4 ms·
The reason for this regulation existing is that in the past airlines could shut down competition by buying gates. Because many of the big airports have gates as
by olliej 5y ago
The reason for this regulation existing is that in the past airlines could shut down competition by buying gates. Because many of the big airports have gates assigned to specific carriers, so if there aren’t any gates for a new airline to buy/lease/whatever then that airline can’t land at that airport.
While the airlines are saying we need to do this so that the gates are available when demand returns, what they’re actually doing is making it impossible for any new airlines to start up.
Basically the cost of these empty flights is less than the cost of competition from a new carrier.
- vvpan 5y agoYou should post this as a top comment.
- ilyagr 5y agoSo, perhaps instead of making the flight, the airlines should be allowed to pay a tax equal to 80% of whatever it costs to actually operate the flight?
- lapsedacademic 5y ago1. It would have to be much higher than 80%. Airlines aren't software companies; their margins are horrible ;-) 2. "whatever it costs to actually operate the flight" is... well, good luck negotiating that bill :) NB: they are not flying empty because no one wants a seat! They would be able to sell some seats! Even at previously-prevailing market rates! And of course could fill the plane if they sold the seats at any price! They are flying empty because they can't sell enough seats at a high enough price to justify the fixed cost of the number of cabin staff required if there are customers on the flight. It's about cabin staff regs, not about literally no one wanting to fly. So... that 20% does matter.
- version_five 5y agoThank you, this is an interesting insight that I hadn't considered. So planes are flying without cabin staff or catering, and potentially with less fuel (no idea if the weight of passengers is material here). And in return, they are maintaining a complex system that has no central authority and is not easy to change. It doesn't sound ideal, but I also know that it's not something the single "they should just" solutions that outsiders propose will actually work in. Hopefully things get closer to normal soon and we won't have to worry about it.
- umeshunni 5y agoAh yes, let's tax airlines for following rules imposed by overregulation. If there's something Europe needs, it's more taxes and more regulation.
- shkkmo 5y agoThe airlines are currently paying a "tax" by running the flights empty but that cost is just being burnt as fossil fuel and helps no one. By switching to a tax for unused gates/ flight slots that is 80% of the cost of flying an empty if plane, the Airline saves money, the airport makes money, and the environment has fewer CO2 solutions. It is a win-win-win on all sides.
- avar 5y agoIt helps everyone involved in fuel delivery, airport operations etc. Don't underestimate the government incentives to maintain the status quo. If you switched this over to a tax you'd also need government programs to deal with the unemployment, lack of pilots and other ramp-up issues when this situation ends etc.
- dataflow 5y agoThanks for writing this. It did not occur to me at all and it really made me rethink the situation.
- gsnedders 5y agoDedicated gates are much less common in Europe than it is in the US; slot-limited airports tend to much more be about runway slots than they are about gate capacity, and increasingly many airports in Europe are limited by runway capacity with little (politically) realistic chance of expansion. But yes, fundamentally it's a case of the cost of operation being lower than the risk posed by new airlines.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]