A lot of the problem is the activity you refer to as "deregulation." For example, it is not "deregulation" to replace one set of rules with another, worse set of rules. It is not "deregulation" to free up the prices electricity producers can charge while freezing what the customers have to pay at artificially low rates. A five-year-old could have told you what would happen then.

For a real good example of what can happen when you deregulate only half a market, remember the bank crisis, when they freed up banks to do all sorts of new and risky things, yet kept the massive Federal insurance that would prevent banks and their customers from suffering from their bad decisions. With this safety net under them, why be careful?

And remember, regulation implies that the regulators are effective, and working in the best interests of both producer and customer. In point of fact, they often become just one more player in the mixed economy circle-jerk between corporate influence, regulators who succumb to it, and legislators. Or hadn't you noticed that the "regulators" were among those shuffling the cards in the California energy crisis? The dog's breakfast they called "deregulation" was enthusiastically supported by regulators, legislators, the power industry, and, to be honest, a Republican governor.

As for airlines, some companies wallowed in the huge business revenues during the late 1990s, and spent cash accordingly. Others didn't. Airlines like Southwest have been consistently profitable throughout the past years.

The way to handle the airline crisis is to let companies merge, go under, get bought out, and sort themselves out. Of course, since this bothers the rulemakers, it isn't going to happen, and everyone is going to limp onward until probably bailed out by more corporate welfare.