For decades the media and universities told us how BAD DEREGULATION WAS because it killed labor's wages and benefits, it killed affordable pricing rates, it killed small and regional businesses as corporate consolidation soared. Below we see an article written by a global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA telling us deregulation of transportation was great for WE THE PEOPLE. Global Wall Street ALWAYS makes policy that will kill 99% of people sound and look good at first and then it reaches its goal of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. As with the Affordable Care Act or Race to the Top sounding like it was to help the poor or strengthen public health/education when it was simply meant to END PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATION.
THESE ARE FAR-RIGHT WING ECONOMICS WITH CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA SO WE KNOW ALL POLICY KILLS THE 99%!
Here is the history of transportation deregulation told by the right wing. Deregulation of air traffic as deregulation of trucking interstate access took us from airlines having to meet strong public safety and competition guidelines to allowing airlines to apply any policies to earn profit. First lots of small business airlines came into the market offering all kinds of discounts ----removing the frills we were told that made air travel comfortable for passengers. After all air traffic was completely deregulated and open with little regulation-----a DEREGULATED OIL INDUSTRY simply was allowed to create soaring gas prices and push all those small business airlines----just as with the deregulated trucking industry and its small trucker businesses----into bankruptcy. Where did both our small and regional airlines and trucking businesses go after bankruptcy? They were folded into global airlines and trucking corporations all within a few decades of deregulation. Today trucking prices are said to cause food prices to soar because of this monopoly and our airline prices are soaring as well.
THE IDEA THAT DEREGULATION CREATES FREE MARKET IS A GREAT BIG LIE. IT ONLY CREATES THE CONDITIONS FOR GLOBAL CORPORATIONS TO COME IN AND CREATE MONOPOLIES AND STAGNANT ECONOMIES.
How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% in 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed)
- Derek Thompson
- Feb 28, 2013
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.
There are many sad stories to tell about the U.S. economy, but here's some good news for everybody, from radical capitalists to consumer advocates: The incredible falling price of flying
Wikimedia CommonsFrank Sinatra's "Come Fly With Me" was the best-selling album in the United States for five weeks in 1958, but the irony of its popularity (or, perhaps, the source of its aspirational appeal) is that practically none of us could take up the offer to "glide, starry-eyed" on an aircraft with anybody in those days. More than 80 percent of the country had never once been on an airplane. There was a simple reason. Flying was absurdly expensive.
And there was simple reason why flying was absurdly expensive. That was the law.
There are many sad stories to tell about the U.S. economy in the last 30 years, but here's a happy story for everybody (except the airlines), from radical capitalists to the most liberal consumer advocates. Getting government out of the business of regulating the skies has led to a remarkable collapse in airline prices.
Airfares have fallen by about 50 percent since 1978 ...
... and, even after you include the recent uptick in fees, the per-mile cost of flying has also been chopped in half.
A happy story for consumers isn't necessarily a happy story for the airline industry, which bled an astounding $51 billion between 2001 and 2011 and lost money in every other year since 1981.
So, why have the last three decades been so good for flyers? And why don't we appreciate it?
THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE AIR
If you want a two-word answer to why airfares have dropped so much since the 1970s, it's this: Deregulation worked.
Before 1978, the airlines played by Washington's rules. The government determined whether a new airline could fly to a certain city, charge a certain price, or even exist in the first place. With limited competition, airlines were guaranteed a profit, and they lavished flyers with expensive services paid with expensive airfares. The silver and cloth came at a predictable price: The vast majority of Americans couldn't afford to fly, at all.
With prices skyrocketing during the energy crisis of the 1970s, an all-star team of senators and economists decided that Washington should get out of the business of coddling the airlines. Let's hear from a young former aide to Sen. Ted Kennedy named Stephen Breyer (oh, yeah, that Stephen Breyer) reviewing the free market case for letting airlines fly solo:
BREYER WAS ONE OF THE RIGHT LEANING JUSTICES KNOWN TO BE GLOBAL ONE WORLD.
In California and Texas, where fares were unregulated, they were much lower. The San Francisco-Los Angeles fare was about half that on the comparable, regulated Boston-Washington route. And an intra-Texas airline boasted that the farmers who used to drive across the state could fly for even less money -- and it would carry any chicken coops for free.
Three decades later, the lesson from Texas -- if you deregulate the skies, ticket prices will fall -- has been applied across the country. The democratization of the air is obvious enough from the frenetic bustle of every major U.S. airport. But the stats are mind-blowing, as well.
-- In 1965, no more than 20 percent of Americans had ever flown in an airplane. By 2000, 50 percent of the country took at least one round-trip flight a year. The average was two round-trip tickets.
-- The number of air passengers tripled between the 1970s and 2011.
-- In 1974, it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1,442 in inflation-adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles. On Kayak, just now, I found one for $278.
Why did deregulation create such dramatically falling prices? "Flying is neither a life necessity like tuition, milk, or medicine, nor is it addictive, like alcohol or drugs," said John Heimlich, vice president and chief economist at Airlines for America. "When you have intense competition for a product that is price sensitive, you have falling prices."
MACHINE vs. MACHINE: THE PRICE WARS
In the showdown between airlines and flyers, both sides wield a formidable weapon. Airlines use computers to move prices. We use computers to find the lowest price. It's like a multi-billion-dollar game of cat and mouse played out between competing machines -- with William Shatner caught the middle.
When the doors of an airplane close, each empty seat is lost money. So the price of a ticket should fall as we approach takeoff, right? Wrong. As you know, airfares rise in the final hours. This is because last-minute flyers tend to be desperate people (they'll pay anything) or businesspeople expensing to their companies (they'll pay anything). So airlines have to design a system that fulfills the following goals: Sell as many seats as possible, sell them a profit, but also leave some empty for desperate travelers.
That explains why the life-cycle of an airfare resembles a roller coaster. A seat is a seat is a seat, you might say. But a ticket sold three months out isn't worth the same to the buyer as a ticket sold the same day. So you can pay $200 to fly to Chicago and sit next to somebody who paid $600.
Complex and closely guarded technology owned by the airlines create a market of jiggling price points with, not just thousands of airfares, but millions of airfares, as Charles Fishman reports:
Continental launches about 2,000 flights every day. Each flight has between 10 and 20 prices. Continental starts booking flights 330 days in advance, and every flying day is different from every other flying day. Monday is a different kind of day than Tuesday; the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is different from the Wednesday before that. At any given moment, Jim Compton and Continental may have nearly 7 million prices in the market.
While airlines worked to make low prices impossible to pin down, the Internet made finding the lowest price easier than ever. In the late 1990s, Expedia and Priceline launched technologies that trawled the Web for flights and organized them by price. The airlines' magical formula was transformed into a column of bargains.
