5 ms·

What a broken and unethical system. Again, no one held accountable, all in the name of business.

by medion 5y ago

tyingq 5y ago
That's true, though it's a tricky problem. The requirement to fly was to ensure airlines weren't buying gates, then not using them, solely to stave off competitors. That situation results in less capacity, direct-connect cities, flights, etc, to serve the airport's customers. It's also not feasible to switch carriers too often, as the carriers need some amount of infrastructure of their own, time to fold in service/schedules, local employees or contractors, etc. Some airports now have common use gate terminals, networks, kiosks...that helps, but it's only a small percentage of them. I'm sure there's a better system for how things are now, but I think it was set up with the right ideas in mind at the time.
seibelj 5y ago
The airline and airport industries are some of the most regulated industries on the planet. A free market would not cause this.
- andrepd 5y ago
  They are regulated for things such as safety, clearly they are not regulated AT ALL regarding environmental issues or externalities.
  - seibelj 5y ago
    They ran routes rather than pay not to. Completely useless make-work is classic government.
refurb 5y ago
All in the name of business? It's a government rule that causing this? Pretty sure the airlines would love to not burn money holding a spot.
- lapsedacademic 5y ago
  > Pretty sure the airlines would love to not burn money holding a spot. I'm absolutely certain they would. Monopolies are incredibly profitable, after all, and a repeatable strategy for killing off all newcomers is step zero. I.e., that government rule was created to address a rational but pathological behavior in a market. Lufthansa could always not fly those routes. But then the business would lose money to fines, possibly lose gates, and maybe go bankrupt. So, yes, in the name of the business. And of course that business's behavior is completely predictable. Anyways. Pointing fingers at isms is a waste of time. Businesses operate in markets. Markets are human inventions. Especially in the case of something like an airline, a Market is a Market in the Stock Market sense not in the Bazaar sense. The question is: how do we modify market rules without re-introducing the aforementioned pathology? Which is a REALLY hard question! The simplest solution, from a market perspective, might be charging a fair price for carbon, such that this sort of behavior is no longer rational. Of course, that's a non-started politically, so... here we are.
  - refurb 5y ago
    My understanding is the EU had already reduced the need to fly slots during covid. That could be reduced further but it appears they are doing the opposite. But anyways you “stop pointing fingers” is funny when it’s literally a government rule creating this mess.
    - lapsedacademic 5y ago
      Thank you for your substantive suggestion re: how to change these rules without risking re-introducing the pathology they were designed to address. Truly insightful stuff.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >how to change these rules without risking re-introducing the pathology they were designed to address seems pretty obvious? drop the flight requirements when covid lockdowns are on and flight volume is low, then when flight volume picks up reinstate it. It's not rocket science.
mlindner 5y ago
"All in the name of business"? You mean "all in the name of government". It's the EU government forcing companies to waste money and harm the environment.

What a broken and unethical system. Again, no one held accountable, all in the name of business.

by medion 5y ago

What a broken and unethical system. Again, no one held accountable, all in the name of business.

That's true, though it's a tricky problem. The requirement to fly was to ensure airlines weren't buying gates, then not using them, solely to stave off competitors. That situation results in less capacity, direct-connect cities, flights, etc, to serve the airport's customers. It's also not feasible to switch carriers too often, as the carriers need some amount of infrastructure of their own, time to fold in service/schedules, local employees or contractors, etc. Some airports now have common use gate terminals, networks, kiosks...that helps, but it's only a small percentage of them. I'm sure there's a better system for how things are now, but I think it was set up with the right ideas in mind at the time.

seibelj 5y ago

The airline and airport industries are some of the most regulated industries on the planet. A free market would not cause this.

andrepd 5y ago
They are regulated for things such as safety, clearly they are not regulated AT ALL regarding environmental issues or externalities.
- seibelj 5y ago
  They ran routes rather than pay not to. Completely useless make-work is classic government.

refurb 5y ago

All in the name of business? It's a government rule that causing this? Pretty sure the airlines would love to not burn money holding a spot.

lapsedacademic 5y ago
> Pretty sure the airlines would love to not burn money holding a spot. I'm absolutely certain they would. Monopolies are incredibly profitable, after all, and a repeatable strategy for killing off all newcomers is step zero. I.e., that government rule was created to address a rational but pathological behavior in a market. Lufthansa could always not fly those routes. But then the business would lose money to fines, possibly lose gates, and maybe go bankrupt. So, yes, in the name of the business. And of course that business's behavior is completely predictable. Anyways. Pointing fingers at isms is a waste of time. Businesses operate in markets. Markets are human inventions. Especially in the case of something like an airline, a Market is a Market in the Stock Market sense not in the Bazaar sense. The question is: how do we modify market rules without re-introducing the aforementioned pathology? Which is a REALLY hard question! The simplest solution, from a market perspective, might be charging a fair price for carbon, such that this sort of behavior is no longer rational. Of course, that's a non-started politically, so... here we are.
- refurb 5y ago
  My understanding is the EU had already reduced the need to fly slots during covid. That could be reduced further but it appears they are doing the opposite. But anyways you “stop pointing fingers” is funny when it’s literally a government rule creating this mess.
  - lapsedacademic 5y ago
    Thank you for your substantive suggestion re: how to change these rules without risking re-introducing the pathology they were designed to address. Truly insightful stuff.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >how to change these rules without risking re-introducing the pathology they were designed to address seems pretty obvious? drop the flight requirements when covid lockdowns are on and flight volume is low, then when flight volume picks up reinstate it. It's not rocket science.

mlindner 5y ago

"All in the name of business"? You mean "all in the name of government". It's the EU government forcing companies to waste money and harm the environment.