4 ms·

> If we as consumers are voting with our wallets The article discusses how the Justice department approved a series of mergers between the major carriers that

> If we as consumers are voting with our wallets The article discusses how the Justice department approved a series of mergers between the major carriers that significantly reduced consumer choice. It's funny that this "vote with your wallet", "capitalism at work" rhetoric never finds fault with these near-monopolies. You can't have it both ways: either the justice department needs to do its job splitting up big business to preserve competition and consumer choice, or we need to regulate the market so that consumers are treated fairly despite their lack of choice.

yock 10y ago
You can't talk about busting up near-monopolies without first considering the market environment which created those near-monopolies. I don't see too many people asking how we got here in the first place. Without those questions (for which I have no answers) we're doomed to end right back up here.
- oconnore 10y ago
  The whole point of capitalism is that you solve those problems from the bottom up, not from the top down. Pick one.
  - Thrymr 10y ago
    Are you confusing the free market with capitalism here? Capital is striving to destroy competition; in a truly free market, consumers will counterbalance that if it is not in their interest (e.g. favor smaller airlines that give better service).
    - droopyEyelids 10y ago
      How could consumers possibly counterbalance a monopoly? The whole point of a monopoly is that you remove choice from the consumers while creating barriers to the entry of competition.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - yock 10y ago
    I completely agree, though I thought it more polite to not completely dismiss out-of-hand the person to whom I was responding.
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  What question is there? We created monopolies with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. It stopped forcing airlines to provide service to regional airports, and paved the way for the consolidation of the industry into the monopolists as Eastern, Midway, Braniff, Pan Am, Continental, Northwest Airlines, and TWA were liquidated.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    I'm a little iffy on this idea that there is any monopoly on air travel in the US in any general sense. Maybe for specific routes, but if you look at the big picture, you have: 4 "major" carriers - American, Delta, United, Southwest 1 "mid major" / borderline major in Alaska Airlines 1 "not a major, but not exactly a regional carrier" in Jet Blue and a bunch of regional outfits like Frontier, Porter, Spirit, etc. That's not to say that more competition wouldn't be nice, but it's hardly the case that there is no competition. Heck, as far as that goes, Peter Thiel uses airlines - and their razor thin profit margins - as the prototypical example of why "competition is for losers"[1] in his talks. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k
    - droopyEyelids 10y ago
      With air travel the routes are the product. If there is a monopoly on the route, there is a monopoly. And a cartel situation with the carriers agreeing not to compete with each other on that route.
droopyEyelids 10y ago
Exactly the right point. Businesses either need competition or regulation. If they have neither, you end up in the situation we have now. Airlines are killing all but a few chosen cities in our country by cutting flights and jacking up the prices. On top of that, they're completely indifferent to customer service. It'd be bad for their business to care about the customers when they already have regional monopolies.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that the airline industry doesn't have competition.
  - oconnore 10y ago
    You are the only one here talking in absolutes.
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      droopyEyelids said, "Businesses either need competition or regulation. If they have neither, you end up in the situation we have now." That sounds to me like saying that the current situation does not have competition. I'm trying to talk with exactly the same degree of absoluteness that droopyEyelids is. Frankly, I'm not sure why you read my statement in any way different from that.

yock 10y ago

You can't talk about busting up near-monopolies without first considering the market environment which created those near-monopolies. I don't see too many people asking how we got here in the first place. Without those questions (for which I have no answers) we're doomed to end right back up here.

oconnore 10y ago
The whole point of capitalism is that you solve those problems from the bottom up, not from the top down. Pick one.
- Thrymr 10y ago
  Are you confusing the free market with capitalism here? Capital is striving to destroy competition; in a truly free market, consumers will counterbalance that if it is not in their interest (e.g. favor smaller airlines that give better service).
  - droopyEyelids 10y ago
    How could consumers possibly counterbalance a monopoly? The whole point of a monopoly is that you remove choice from the consumers while creating barriers to the entry of competition.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yock 10y ago
  I completely agree, though I thought it more polite to not completely dismiss out-of-hand the person to whom I was responding.
droopyEyelids 10y ago
What question is there? We created monopolies with the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. It stopped forcing airlines to provide service to regional airports, and paved the way for the consolidation of the industry into the monopolists as Eastern, Midway, Braniff, Pan Am, Continental, Northwest Airlines, and TWA were liquidated.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  I'm a little iffy on this idea that there is any monopoly on air travel in the US in any general sense. Maybe for specific routes, but if you look at the big picture, you have: 4 "major" carriers - American, Delta, United, Southwest 1 "mid major" / borderline major in Alaska Airlines 1 "not a major, but not exactly a regional carrier" in Jet Blue and a bunch of regional outfits like Frontier, Porter, Spirit, etc. That's not to say that more competition wouldn't be nice, but it's hardly the case that there is no competition. Heck, as far as that goes, Peter Thiel uses airlines - and their razor thin profit margins - as the prototypical example of why "competition is for losers"[1] in his talks. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Fx5Q8xGU8k
  - droopyEyelids 10y ago
    With air travel the routes are the product. If there is a monopoly on the route, there is a monopoly. And a cartel situation with the carriers agreeing not to compete with each other on that route.

droopyEyelids 10y ago

Exactly the right point. Businesses either need competition or regulation. If they have neither, you end up in the situation we have now. Airlines are killing all but a few chosen cities in our country by cutting flights and jacking up the prices. On top of that, they're completely indifferent to customer service. It'd be bad for their business to care about the customers when they already have regional monopolies.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I'm not sure what your basis is for saying that the airline industry doesn't have competition.
- oconnore 10y ago
  You are the only one here talking in absolutes.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    droopyEyelids said, "Businesses either need competition or regulation. If they have neither, you end up in the situation we have now." That sounds to me like saying that the current situation does not have competition. I'm trying to talk with exactly the same degree of absoluteness that droopyEyelids is. Frankly, I'm not sure why you read my statement in any way different from that.