3 ms·
> But these are a de facto utility, so having the government pinch their nose and cover the downside in a bear market is an efficient use of dollars. If that's
by a3n 7y ago
> But these are a de facto utility, so having the government pinch their nose and cover the downside in a bear market is an efficient use of dollars.
If that's the case, then it wold be more efficient to remove the "de facto" and operate as the reality.
- outlace 7y agoI think its still better to have some competition between a few private airlines (even if de facto subsidized by gov't) as opposed to one behemoth national airline that faces no competition and therefore has no incentive to innovate.
- Ericson2314 7y agoI don't care if airlines innovate. I want rail to innovate. Airlines should be obsoleted. Build a train across the Bering straight and through Greenland.
- jessaustin 7y agoYou haven't flown on any of the Asian national carriers, have you? They are all better than any American carrier. They are all better value than any American carriers other than the "discount" brands like Southwest. USA domestic air travel would improve dramatically if they were allowed to compete here. https://www.singaporeair.com/ https://www.singaporeair.com/ https://www.qatarairways.com/ https://www.qatarairways.com/ https://www.koreanair.com/ https://www.koreanair.com/ https://www.jal.com/ https://www.jal.com/ https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/ https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/
- hosteur 7y agoAgere. And also remove the part where the profits are sucked out to other parties when things go well.
- SilasX 7y agoI think there's a middle ground: allow them to compete as private businesses but require that they contribute some fraction of revenues into a common pool that pays out refunds and wages for a few months if a major travel-halting emergency happens. That is, make it so they can't compete on "whether they anticipated a global catastrophe".