What this has done to airfares is obvious: Transparency accelerated the competition for the lowest prices. Airlines still compete on schedules, routes, and service, just like the old days, but now that flying has moved mass market, "airfare moves market share," said Henry H. Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst with Atmosphere Research. "It's allowed cheap airlines like Southwest and Jet Blue and Spirit to enter the market and grow." Just as regulation came at a price (fewer flyers), deregulation and low airfares have created their own complications: spartan service, bankrupt airlines, and a brave new world of fees.
THE RISE OF FEES (AND THE CASE FOR LOVING THEM)
Flyers hate fees. But we might learn to love them if we thought of them as savings.
After deregulation, airlines wanted to guard their slim profits in an online world of transparent prices. One solution was to offer cheap basic fares and tack on fees later for amenities that most customers would demand. Today, airline fees have grown into a $6 billion side-pot -- quadrupling in just the last five years. There are now fees for bags, WiFi, food, headsets, unaccompanied minors, the emergency row, and practically everything that cannot be simply described as "one adult sitting with a back-pack in one middle seat."
Why do we hate fees if they keep basic prices low? Because we're Americans, Heimlich said: "It's the American way to want a product approaching first-class for a price approaching zero." But cultural selfishness doesn't explain all of it. Bargain-hunters experience a dopamine rush (literally) when they find great prices. The drip-drip of additional fees mutes the joy of finding a great price. They kill our buzz.
IF FLYING IS SO CHEAP, WHY DO WE THINK IT'S EXPENSIVE?
When US Airways and American Airlines announced their mega-merger this year, it set off national hysterics, as flyers claimed the new behemoth would painfully raise prices. The reaction seemed unaware that consumers have enjoyed an amazing (and unsustainable) three decades in cheap flying while the price of fuel, which accounts for more than a third of airfare costs, has gone up 260 percent since the turn of the century.
Between falling prices, 9/11, and fuel inflation, there have been 47 airline bankruptcies since 2001. Some companies died. Others merged. Others survived with leaner contracts. Through attrition and consolidation, a less crowded marketplace for flying is inevitable.
Why don't we appreciate this heyday in bargain flying? The first, and obvious, answer is that flying through the air in a big machine powered by a scarce resource will always cost a big number, and your average family expends very little energy adjusting big numbers for inflation. If you buy a round-trip ticket from New York to Columbus for $280 every year between 1986 and 2010, would you suddenly realize, after 24 years, that the real price of your ticket had dropped by exactly 50 percent? Probably not. You'd probably think, correctly, "I guess flying to Ohio costs $280."
The second, and less obvious, reason why we don't recognize the amazing fall in ticket prices is that average consumers don't know what a plane ticket "should" cost. Some prices, we know, as if by heart. Parents know the price of socks, teenagers know the price of Cheetos, and college kids know the price of PBR. These numbers hardly change. Their constancy anchors an expectation. But quick, what's *the price* of flying to Los Angeles? You have no idea. It could be $300 or $700, depending on the route, the time of day, the number of seats left, the number of days notice, and so on.
Essentially, Americans are expert shoppers, not mathematicians. Don't ask us to divine the true cost of something, or to adjust for inflation. We only know how to click the cheapest price. And, for the airlines, that's precisely the problem.
This article says it all----WE THE PEOPLE should be thankful for all those FEES. OH, REALLY??? In just a few decades of deregulation these fees have been transferred to all our public agencies so now a deregulated PARKING AUTHORITY-----WATER AND WASTE-----HOME ENERGY----all are coming with fees ------that are simply taxes. There's no competition going on today as a result of DEREGULATED CONSOLIDATION TO MONOPOLY AND THEN GLOBAL MONOPOLY. While the 99% enjoyed a few decades of flying or riding rail across the US cheaply the goal of deregulation being opening all air traffic routes and interstate highway routes to global corporations----we now have monopolized, stagnant economies controlled only by global corporations---
THAT IS ALWAYS THE GOAL OF DEREGULATION.
So, say NO TO THE ATLANTIC WHEN IT WRITES ARTICLES LIKE THIS SAYING WE NEED TO BE THANKFUL FOR FEES.
'How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% in 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed)
Thank deregulation, competition, the Internet, and fees. Yes, thank fees.
theatlantic.com|By Derek Thompson'
'And so Justice is jumping in now to protect us from those would-be airline oligopolists. The combination of US Airways and American would control 69% of the slots at Reagan National Airport (where, coincidentally, Justice Department lawyers do a lot of their flying from). It would reduce the number of major “legacy” carriers in the U.S. to just three, which, the complaint argues, would “make it easier for the remaining airlines to cooperate, rather than compete, on price and service.”'
Below we see yet another global Wall Street media source telling WE THE PEOPLE what is good or bad and they always approach these articles with skewed data and biased research because they are GLOBAL WALL STREET. Harvard is now trying to tell us the question is which is worse-----airline monopolies or airline competition-----as if this were an either or question. After these few decades of CONSOLIDATION INTO MONOPOLIES BECAUSE OF DEREGULATION----we are now seeing global corporations coming back to the US PRETENDING THEY ARE SMALL BUSINESSES when they are simply global subsidiaries of the same global corporations. THERE IS NO COMPETITION GOING ON. THERE HAS BEEN NO FREE MARKET ECONOMY THROUGH CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---deregulation and consolidation KILLED FREE MARKET ECONOMIES IN THIS CASE WE ARE LOOKING AT TRANSPORTATION.
A person writing for HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW is not telling us the real public policy concerns----
The Reason Air Travel Is Terrible and So Few Airlines Are Profitable
Which Is Worse: Airline Monopolies or Airline Competition?
August 15, 2013
Near the beginning of the complaint that the Justice Department, five states, and the District of Columbia filed this week in an attempt to halt the merger of US Airways and American Airlines is a sentence that cannot help but make a person stop and think.
“Since 1978,” the assembled attorneys write, “the nation has relied on competition among airlines to promote affordability, innovation, and service and quality improvements.”
How’s that been working out for us? Well, there’s definitely been innovation since the deregulation of the U.S. airline industry during the Carter years — the proliferation of hub-and-spoke operations that funneled most traffic through a few wildly overcrowded airports; the rise of no frills, point-to-point competitors (most notably Southwest) that succeeded precisely by avoiding those airports; and of course the advent of seat-back TVs and blue potato chips on JetBlue. Beyond those seat-back TVs and the jokey Southwest flight attendants, though, there have been few service or quality improvements of the sort that flyers can actually notice. And while we’ve been seen lots of reports over the years proclaiming the huge cost benefits to consumers of airline deregulation, and the great democratization of air travel that has resulted, there’s recently been a revisionist interpretation of the data pointing out that fares were dropping and passenger numbers increasing faster before deregulation than after. I’ll let economic-statistics maven (and long-time deregulation critic) Doug Henwood explain:
Between 1963 (when the figures begin) and 1979, the airfare subindex of the CPI grew 25% more slowly than the overall CPI. Since 1979, it’s grow[n] 2.4 times as fast as overall inflation. A major reason for this is that there are many fewer nonstop flights than in the regulated days, and far tighter advance purchase restrictions. To the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which computes the CPI, such quality decreases are the same as price increases. … And then ridership. Between 1948 and 1978, annual passenger miles flown grew 12% a year; since then, they’ve grown less than 4%.
