees, or at least allow them to hire enough fucking service reps for the check in line that someone might actually be able to help customers with questions or the poor idiots that don't understand how to work the auto check-in kiosk.
But there are two issues here. First, if there is going to be a free market so be it. Allow AA to fail and then sell its fleet to other carriers. Alternatively, let the government buy it out and run it as a quasi-state owned business like British Air or Aer Lingus. Not all of these work mind you. Al Italia is a disaster (but it's Italy, go figure). But many work--it might come as a surprise, but Aeroflot is still only a semi-private entity with significant state control and is among the most profitable in the world (I know, shocking).
Second, and related, it is a function of the market that boards can vote to give douchebag CEOs massive bonuses--and this applies to most of corporate America. In an effort to pinch every penny, CEOs downsize, streamline, cut corners, lay off workers etc in an effort show efficiency, profit, and shore up investor confidence. And when they can do that, they are rewarded with millions in stock options and other bonuses. It is kind of repugnant, but that's what the market allows. Now, I agree that what exacerbates this is that they know that if things get really bad the government will bail them out.
So, I guess the solution is either that the governments stays the hell out, or the government steps in and regulates more. But here is what really irks me. Many economic conservatives want it both ways. Reduce government intervention so that market works more efficiently, but also give but loads of corporate bailouts and corporate welfare. That is hypocritical. And if they airlines are any indication, it is a failed approach.
Well, I just don't think it's economic "conservatives" that are responsible for policies that result in corporate bail outs. Both sides of the isle have their pet industries that they'll go to bat for. A true economic conservative would say "tough shit, you didn't play by the rules of the market, so now you're going to have to suckit". People who are pushing for these policies are pretty much shills stuffed in the back pocket of the industry involved. And that particularly flavor of dumbassity afflicts Republicans and Democrats alike.
It's like the whole sub-prime mortgage problem. The banks knew that what they were doing was stupid, and was going to result in a lot of heartache for it's customers. It's just idiotic to offer a loan to someone you know isn't likely to be able to pay you back, no matter what the numbers look like on paper. But they do it anyway... and now they're getting a bail out from the government.
Conversely, no one in their right mind should agree to the terms of a sub-prime loan. Ever. The lure of "money now" dillutes the senses, and people tend to simply ignore the long term consequences. And now we're talking about a government bail out for citizens who opted to accept these ludicrous terms.
Now believe me, I feel for these people, I really do... Afterall, a couple years ago, Angela and I fell victim to a "technique" used by our mortgage lender that intentionally low-balled the estimated yearly escrow payments by almost 80%, apparently for the purpose of helping us qualify for the loan... Of course, we had no idea, because we'd never bought a house before. But sure enough, 6 months later, our monthly payments shot up $110... and considering we were already just making ends meet, this nearly broke us.
And while I do find enormous fault with the lender for doing something so absolutely irresponsible, I can't shirk responsibility entirely because we swallowed it hook line and sinker. We just didn't know any better.
But if I'm going through the process of buying a home, and indebting myself to someone for over $360k of principle and interest, I better damned well know what's going on, or at the very least have the numbers vetted by someone who is looking out for my best interests... not the lender's.
It's just being a responsible consumer. Now, should it be unlawful to offer these loans using questionable techniques and subprime interest rates? I dunno, probably? Some people accept these loans knowing that it's going to be difficult, and with the full intent of making things better for themselves and surviving it. But that's a dangerous game where the odds are stacked against you. It's like pledging to run a marathon, but with the stipulation that you have to carry a backpack full of lead bricks, you know? "I think I can, I think I can..." just doesn't always cut it.
And a lot of people simply couldn't get a loan any other way. So should they even be trying?
Anyway, I'm getting off into the weeds here. In the end, I guess what I'm saying is, while it *is* the government's domain to protect us from each other, it should not be responsible for protecting us from ourselves, regardless of whether we are a private citizen struggling with bad credit, or a private corporation making bad decisions that affect the lives of thousands of people.
