8 ms·
This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
by dtech 7y ago
This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
- scrollaway 7y agoYep. Featured on HAI a year ago, it's not a new practice it's just been exacerbated due to COVID-19. https://youtu.be/X8XZriAdB1g https://youtu.be/X8XZriAdB1g
- chrisseaton 7y ago> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
- martinald 7y agoBecause otherwise airlines can buy up all the slots so competitors can't operate.
- chrisseaton 7y agoBut it's ok with you that they buy up all the slots so competitors can't operate... just so as long as they burn fuel while they do it?
- qubex 7y agoAs I’ve answered elsewhere: burning fuel (and sustaining other operating costs) while they squat on slots ultimately ensures that squatting on too grand a scale and/or for too long will result in bankruptcy and thus ensures that the system is self-correcting (by limiting incumbent advantage).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cmcaine 7y agoIf you just give fines to companies that don't run flights on routes then you can impose a penalty without incentivising empty or near-empty flights.
- qubex 7y agoExcellent idea! So now you only have two more problems: lobbyists being paid to influence the fines (so that they don’t cause their clients so much harm as to make their anti-competitive strategies unprofitable); and regulatory capture (where regulatory bodies become beholden to those whom they regulate).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cmcaine 7y agoThose are already problems with aviation, so that's nothing new. The existing rules didn't emerge from primordial ooze, they were also influenced by lobbyists and have certain effects.
- danem 7y agoThe threat of regulatory capture is present with every regulatory solution.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoIf the fine is larger than the price of the fuel then they'll just fly the flights.
- dodobirdlord 7y agoIf they buy up all of the slots and then fly them, customers can take the flights. The goal isn't to (necessarily) to ensure that competitors can operate, it's to ensure that passengers have flights they can travel on.
- noinsight 7y agoBecause on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/airports/slots_en https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/airports/slots_en EDIT 2: This appears to be a global practice: https://www.iata.org/en/policy/slots/ https://www.iata.org/en/policy/slots/
- chrisseaton 7y agoThis rule says it's ok to squat on slots just as long as you burn fuel while you do it.
- qubex 7y agoYes — because such behaviour results in losses for the company and, if sufficiently extreme (i.e., pushing them to bankruptcy) is self-correcting (they leave the market and vacate the slots).
- chrisseaton 7y agoWhy not create a competitive market for slots, rather than incentivising people to literally burn fuel?
- qubex 7y agoBecause (as is argued elsewhere in this thread), large airlines could buy up all slots and then not operate flights on them, starving their would-be competitors of opportunity to create a basis for themselves.
- oerpli 7y agoBut they could just do the same with the current ruling - the only difference would be whether they spend their money on more expensive slots or on wasting fuel.
- barry-cotter 7y agoThis is a stupid rule. This is not an unforeseeable case. Just sell the slots. You can sell them once and forever or you can auction them yearly or every two, three, five years, whatever. Demanding planes run for no one’s benefit is just setting money, and more importantly resources, on fire.
- qubex 7y agoI don’t think you understand the problems associated with the “just sell the slots” idea. The problem is that big airlines could buy up slots and then not use them. They wouldn’t necessarily have an incentive to sell them, either, because the buyers could be small, regional, or low-cost companies that could leverage them to build up a small but profitable business and later take on the bigger airlines (as happened with Europe’s budget airlines, most notably EasyJet and Ryanair).
- yardstick 7y agoThe op addressed this issue with their comment about selling 1-5 year leases.
- sho 7y agoThat didn't address the issue at all. They would just buy the leases and keep the competition out that way; no difference.
- barry-cotter 7y agoThat means one of two things; the slots aren’t worth that much or they were sold for less than they were worth. If they’re almost worthless, as not using them suggests their not being used is no great loss. If they are worthwhile then either they’ll be used, someone else will buy them or the owner is setting money on fire by not using a valuable asset, in much the same way as someone who uses a vacant lot in Manhattan as a planning lot instead of building a skyscraper on it. If you want a slot to go to its most valuable use sell it to the entity that values it most, whether permanently or by auctioning it yearly.
- heliodor 7y agoUnforeseen? Only because the people who created this rule couldn't be bothered or allowed to spend a few extra minutes thinking of edge cases. This is just one example of many blunt rules and laws we have on the books. Maybe in 100 or 500 years we'll implement governance systems that can serve us better.
- drivebycomment 7y agoIt is difficult to write a rule that works perfectly all the time. It is even more difficult to write a concise rule that does so. And complex rules potentially increase the cost for everyone. I think this particular behavior isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I would assume this increases overall airline industry's carbon emission in tiny fraction while the rule probably prevented the tragedy of the commons for those slots.
- mikro2nd 7y agoThe rule is under review for temporary suspension following a nudge from the EU and/or IATA. People are not always totally stupid, but bureaucracies work slowly.