One thing that must be noted here is that the safety record of U.S. airlines has continued to improve dramatically over the decades (albeit with some signs of plateauing lately). Then again, airline safety has remained the subject of government regulation.
In its US Airways/American complaint, the Justice Department acknowledges that things haven’t been great for airline passengers:
In recent years … the major airlines have, in tandem, raised fares, imposed new and higher fees, and reduced service. Competition has diminished and consumers have paid a heavy price.
And so Justice is jumping in now to protect us from those would-be airline oligopolists. The combination of US Airways and American would control 69% of the slots at Reagan National Airport (where, coincidentally, Justice Department lawyers do a lot of their flying from). It would reduce the number of major “legacy” carriers in the U.S. to just three, which, the complaint argues, would “make it easier for the remaining airlines to cooperate, rather than compete, on price and service.”
That last bit is surely true. But it’s important to realize where these airlines are coming from. This isn’t J.P. Morgan operating from a position of strength to build a steel monopoly at the beginning of the 20th century; it’s a group of battered, eternally struggling companies trying to come up with a sustainable industry model. Before deregulation, airlines in the U.S. were pretty reliable moneymakers. From 1979 to 2011, though, Henwood calculates that U.S. airlines lost $41.6 billion (in 2011 dollars). And it’s not just shareholders who have come off terribly. The past few decades have been, if anything, an even bigger disaster for airline employees, many of whom have seen their pensions mostly evaporate and their pay and status diminish. Taxpayers haven’t come off untouched, either — getting stuck with partial pension bailouts and big loan guarantees to aid the ailing industry in recent years along with ongoing subsidies for airport construction and improvement.
So when US Airways CEO Doug Parker says, as he did a few months ago, that a merger with American is “the last major piece needed to fully rationalize the industry” — a quote cited in the Justice complaint as evidence of the dastardliness of his designs — it’s at least possible that he’s right. As Phillip Longman and Lina Khan wrote last year in an epic takedown of airline deregulation in The Washington Monthly, some industries are meant to be highly concentrated:
It would be outrageously inefficient if each city had scores of waterworks and sewers, and also needlessly unfair; millions of Americans would still be waiting for indoor plumbing, just as millions had to wait decades for telephone and electrical service, until the government stepped in to enforce interventions like the New Deal’s rural electrification program.
The proper response to such natural monopolies or duopolies, Longman and Khan argued, is the one that American progressives came up with in the first half of the 20th century: allow them to exist, but regulate them. For the airline industry and the country, it has to be said that regulation worked out pretty well in the decades after the creation of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in 1938 — a vast new transportation infrastructure was built, passenger numbers skyrocketed, hundreds of thousands of good new jobs were created, and world-changing innovations (the jet engine, mainly) were accommodated and encouraged.
Much of that was due more to the dynamics of a growing new industry than to regulation, of course, and it may be that airlines were headed for a sort of mid-life crisis whether deregulation had intervened or not. There were also clear problems with how regulation worked in practice by the late 1970s. It involved the government in deciding such ridiculously picayune details as how many travel-agent freebies a tour operator could give out, economist Alfred Kahn complained after Jimmy Carter put him in charge of the CAB (that detail is from Longman and Kahn’s article). And it clearly had come to stand in the way of innovation — the most innovative thing in air travel at the time was probably Southwest, which had kept its business entirely within the borders of Texas to avoid the strictures of the CAB.
It’s possible that, as Tom Bozzo argued a couple of years ago, smarter, less-intrusive regulation could have addressed those concerns and left the airline industry and its passengers better off than the full deregulation we got. But that didn’t happen. Instead, we got deregulation and the airline industry consolidation that the Justice Department is now belatedly trying to put a stop to.
The economic arguments outlined above don’t seem likely to play all that big role in determining whether the Justice Department prevails or US Airways and American do. Instead, the big question will probably be whether this merger is different enough from the two biggies that went through without Justice Department opposition in recent years — Delta-Northwest and United-Continental — to merit such treatment.
Still, it’s worth taking this occasion to reconsider the bipartisan consensus that has reigned since the 1970s that competition solves all economic problems. It certainly solves a lot of problems and is, conceptually at least, far simpler than government intervention. A few industries, though, just may not be naturally suited to it.
The Democratic base of left labor and justice have been deliberately fooled with the use of terms PROGRESSIVE. SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES want small business competition with larger corporations knowing this is free market economy. Below we are told PROGRESSIVES thought it was OK to allow monopolies to exist if they are regulated. This refers to ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVES----THE ROBBER BARONS. Our US Constitution does not allow monopolies----it is filled with anti-trust laws because the two cannot exist---monopolies and free market. So they are LYING when they say monopolies can exist if regulated because----VOILA THOSE REGULATIONS ALWAYS END UP DISAPPEARING.
When we read today from national media that is global Wall Street there is opposition through the Justice Department over consolidation of these few airlines DELTA-NORTHWEST VS UNITED CONTINENTAL what we are not told is this -----DELTA IS A GLOBAL AIRLINE CORPORATION ------CONTINENTAL IS A GLOBAL AIRLINE CORPORATION so neither of these should be allowed to operate in the US ----they are breaking US ANTI-TRUST MONOPOLY LAWS simply by allowing these global corporations to operate. The question is not can they grow that already existing monopoly with mergers of regional players like Northwest or United----
'Instead, the big question will probably be whether this merger is different enough from the two biggies that went through without Justice Department opposition in recent years — Delta-Northwest and United-Continental — to merit such treatment'.
'American progressives came up with in the first half of the 20th century: allow them to exist, but regulate them'.
To break up monopolies and allow real free market competition in America regarding the air industry the US Justice and our Congress would not allow a CONTINENTAL OR DELTA access to our air routes. Again, they are not asking the right questions for the 99% in resolving these vital issues of economic monopolies and REAL free market competition.
United Airlines Is Not the Same as Delta and American
Some analysts think it will be straightforward job for United Airlines to match the profit margins of Delta and American. However, United is structurally different than its peers.
Sep 30, 2014 at 11:30AM
The top three airlines in the U.S. all produce about $40 billion in annual revenue. Yet investors have put much higher price tags on shares of Delta Air Lines (NYSE:DAL) and American Airlines (NASDAQ:AAL) than those of United Continental Holdings (NYSE:UAL).