I agree in large part with everything you said Beck. The one addition I would make for the sub-prime mortgage issue is that you are an educated and intelligent individual who was at least able to interpret a good portion of the deal you were getting. You were manipulated, but I respect your owning up to your own responsibility. I think people should take responsibility. But what really irks me is that most of the people caught up in this issue had neither the knowledge to interpret the deal they were signing up for nor the economic means to hire an attorney or other professional to assist them. The lenders targeted people and were happy to exploit them. The market allows for vast exploitation of people when it is unregulated. Again, I think people need to take responsibility, but when there exists such a vast power and knowledge differential, I think the banks need to assume the brunt of the blame. People need to be educated, especially the poor and under educated. So better regulation is one aspect. But an equally important aspect is providing people with easily accessible resources that help them get a fair shake. Overall, I would respect and appreciate the market a lot more if everyone worked from an equal platform. While I would prefer a more even distribution of resources, I understand that that is unlikely--I am not advocating communist-style redistribution mind you, just a greater balance in the system. More important, however, is access to knowledge. Banks (in this case) benefit mightily from their hugely asymmetric knowledge relationships. That is unfair, and the result has been that we all have gotten shafted and the economy has taken a nose dive (though a heap of other factors has contributed as well, much of which, I would argue is the result of the same ideological approach to the market).
I actually think many of our favored systems work this way. At this risk of taking huge flack for this statement, this is the fundamental problem with democracy. Much like the market, if all people had access to the same info and access, it would all work out peachy. But money and influence buys votes much as it buys access to the benefits of the market. So what happens is in both cases the poor and uneducated are marginalized. In short, democracy is kind of a farce when people can all vote but there exists vast disparities in their access to resources, influences, and knowledge. So in this respect I am sympathetic to the more extreme leftist view that economic justice must precede democracy. Otherwise, democracy is rather shallow.
I don't have a coherent answer for fixing these problems. But it seems obvious to me that neither system can work efficiently (for everyone's benefit) when we start from an already unbalanced system.
Well, while objectively I cannot find fault with your overall assessment, I think the problem is that it just isn't realistic. The only way to equalize the playing field is for everyone to be equal. And reality says that we just aren't.
That's not to say inequality means "better" or "less than". Certainly not. One cannot believe in the fundamental principles upon which this country is founded, and somehow feel that any one life is less deserving of life, liberty, and happiness. But every single human being is going to have different goals and aspirations in life; and even then, varying levels of commitment in actually pursuing them.
Economic justice sounds great on paper, but what does it mean? The cornerstone of human civilization is specialization. When one man specializes in a specific good or service, that's one less that everyone else has to worry about... and that good or service is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
And this innevitably means that some people are not going to be particularly good at managing resources, or providing a useful and beneficial service to his or her community... which means that they won't be able to afford other goods and services that are highly valued among their peers.
Justice implies a desire for balance. Why is it justice to artifically adjust the system so that those who do not contribute as much to the system can still enjoy the goods and services that others have had to bust their asses to achieve?
Money, or currency in any form, is an abstracted measure of work, wealth, and material gain, used to purchase goods and services from others who have committed their own sweat equity into what they offer.
"Economic Justice" is a bit of a misnomer. It's no more just to take 1/4 of one citizen's paycheck and redistribute it to others who have not committed the same amount of time and effort into their education and occupation as he has, than it is to take 25% of your 4.0 GPA, and give it to a handful of other students who, even if honest and well intentioned, are making 1.7s.
So what exactly is the balance we are trying to achieve? It's literally impossible to put everyone on the same playing field as far as economic/business accumen is concerned. That will happen when everyone in the world is rockstar scientist astronaught NBA allstar.
And just handing money to folks who haven't worked as hard as those who originally earned it isn't justice by any measure.
So I guess my question is, what do you mean by economic justice?
One more thing: I do want to clarify that I think it's perfectly reasonable for a society to mutually agree to pay taxes to support a system that serves as a safety net for its citizens. Everyone falls on hard times, and even people with enormous wealth can see it vanish the next day if they have not managed their resources properly.
