3 ms·
I think a lot of people here would be content with leveling out the massive subsidies. This isn't a situation where the airlines, aerospace companies, and their
by nieve 7y ago
I think a lot of people here would be content with leveling out the massive subsidies. This isn't a situation where the airlines, aerospace companies, and their supporting web of companies aren't getting plenty of direct subsidies, loan guarantees, tax breaks, and so forth already. It sounds like you think it's a zero sum game with the only important metric airline ticket prices? Railways don't offer airline tickets so that formulation neatly does away with them unless we support rail enough for it to grow to something competitive.
- nostromo 7y agoMost Americans pay for Amtrak every year and never directly benefit from it. Air travel has been extremely cheap for some time because of competition. Well the competition is about to die and you will be left with one or two choices for most routes. And those carriers will increase costs dramatically. So the question is if you want to offer some small government assistance to keep our infrastructure running, or if you want to double your cost of air travel for the next decade.
- forkexec 7y agoBy that "logic," childless individuals shouldn't pay for schools either. Or people who don't have fires shouldn't pay for the fire department. Get a grip and pitch in to the commonwealth rather than repeat the tired, selfish dogma of "F everybody else, I got mine." You can either live in a livable civilization with healthcare, schools, roads, parks and infrastructure, or you can live in a corrupt, broken, third-world banana republic where the stingy rich own everything and pay for nothing.
- nostromo 7y agoYou’ve misread my comment completely and seem to be tilting at windmills.