Bulls see United Continental's lower valuation as an opportunity. While United has lower margins than Delta and American, many analysts see the three as being essentially alike. Thus, it should be a straightforward task for United to catch up to Delta and American.
There are significant differences between United Continental and its peers. Photo: The Motley Fool.
However, there are a few very important differences between United and its two top rivals. This doesn't mean United is necessarily doomed to have lower margins forever. However, it does mean that catching up to Delta and American will not be straightforward whatsoever.
A big valuation gap
Delta's market cap is currently about $31 billion, and American is not far behind with a $26 billion valuation. United brings up the rear with a market cap of just $18 billion. This gap was even wider just a few months ago. While United's stock has underperformed its two main peers this year, its shares have made up a lot of ground recently.
United's better than expected second-quarter earnings report provided much of the impetus for this lift. The company posted a 51% jump in adjusted earnings per share last quarter, and also issued a solid forecast for the third quarter.
This was a big achievement, considering that United's profit margin has regularly lagged those of Delta and American by 5-6 percentage points recently. Just a few months earlier, United reported a massive first-quarter loss. The big second-quarter improvement led many analysts to conclude that United had finally turned the corner and was on its way to eventual parity with Delta and American.
If United was really a near-replica of Delta and American, it might be relatively easy for it to close its margin deficit. However, there are several important structural differences between United and the other two network carriers.
Focus on international flights
One key difference is United's exposure to international routes. In the second quarter, United generated slightly more than 40% of its $9 billion in passenger revenue from its international routes. By contrast, international flights accounted for just 33% of passenger revenue at Delta and slightly less than 30% for American Airlines.
American Airlines is less exposed to international markets than United. Photo: American Airlines.
The recent surge in airline profitability has been driven primarily by consolidation in the U.S. airline industry, which has led to tighter capacity discipline among the largest carriers. The international market is much more competitive, though -- especially in Asia, where United has much more capacity than Delta or American.
In Asia, United's profitability has been hurt by the rapid growth of various airlines -- especially Chinese carriers -- that aim to find a foothold in the strategically valuable U.S. market. With many of its routes contested by competitors whose primary goal is market share, not short-term profit, it's no wonder that United's profit margin lags those of its rivals.
Another point of differentiation is the competition the airlines face in their top hub markets. Delta absolutely dominates air travel in its top three hub markets: Atlanta, Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The same is true for American Airlines in markets such as Dallas-Fort Worth, Charlotte, N.C., Philadelphia, and Miami.
By contrast, United has much greater competition in most of its hubs. For example, its largest market in terms of daily departures is Chicago, where it competes with a sizable American Airlines hub and Southwest Airlines' largest focus city. It also faces stiff competition in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Denver.
Several United hubs face significant competition from Southwest Airlines. Photo: The Motley Fool.
The only markets where United has a clear leadership position are Houston and San Francisco. Even there, its dominance does not approach that of Delta and American in their top hubs. Additionally, United's market share in those cities is gradually eroding due to the growth of Southwest and Virgin America, respectively.
United's lower market share in its hub markets stems from its strategic choice to locate its hubs in the top business travel markets. The goal is to gain a competitive advantage in bidding for corporate contracts. So far, that benefit has been outweighed by the higher level of competition in each individual market.
In addition, United also has smaller hubs than Delta and American. Last year, in Houston and Chicago -- its largest hub markets -- United and its two largest regional carriers together boarded about 15.5 million and 12.3 million passengers, respectively.
Delta boarded more than 36 million passengers in Atlanta last year. Photo: The Motley Fool.
By contrast, Delta and its top regional carrier boarded more than 36 million passengers in Atlanta last year. Meanwhile, American Airlines and its main regional affiliate boarded 23.5 million passengers in Dallas.
This situation means that United on average offers fewer flights on smaller airplanes. Fewer flights means less convenience for passengers, which could impact revenue. Smaller airplanes have higher unit costs. The result is a less profitable operation.
Tying it all together
Here, I have highlighted three major structural differences between United Continental and its two main competitors: Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. First, United has a much higher exposure to international flights. Second, United has a lower market share in its hub markets. Third, United's hubs are smaller in terms of absolute passenger counts.
These factors reflect a key difference in strategy between United and its peers. United tries to compete in the top markets for business travel regardless of whether it can dominate them. By contrast, Delta and American each dominate a few cities where they drive lots of connecting traffic through their hubs.
United's smaller hubs and its higher exposure to international flights mean that it relies more on origin and destination traffic (rather than connecting traffic) than its peers. This is a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, origin and destination traffic tends to generate higher fares than connecting traffic. On the other hand, since United focuses its capacity on strategically important cities, it faces significant competition for origin and destination passengers. This means United is more likely to be drawn into pricing battles in order to fill empty seats.
United's track record over the last few years suggests severe execution problems, a flawed strategy, or both. While execution issues have certainly cropped up, there may be more to United's problems than a few easy-to-correct mistakes.
Delta and American benefit from large captive markets in their top hubs. In order to match their financial results, United must be the preferred carrier in its hub markets, where it almost always faces at least one significant competitor.
However, United has consistently found itself near the bottom of the airline industry in customer service ratings for the past two to three years. This is preventing United from being the preferred carrier in its hub markets. Either United needs to rise to the top in customer service rankings -- and stay there -- or its margins will continue to trail those of the competition for the foreseeable future.
History reveals potential Trump gold mine for 2017
We aren't politicos here at The Motley Fool. But we know a great investing opportunity when we see one.
Our analysts spotted what could be a $1.6 trillion opportunity lurking in Donald Trump's infrastructure plans. And given this team's superb track record (more than tripling the market over the past decade*), you don't want to miss what they found.
They've picked 11 stocks poised to profit from Trump's first 100 days as president. History has shown that getting in early on a good idea can often pay big bucks – so don't miss out on this moment.
This was the goal of DEREGULATING our US airway routes------global corporations could care less about free market economies involving other US businesses----they are only focused on gaining market access overseas in FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. To do that they must allow foreign airlines to operate in US airway routes. This is what global Wall Street now calls opening free markets.
MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US cities as Foreign Economic Zones will do just that ----it will open our US airways to foreign airlines because these international corporations are all multi-national ----they have shareholder global 1% and their 2% so they don't see our NATIONAL AIRWAYS they see colonial opportunities open to all global corporations.
DEREGULATED AIRWAYS LED TO THIS-----AND YES, GLOBAL WALL STREET WILL OPEN US AIRWAYS TO FOREIGN CORPORATIONS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES DO.
TRUMP WILL DO THIS----A HILLARY WOULD HAVE DONE THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE BOTH GLOBAL WALL STREET.