However, my qualms are with people who perpetually live in this safety net, and don't take suitable measures to advance themselves and/or their families out of it. I doubt you'd find many people, Democrat or Republican, who frown on helping honest, hardworking people who have fallen on hard times. The fundamental disagreement, from my experience, is that Democrats would rather this support come from the government, where as Republicans would rather this support come from non-profit charities, churches, and other private institutions.
See, what bugs me with your line of argument, which is pretty common from economic conservatives, is that you make an implicit assumption that the people that are earning less or not achieving are lagging behind because they just aren't working hard enough. Perhaps you didn't mean to say it that way, but that was what you said. If you want to pay people for what they contribute to the community or based on how hard they work that is fine. But we all know that doesn't happen. The vast majority of people getting "handouts" from the government are working poor that are working there butts off to keep up with rent and bills. They are paid crap and have no room for advancement.
Now, we could argue, as economic conservatives often do, that if you want to get ahead you need to work harder, change jobs, get a better eduction, etc. Well and good. But if you are already working two bad paying jobs it doesn't leave a lot of room to work harder. Nor does it leave a lot of time for the extra education you might need to move up to a better job. So you're pretty much fucked. Telling that person that they are in their position because they didn't work hard enough is a load of crap.
Would it be better to pay people based on what they contribute to the community? Indeed! If that were the case, nurses and teachers ought to be making money hand over fist. But they are not. They work hard, provide vital services, but get paid shit. I would not argue that being a CEO is easy, but the work effort to pay ratio is wildly skewed, as is the community benefit to pay ratio. What is more irksome is that ratio is just getting bigger and bigger.
Economic or social justice does not mean dollar for dollar equality either. But there are enormous structural imbalances that need to be corrected if we want to have any kind of justice in this country. People should all start from more or less the same position and have more or less similar opportunities for advancement. It is of course not possible to do this one hundred percent, but there is a lot that can be done to move that direction. That is the intention of public schools, public health facilities etc. But public services are the favorite target of economic conservatives. People with means often choose to enroll their children in elite private schools because they offer a better quality education, which is fine. But then they gripe and wine about having to pay taxes for all those poor shills that attend public school. And they fight tooth an nail against every dollar proposed to improve the education system. Why? Because it does nothing from them. So, what happens is that the kid from the wealthy family gets to go to private school, gets a top notch eduction that sets him up for an elite college and then a great job. The poor kid has to attend a decaying public school with less qualified teachers and more students per class and fewer resources. So, they come out less prepared for college, get into a less reputable school (if they are that lucky or worked really, really hard), and then end up with a less profitable job. At every step of the way opportunities available to the first kid are closed for the second, so he has to work even harder to get to the same place. I am all for people working hard, and life isn't fair. So be it. But when the kid who got all of the privileges wants says the reason the other guy only ended up as middle management when he became an exec is because he worked harder it is vastly inaccurate. They worked equally hard, but the one with the privilege was always going to be ahead. And it's made all the worse when out hypothetical exec rails against the taxes he has to pay for public schools when he is already paying tuition for his kids to go the private school. So with enough equally affluent economic conservatives on his side and enough pushing, he gets vouchers for some of his kid's tuition or manages to block pay raises for teachers. In either case, the public system is worse than it was before, and the kids of our earlier guy have to work even harder than their dad to get to the same place, which leaves them way, way behind the kids of the exec. A similar situation applies to other public services like health care.
So, the point of all of this that economic and social justice isn't about a dollar to dollar equality, but trying to balance the system in a way that provides some similar set of opportunities for all people.
I was enjoying the bit of free market debate between the two of you. Then things went south.
I am going to have to agree with Reed on the last comment he made. I think that his explanation is a much more realistic assessment of the disparity in wages, opportunity and class structure.
And I totally disagree with the statement: "Money, or currency in any form, is an abstracted measure of work, wealth, and material gain, used to purchase goods and services from others who have committed their own sweat equity into what they offer." In abstract terms in a perfect world, I guess, but in reality it doesn't work like that. The last part seems to imply that if you work super hard, you can become wealthy... um, that's just false for the vast majority of people.
Post a Comment