4 ms·

I would assume (without much research) that this artsy due to government support for EADS/Airbus in competition with Boeing. Also interesting: Lufthansa is the

I would assume (without much research) that this artsy due to government support for EADS/Airbus in competition with Boeing. Also interesting: Lufthansa is the company which probably good biggest single Corona-support, yet, in Germany.

DaedPsyker 6y ago
Nothing to do with the planes themselves. Basically Ryanair business practice forcing competitors to up their game resulted in an ultra-competitive slim margin industry.
- iso1210 6y ago
  On top of that many smaller cities actually paid airlines to fly to their muicipal airport. The idea that Brest would pay €2000 a day to fly 200 passengers from London to Brest, and those passengers would spend far more than €10 each in the local economy.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    There's no particular reason they couldn't have paid for a subsidized train route to get the same volume of visitors.
    - Leherenn 6y ago
      Convenience? There's the Channel to cross so you have to go through Paris and Dover. A <1h flight becomes a 7+h train ride.
      - bpodgursky 6y ago
        Of course, but that's just an argument for why planes will win, not why an airport-specific tourism subsidy helped planes win.
ploika 6y ago
Further conjecture I heard that I'm repeating with no supporting evidence: it was partly a side effect the Cold War. All the new airports built well outside cities meant that low cost airlines could offer flights to (near) a major city fairly cheaply, which in turn pulled down prices for the entire market.
Symbiote 6y ago
Lots of railway equipment (vehicles, signalling systems) is designed and manufactured in Europe, and obviously the construction and maintenance staff have to be, so I don't see why this decision would have been done for Airbus. I think it's more likely to have been convenient for the politicians, who had incomes that fitted with taking weekend breaks to Paris or wherever, and good for their voters, on a holiday package to Greece.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  Difference being that EADS is/was co-owned by different European governments and also serves defence purpose.

DaedPsyker 6y ago

Nothing to do with the planes themselves. Basically Ryanair business practice forcing competitors to up their game resulted in an ultra-competitive slim margin industry.

iso1210 6y ago
On top of that many smaller cities actually paid airlines to fly to their muicipal airport. The idea that Brest would pay €2000 a day to fly 200 passengers from London to Brest, and those passengers would spend far more than €10 each in the local economy.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  There's no particular reason they couldn't have paid for a subsidized train route to get the same volume of visitors.
  - Leherenn 6y ago
    Convenience? There's the Channel to cross so you have to go through Paris and Dover. A <1h flight becomes a 7+h train ride.
    - bpodgursky 6y ago
      Of course, but that's just an argument for why planes will win, not why an airport-specific tourism subsidy helped planes win.

ploika 6y ago

Further conjecture I heard that I'm repeating with no supporting evidence: it was partly a side effect the Cold War. All the new airports built well outside cities meant that low cost airlines could offer flights to (near) a major city fairly cheaply, which in turn pulled down prices for the entire market.

Symbiote 6y ago

Lots of railway equipment (vehicles, signalling systems) is designed and manufactured in Europe, and obviously the construction and maintenance staff have to be, so I don't see why this decision would have been done for Airbus. I think it's more likely to have been convenient for the politicians, who had incomes that fitted with taking weekend breaks to Paris or wherever, and good for their voters, on a holiday package to Greece.

johannes1234321 6y ago
Difference being that EADS is/was co-owned by different European governments and also serves defence purpose.