Once this happens Americans will not have sovereign air space----as with outsourcing our US PORTS-----we lose yet another sovereign issue. All this is illegal and unconstitutional---we can reverse this VOID MONOPOLIES AS ILLEGAL.
'Now that the USA is down to just three major legacy carriers, thanks to the misguided merger between American Airlines and US Airways, it doesn't take a card-carrying frequent flier to know your options are awful'.
We are now being told these three airlines have a MONOPOLY so opening our US airways to foreign airlines is FREE MARKET and those three airlines are not American they are multi-national. All these mergers and acquisitions soared during Obama with the FED and Congress creating laws to finance all this global monopoly so Trump will not do any more damage then is already done. WE THE PEOPLE need left Democrats to REVERSE AND VOID MONOPOLIES.
Should foreign airlines be allowed to fly domestic routes?
Christopher Elliott, Special for USA TODAY Published 11:23 a.m. ET Jan. 6, 2014 | Updated 11:25 a.m. ET Jan. 6, 2014(Photo: Wilfredo Lee, AP)
Try not to laugh too loudly the next time a flight attendant makes one of those pre-flight announcements to thank you for your business and say, "We know you have a choice in airlines."
Now that the USA is down to just three major legacy carriers, thanks to the misguided merger between American Airlines and US Airways, it doesn't take a card-carrying frequent flier to know your options are awful.
But they don't have to be. Imagine if foreign airlines were allowed to offer flights in the United States, competing head-to-head with our new winged monopolies.
"If I could fly Japan Airlines or Cathay Pacific on U.S. domestic routes, at prices comparable to American airlines, I would buy those tickets in a New York minute," says John Strohm, a software engineer from Huntsville, Ala.
He's not alone. Once other air travelers have experienced the impressive service some foreign airlines offer, they often wonder: Why can't they do business in the USA?
International airlines do operate in this country, of course, but they're forbidden from flying point-to-point destinations domestically. These laws, which are meant to protect American consumers and jobs, are having the exact opposite effect. Eliminating — or at least partially lifting — outdated restrictions could significantly increase competition and improve customer service.
Banning foreign carriers from offering domestic flights might have made sense a generation ago, when the American airline industry was tightly regulated by the federal government, say industry watchers. But today, with only a few megacarriers remaining and the security concerns of the Cold War a distant memory, it's harder to justify the laws.
"Foreign airline competition and capital investment in U.S. airlines could quickly improve passenger service, lower fares, result in new start-up airlines, and relieve overcrowding," says Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights.org.
That may be easier said than done, says Steven Truxal, a professor of aviation law at City University London. He explains that even if we wanted to allow British Airways or Lufthansa to offer flights from New York to Chicago, we'd insist that the EU allow us to do the same, and that would require a treaty renegotiation. "Not an easy task," he says.
Other hurdles stand in the way, including opposition from unions, which claim relaxing these laws would endanger American jobs, and domestic airlines, which don't want the competition. Both would also correctly point out that some international carriers receive subsidies from their governments or face lighter tax and regulatory burdens, which would appear to put U.S. carriers at a disadvantage.
But the barriers aren't insurmountable. Albert Cardenas, an English teacher who lives in Bogotá, Colombia, has had a front-row seat to this kind of liberalization. "For example, Avianca, the supposedly Colombian airline owned by a Brazilian, offers flights between different cities in Spain; and LAN, the Chilean airline, connects several cities in Colombia," he says. The result: more choices and better service.
"This is a normal practice in a globalized world," he says. "But it seems like the United States doesn't want to join this kind of world."
Ah, but Americans do.
"Considering the domestic airline mergers, I think foreign airlines should be allowed to operate domestic flights," says Harry Kopy, a stagehand in Sayreville, N.J. "It might create more competition, perhaps lowering the cost of an airline ticket, or even help getting rid of some junk fees. Wouldn't that be nice?"
In numerous interviews I conducted with ordinary air travelers, a clear consensus emerges: The benefits of opening up the domestic market to foreign competition far outweigh any drawbacks.
Being able to buy a transcontinental ticket on Cathay Pacific or Qatar Airways would force U.S. airlines to offer lower prices and upgrade their service, ending a shameful race to the bottom that's defined domestic air travel in the last decade. U.S. airlines would no longer take us for granted.
"The government regulations are in place to help inefficient corporations at the expense of consumers and more efficient businesses," says Mike Zoril, a financial analyst from Beloit, Wis., who, like many others, dreams of a day when the rules are changed to favor consumers.
We're getting closer. The EU has been pushing to open America's skies to competition, most recently in negotiations for its Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty. Until the shackles come off, you can do the next best thing: Buy a ticket on Virgin America, which embraces the service culture of its European namesake, Virgin Atlantic.
Picture what air travel would be like if Virgin became the standard. Wouldn't that be a reason to love flying again?
NAFTA under Clinton did the same to our trucking industry and with that the railroads-----what is coming with today's privatization of our state public transit----buses, MARC and light rails ----is movement from national monopoly in rail, commuter bus etc to GLOBAL MONOPOLY. Larry Hogan as an O'Malley privatized to global corporations----with this comes the ability in US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zones to IGNORE ALL US LAWS AND US CONSTITUTION.
No one knows better than our small and regional trucking companies how deregulation of trucking killed them. Deregulation of air, bus, rail will do the same. MOVING FORWARD will have all these global transportation industries only catering to a global 1% and their 2% raising prices, fees, to the highest market value.....all RIGHT WING ECONOMICS MAXIMIZING CORPORATE POWER AND PROFIT.
If WE THE PEOPLE keep allowing global Wall Street players to capture our elections---be shown as leading marches as civil rights, labor rights, women's rights, rights of disabled while killing all these groups----we will not reverse all this----IT IS EASY PEASY TO REVERSE if we get rid of global Wall Street players.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017 RSS Email Newsletters Put PRWeb on your site
Global Trucking Industry to Reach US$230 Billion by 2015, According to a New Industry Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.
GIA announces the release of a comprehensive global outlook on the Trucking Industry. The industry’s dynamics are intricately linked with macro-economic factors, and closely following the boom-trough cycles of the overall economy. The industry growth is significantly linked to the performance of key end-use markets such as manufacturing; wholesaling and retailing; agriculture; construction; mining; health and community services; and finance and insurance.
