His thesis is that government regulation is killing the industry by adding 20% worth of taxes to each and every ticket and intervening in protectionist ways. In my favorite quote, he says: "the business environment that is 'essential' and 'normal' in virtually every other industry is outside the grasp of commercial aviation."

Strong words from a current CEO. Does he really believe this? Is he just whining?

Sure, one can't argue that the airline industry is one of the most dysfunctional of industries, but there are others. Look at the auto industry. The government OWNS most of General Motors, and you certainly don't see that with airlines.

Nobody said running an airline was easy -- it's hard work. The people who do it are smart, passionate, leaders who throw their entire being into the business. Even then, so much is out of their control. But perhaps a CEO should take a hard look inside before blaming the government on the industry's woes.

Here are a few of points that suggest the airline industry is not set-up to fail by bad regulation:

1) Some airlines do make money! Except in the worst quarters of the Great Recession (and post 9/11 recession), some airlines eked out profits. Southwest, Alaska, AirTran, to name a few that have shown positive quarters in the bleakest of times. Over the last 25-30 years, Southwest has been one of the highest market cap gainers of all companies based in the US. Across all industries!

2) Yes, government fees and taxes are a problem. BUT there are very tangible costs born by the government and prerequisite for flying planes. Airport security and air traffic control, for example. Who is going to pay for these? The fair way is to tax users of the system, as fees on individual tickets. Who is going to pay for NextGen? Users, through taxes. Yes, this can be (and is) subsidized by private operators (perhaps it should be more!) and the general tax base, but a certain percentage of airline taxes are necessary.

3) Airlines have demonstrated time and time again they will flaunt the law whenever they can. They did it with maintenance (resulting in FAA fines), they did it with price fixing (resulting in more fines and change of anti-trust policies), and they did it through hyper-competitive behavior (again, caught red-handed). Mr. Tilton, you have (fairly or unfairly) inherited the legacy of Crandall et al. The airline business has shown time and again through its history that it will abuse market power to its benefit. This has left the government little choice but to intervene. Even today, airlines and the ATA lobby Congress to avoid environmental legislation (and you wonder why you're not left to your own devices on this issue??) and against redistribution of slots at constricted airports (a fair, and market based methodology). Yes, there is a strong argument that this is in response to over-regulation, not the cause -- and you'd probably be right. That being said, it takes two to tango.

4) Cycles. Like many others, the airline industry is a cyclical industry. When things are good, they make a lot of money. When things are bad, they lose a lot of money. The idea is that you more than recoup your losses in good years. The US (and world) economies always have been, and always will be, cyclical. The unknowns are when the cycles will trigger, how long they'll last, and how good/bad the peaks and valleys will be. The anachronistic nature of when you make money and when you need cash reserves makes planning extremely hard and risky. It stifles buying new planes and opening new routes. But this game is not new to airlines, or to car manufacturers, or electronics companies, or real estate developers, to name a few. Citing a few years of heavy losses is not an anomaly (and certainly not proof the model is broken), it's the norm.

5) Aside from oil, what is an airline's #1 cost? Labor. Look there for the root cause of a broken model. Without taking sides between unions and management, suffice to say labor has been the most contentious, influential, and deterministic factor in the success of an airline. I'd argue how an airline manages its workforce is far more predictive of success than any government regulation.

Perhaps it's time not to reflect on the woes of an industry, but on the business model of your airline. Maybe United (just as an example, it applies to others as well) needs to re-think how it does business -- who if flies, how it flies them, on what equipment,  to where? 

Even if the arguments on regulation are valid (and some of them obviously are), perhaps those challenges can be turned into opportunities for the airline that adjusts its model to that reality? And not incremental changes (like US Airways changing its stock ticker to LCC and pretending it's low cost) -- I'm suggesting fundamental changes to a core business model.

Could it be done? Good question, but either way, it certainly beats whining to an unsympathetic public.