Trucking: A Global Outlook
San Jose, California (PRWEB) January 12, 2012
– The trucking industry encompasses the dynamic interaction of several diverse industries focused on producing, transporting and distributing goods. Though truck enterprises traditionally focused on transporting goods from source to various destinations, the landscape has changed dramatically in recent years to include an umbrella of varied services tailored to suit the needs of different industries. Freight characteristics, multi jurisdictional regulations, safety regulations, economic forces, international trade, shipper and customer needs, and truck and trailer manufacturer improvements affect operations of the trucking industry. The industry operations are also governed by factors such as conditions in the industrial production sector, which are significantly influenced by recession/boom cycles in the economy. The deregulation of trucking industry has given rise to volatile market conditions for commercial fleets, where intense competition, particularly price based, threatens the existence of several independent carriers. In order to compete, these companies seek to enhance their economic efficiencies and market standing, as well as differentiate themselves by offering excellent customer service. The focus of industry is on operating in cooperation with other modes of transport to meet specific delivery requirements, as cost efficiencies can be combined to minimize overall costs incurred on freight transportation.
In the United States, the economic slowdown affected the trucking industry far more than the railroad sector. This is mainly due to the fact that unlike trucking industry, the railroad sector is more inclined towards transportation of non-cyclical commodities such as coal and agricultural products, which stayed relatively stable despite the economic crisis. The trucking industry, which is more dependent on manufacturing and retail demand, experienced comparatively steep decrease in volume during the economic slowdown. With the crisis compelling production shutdowns in several companies, demand for transportation of goods witnessed a considerable decline. Increase in fuel costs also accounted for the downward slide. Presently, the industry is witnessing renewed activity buoyed by a positive outlook in the economy and improved business conditions. Freight Act of 2010, intended to enhance efficiency and security of trucking, is also expected to offer better growth opportunities for transporters. Growth is expected to be propelled by increased manufacturing activity; indicated by increase in number of workers employed, enhanced retail sales, inventory stocking, growth in freight volumes and gradual increase in utilization rates.
China’s trucking industry is witnessing robust growth following the recovery of global markets, and increased export import opportunities. Long distance transportation is gaining prominence in China owing to rapid increase in unit freight mileage thereby bolstering the demand for high-end trucks that are required to transport shipment over a long distance. Demand for heavy-duty trucks with high fuel efficiency and better emission control systems is expected to escalate backed by various factors. Increase in diesel fuel taxes is projected to further the demand for fuel efficient vehicles. Also propelling demand for newer vehicles is the proposed harmonization of emission rules on par with that of Europe and the US compelling truckers to comply with international emission standards.
The research report titled “Trucking: A Global Outlook” announced by Global Industry Analysts, Inc., provides a collection of statistical anecdotes, market briefs, and concise summaries of research findings. The report offers an aerial view of the global trucking industry, identifies major short to medium term market challenges, and growth drivers. Market discussions in the report are punctuated with fact-rich market data tables. Regional markets elaborated upon include United States, Canada, Japan, UK, Australia, and China among others. Also included is an indexed, easy-to-refer, fact-finder directory listing the addresses, and contact details of companies worldwide.
Clinton in 1990s was the source of all that is global Wall Street and monopoly creation with this right wing economic policy of public private partnership. This was single-handedly the complete dismantlement of WE THE PEOPLE AND OUR VOICE IN PUBLIC POLICY. It is the source of WE THE PEOPLE paying more and more and more taxes, fees for what was public services and programs while having all those funds grow global corporations. Absolutely no marching against Clinton/Obama as they were far worse for WE THE PEOPLE than a Trump can ever be.
'Clinton governed as a “new model of a pro-business, pragmatic Democrat who championed public-private partnerships and open markets.”'
The Clintons are indeed trying to rewrite history as REAGAN/CLINTON neo-liberalism is the same thing-----taking each US political party towards the same global 1% goal.
In Maryland there is no policy that is not PUBLIC PRIVATE-----and there is no public private today that is not GLOBAL PRIVATE----MOVING FORWARD with all that is American transportation and our freedom of movement.
The Clinton Legacy vs. the Reagan Era
Having failed to repeal Reaganism in policy terms, Bill Clinton now seeks to repeal its growing historical standing.
Robert W. Merry May 6, 2014
Former President Bill Clinton delivered a lengthy speech (even by his standards) at Georgetown University the other day, and some commentators detected a certain defensiveness in his tone. He was talking about his legacy, which now resides in the realm of history, and he evinced what seemed like concern that he’s not getting the credit he deserves for the robust economic growth during his presidency and his positive impact on the circumstances of the country’s poor.
His biggest complaint seemed aimed at today’s party liberals who want rhetoric and policies designed to go after the rich. As the New York Times put it, Clinton governed as a “new model of a pro-business, pragmatic Democrat who championed public-private partnerships and open markets.” That thinking is considered pretty retro by many of today’s Democrats more inclined toward the fiery approach of Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, whose populist pugilism is directed at big financial institutions, big business in general and the wealthy.
But as Bloomberg’s Albert R. Hunt said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” the day after Clinton’s speech, Clinton was operating in an entirely different era from today. Hunt makes a good point. It was not an era of populism back then; it was an era still influenced by the legacy of Ronald Reagan. In today’s political climate, characterized by powerful populist currents emanating from both left and right, the old Clinton approach lacks resonance.
There’s no reason for Clinton to get defensive about this. The first challenge of any president is to understand his times and then govern accordingly. Clinton did that, and the results were salutary, as he is wont to point out. The fact that we have passed into a new era doesn’t detract from his accomplishments during the old one.
But a couple points are worth noting. First, Clinton initially muffed the challenge of understanding his times. During his first two years in office, he sought to operate as if the big imperative was, as he put it, to “repeal Reaganism.” It didn’t work, and he had his head handed to him at the next election—the midterm canvas of 1994—when the country gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans for the first time since the early 1950s. It was only after that humiliation that the president crafted his finely honed leadership as a “New Democrat.” That proved much more successful—and is a credit to Clinton’s ability to assess popular sentiment and leverage it for political success.
Second, there’s validity in Clinton’s critique of those who seek to deprive him of credit for his leadership successes by suggesting he was merely lucky in becoming president at a propitious time. As he put it, “You can say, ‘Oh, Clinton was lucky, he caught the tech boom.’ ‘Clinton was lucky he came out of a recession.’” But, he continued, he was responsible for real accomplishments—for example, lifting some 7.7 million people out of poverty.
Fair enough. The American people understand, even if Clinton’s liberal critics don’t, that a president’s job is to exploit any good fortune he may encounter and rectify any problems. He gets the credit for good times, however they may have materialized, and gets the blame for bad times, again irrespective of how they emerged. Hence, even if it’s true that Clinton merely “caught the tech boom” rather than unleashing it, he gets credit for nurturing it along and ensuring that it continued to buoy the economy. It’s unlikely he could have accomplished that with an Elizabeth Warren approach.
But here’s where Clinton ventures into questionable territory. Having failed to repeal Reaganism in policy terms, he now seeks to repeal its growing historical standing. Clinton drew a sharp comparison between his policies, which he said were designed to benefit all societal strata, and Reagan’s, which he described as merely coddling the rich.
In truth, Reagan was elected because the Democratic Party had messed up the economy so thoroughly that many Americans considered the situation nearly hopeless. Some telling numbers: GDP decline of 1.5 percent in the 1980 campaign year; prime interest rate at a commerce-crunching 21 percent; unemployment at 7.4 percent; inflation, the value thief, at 13 percent. As economist Walter Heller, no Reagan admirer, put it at the time, “What the Great Depression was to the 1930s, the Great Inflation is to the 1980s.”
Here we have the US cities deemed Foreign Economic Zone restructuring of public transportation. UBER was never about democratizing public transit----if a global Wall Street player says those words one more time DEMOCRATIZING INNOVATION----please do something non-violent to silence them.
Global Google technology meets global transit corporation to control all human capital movement in Foreign Economic Zones. We stated that automotive manufacturing would soon be DESIGNER ONLY---only the global 1% and their 2% will be able to afford to buy and pay all costs to keep on road a CAR. The 99% will be either to tired after 15-18 hours of work to go anywhere----or if a white collar professional needs to go across town to a meeting----needs to go to a transportation hub----it will be these UBER SELF-PROPELLED vehicles that will take them----UBER in control of all navigation----
So, all our Federal funding that would easily pay for REAL STRONG PUBLIC TRANSIT has been these several years of Obama spent on funding R and D for this. Here we see mapping----all that work to allow a machine to operate independent of human capital----
Where will the 99% be and how will they move around? They will first be GLOBAL LABOR POOL ex-pats working in Upper Mongolia----second they will be tied to global corporate campuses able to only work----then volunteer---then go to bed. No transport needed.
Of course being ground zero for all that is global Wall Street extreme wealth and extreme poverty and UBER-REPRESSION----Baltimore is filling with Google executives mapping away-----and will be test center for self-propelled vehicles.
Of course the Baltimore Urban League, Baltimore Development, and all other Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations are big on UBER------since it will kill 99% of WE THE PEOPLE. By constantly tying this to transit options like taxis -----by pretending citizens will be drivers and have employment----only done to again make goals seem to involve people---when it only involves corporations, profits, and security.
How Self-Driving Cars Are Ushering in the Third Industrial Revolution
Jan 11 2017, 4:06pm
In VICE's latest feature-length documentary, 'The Third Industrial Revolution: A Story for Our Human Family,' social and economic theorist Jeremy Rifkin explains why we must rethink productivity in order to survive.
On Monday, January 9, VICE joined city officials, entrepreneurs, and leaders in the tech and automotive industries for Ford's City of the Future Symposium. The event, held as part of the 2017 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, focused on the future of transportation and our ongoing transition to a carbon-free economy.
At this year's North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Ford unveiled its latest pre-collision assist-equipped F-150 truck, along with an eight-city expansion of its newly acquired ride-sharing service, Chariot. Following the presentation, Ford played host to a day's worth of conversation—from innovators, entrepreneurs, journalists, and city officials—about what exactly the "city of the future" looks like, concluding with a preview of VICE's newest feature-length documentary, The Third Industrial Revolution: A Story for the Human Family. The film, which pulls inspiration from economist Jeremy Rifkin's 2011 book of the same name, features Rifkin laying out both his new economic vision and the means to deploy it. Like the first and second industrial revolutions before it, he explains, the Third Industrial Revolution will unfold when three technologies emerge and converge: new communication, new sources of energy, and new modes of mobility—"a new infrastructure that fundamentally changes the way we manage, power, and move economic life."
In the film, Rifkin rebukes 200 years of classic economic theory and suggests that our outdated models ignore the laws of energy that govern economic activity. The extraction of fossil fuels and depletion of fertile land have shaped decades of economic growth, he says, but our biosphere's inability to absorb human activity, combined with the exhaustion of natural resources, are now forcing us to rethink productivity.
Above all, Rifkin argues that the world needs to be off carbon in the next four decades to curb the worst effects of climate change and eventual human extinction. Countless research scientists agree that wind, water, and solar sources can supply 100 percent of the world's energy. A recent study by the US National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration concludes that wind and solar can account for 60 percent of America's energy by 2030.
"We have millions of people now producing their own renewable energy at zero marginal cost," Rifkin explained onstage on Monday. "Once you get rid of the fixed costs, [natural energy] is practically free. In 18 months a solar watt will cost just 35 cents."
So then the question becomes, how do we make such a monumental shift happen?
Rifkin says that the US energy transition—which is years, if not decades, behind both China and Germany—is the product of failed public policy and political will. Even with the resources to execute a plan, there also needs to be a coherent campaign to get public sentiment and understanding onboard. "The Obama administration has invested billions in a green economy, but America doesn't have a green economy because it didn't have a vision," Rifkin said. In her book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein also contends that the biggest obstacles to a green economy are social and political: "It takes more than will; it requires a profound ideological shift."
Rifkin, who served as a special advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel when she fought to wean Germany off nuclear power, cited the country as a leader in ushering in the Third Industrial Revolution. While Merkel's energy policies have garnered some criticism, solar and wind now power 32 percent of Germany's electricity, and the country is aiming to be on 100 percent renewable power by 2040. Rifkin notes that governments that formerly subsidized inefficient and expensive alternative energy sources are now reaping the benefits as infrastructure catches up to technology.
The City of the Future symposium repeatedly highlighted the role of green and smart cities in building a new, carbon-free economy. Currently, metropolitan areas contribute 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and it's predicted that the number of cities in the world will double by 2050. Last year, Paris experienced its worst pollution peak in a decade, forcing Mayor Anne Hidalgo to introduce alternate traffic measures. Oslo plans to ban cars from its city center by 2019. But Simon Tricker, founder of Urban Tide—a smart city initiative based in the UK—says that if self-driving electric cars become commonplace by 2030, cities will be able to reduce their emissions by 90 percent without impairing the quality of life of their inhabitants.
"Autonomous vehicles will be on the roads and running," asserted Ford's executive chairman, William Clay Ford, on Monday, "and this will give us back green space in our cities." In this vision of the future, autonomous cars wouldn't have to park on the street, and therefore, those lanes could be used for bicycles or transformed into green spaces within the urban core. In addition to investing in autonomous cars, Ford's smart city plan will include ride-sharing programs and data collection tools.
This vision of the future sounds enticing, but with an economy that has so long depended on fossil fuel and manufacturing, it is easy to wonder how the US market would respond to this drastic shift. Rifkin eased concerns about a shrinking workforce as a result of this pivot, arguing that millions of unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers will be needed to build the infrastructure required for what comes next—namely, to assemble wind turbines, install solar panels, manufacture charging stations, and digitalize our electric grid.
"Human beings, not robots, will move this smart world," he said. "In the north of France, we have trained thousands of coal miners to retrofit buildings and not dig coal. The alternative is to go back to a Second Industrial Revolution economy with fossil fuels and no jobs."
HERE IS THAT WORD AGAIN---DEREGULATION and indeed it takes tons of deregulation to MOVE FORWARD with UBER as self-propelled vehicles.
'Eager to court millennial voters and deep-pocketed tech executives, Republicans have almost universally praised smartphone apps that allow consumers to hire drivers, rent apartments and buy or sell just about any service online, latching onto them as prime examples of free-market entrepreneurship and workplace deregulation'.
We are told the PROGRESSIVES are at risk of being left behind by pretending to be protecting the 99%-----here is Hillary as with deBlasio----neither could care less about WE THE PEOPLE----it not only hurts workers---it is part of SMART CITY where people's movements are constantly monitored and controlled.........
'Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton sparked the Uber debate last week by pointing to the risks such new business models posed for workers'.
This is called a SHARING ECONOMY because the 99% are having to share things they own in order to afford to keep them----these global 1% are getting so bold in being FULL OF BULL-----GIVING US BEAR.
2016 presidential race emerging as the first Uber election
During a campaign visit to San Francisco, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush made a point of arriving in an Uber car. GOP candidates are trying to gain an edge over Democrats on policy toward the emerging "sharing economy." (Justic Sullivan / Getty Images)
Lisa MascaroContact ReporterThe so-called sharing economy is fast emerging as a 2016 presidential battleground, exposing fundamentally different approaches over how to embrace new technologies without hurting American workers.
Eager to court millennial voters and deep-pocketed tech executives, Republicans have almost universally praised smartphone apps that allow consumers to hire drivers, rent apartments and buy or sell just about any service online, latching onto them as prime examples of free-market entrepreneurship and workplace deregulation.
But in what is shaping up to be the first Uber election, Democrats have been more cautious, struggling to avoid appearing resistant to the popular new ventures while highlighting their potential negative effect on workers' pay and benefits.
Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton sparked the Uber debate last week by pointing to the risks such new business models posed for workers.
Just type in a Name and select a State. Then brace yourself for what you might find on you or anyone else!
See More"This 'on demand' or so-called gig economy is creating exciting opportunities and unleashing innovation," Clinton said, "but it's also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future."
Progressive politicians are making a major error by positioning against the sharing economy. We need to be shaping the future, not opposing it. — Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to President ObamaTop Republican opponents pounced on her skepticism, portraying her as out of touch. Within days, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made a public show of ordering up an Uber car to deliver him to a tech firm in San Francisco.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose 2015 book "American Dreams" included a chapter called "Making America Safe for Uber," focused on the generational divide, saying Clinton was "trapped in the past, and cannot understand how the world is changing."
Rand Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican senator from Kentucky, wrote dismissively on Twitter that voters shouldn't listen to a candidate who's been driven in a limousine for the last 30 years.
Ohio's John Kasich enters GOP race, bringing heat, intrigue Clinton risks alienating Americans who are increasingly enamored of the convenience and efficiency of the "gig" economy, or aligning herself too closely with labor-backed liberals, such as New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is fighting Uber's push into his city.
"Progressive politicians are making a major error by positioning against the sharing economy," Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to President Obama, said in a tweet. "We need to be shaping the future, not opposing it."
Veteran Republican digital strategist Mindy Finn called Clinton's comments a "huge misstep" that could backfire. "When I see Hillary Clinton kind of pushing back on the sharing economy … there's nothing about that that I think will be appealing to younger voters."
But the risks don't flow only one way. With some economists predicting the sharing economy could be as disruptive as the Industrial Revolution, Republicans also may suffer with voters if they present too rosy or simplistic a view.
Just as the 19th century backlash against industrialization and worker exploitation led to many of the labor rights and safety protections enjoyed today, a similar movement is building in support of "gig" workers forced to scrape together a hodgepodge of jobs that barely pay the bills and lack security, pensions and other workplace benefits.
"This happened during the Gilded Age," said labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at UC Santa Barbara, comparing the vast wealth of the startups — 5-year-old Uber is now estimated to be valued at a stunning $50 billion — to that of the 19th century industrialists. "That creates the inequality we talk about."
It's a conversation playing out not only on the campaign trail but in legal battles against the companies in states across the country, including California. At issue is how to reap the economic benefits of the new technologies without losing the hard-fought protections and benefits for U.S. workers. Some policy experts envision a new category of workers, falling between independent contractors and traditional full-time employees.
Clinton's team downplayed the partisan debate and emphasized that she had "no beef" with Uber or other aspects of the sharing economy. At the same time, Clinton anticipates engaging in a broader policy discussion about the changing workplace environment.
"What she's trying to do is start a very serious conversation about this important and growing part of our economy that is adding innovation and opportunity and excitement, frankly, but is also raising challenges and questions," Jake Sullivan, a top Clinton policy advisor, told a group of journalists last week.
David Plouffe, Obama's former top campaign strategist who now works as a chief advisor to Uber, said the reaction to Clinton's July 13 speech was "overblown," noting that she also said "very positive things" about the sharing economy. "My suspicion over time is you will see her embrace what this means," Plouffe said Monday on "CBS This Morning."
The bigger peril for Clinton, according to her party's progressive wing, would be to retreat from Republican critics and fail to tackle the looming workplace issues raised in the new economy.
"It's a phenomenal opportunity for Democrats to make clear they stand on the side of working people, even when they support innovation," said Neil Sroka, communications director for Democracy for America, the organization founded by former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean.
At the same time, Republican candidates may find their Uber-loving stances get them only so far. Their positions on other issues — including immigration reform and net neutrality — are at odds with much of the tech-savvy and millennial audience they're trying to attract. When Bush spoke last week in San Francisco, for example, some in the audience were more interested in his opposition to gay marriage.
"It looks so phony," said one tech industry professional in Washington who was granted anonymity to frankly discuss the campaign. "If they're trying to cater to Silicon Valley and people like me, we see right through this.... It's a dangerous place to put yourself out there as the 'new economy' guy."
While Uber and other startups have been careful to build bipartisan support for their budding industries and some leaders skew toward libertarianism, leading Silicon Valley-based executives have also made no secret of their reliance on Democratic mainstays. Uber Chief Executive Travis Kalanick, for example, recently praised Obamacare, saying that allowing people to obtain health insurance benefits outside of their job made it possible for people to adopt "more flexible ways to make a living."
Uber is also well aware that the current debate is only the beginning of a long discussion about labor policy that will extend beyond the campaign trail.
"Layered on top of all of this is the important question: What's at stake here?" said Benjamin Sachs, a professor of labor and industry at Harvard Law School. "Are the forms of protection and social welfare that we've provided since 1935 — are people going to just lose all of that because we have technological change? ... How do we make sure that workers share in the sharing economy?"