12 ms·

that could only happen because of service reductions along routes. that gives the public fewer options for when they fly and makes them less comfortable being c

by riscy 3y ago

that could only happen because of service reductions along routes. that gives the public fewer options for when they fly and makes them less comfortable being crammed into planes with ever tinier seats. doesn’t sound like a benefit to me. the benefits to society is in terms of reduced fuel consumption, only because that’s directly aligned with the airline’s profits.

WalterBright 3y ago
The benefit to customers was the planes were directed to where the customers were and flew to where they wanted to go. There was not a sudden decrease in aircraft flying. > the benefits to society is in terms of reduced fuel consumption, only because that’s directly aligned with the airline’s profits Companies don't burn fuel for fun. The fuel is about 40% of the cost of your ticket. Increased fuel efficiency is the major driver of new airline designs.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > The benefit to customers was the planes were directed to where the customers were and flew to where they wanted to go. FTA: "Worse still, without mandated service, cities and regions across the country have lost commercial air service" It sounds like planes stopped being directed to where customers were and no longer fly to where they wanted to go in many instances. This is not a win for the consumer.
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    Planes stopped being directed where Congressmen wanted them to fly.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      Congressmen who are elected to represent the will of the people and serve in their interests. I'll take that over the airlines who serve only themselves and whose only motivation is to take as much money from the public as possible.
      - vxNsr 3y ago
        Right, because famously, politicians are totally selfless and never do anything self-serving.
        autoexec 3y ago
        When are aren't doing their job to our liking, we have the ability to remove them and replace them. Try doing that with the CEO of an airline.
        hiatus 3y ago
        An individual has about as much power in either case. How many congress people have been removed at your bidding?
        jefftk 3y ago
        An individual has more power in the airline case: you can fly a different airline much more easily than you can move to a location with a different representative.
        boredpeter 3y ago
        Not at all, one individual won’t do anything against a business that large. And what if 1000s more people fly the airline and it becomes so wealthy it buys up all the other airlines? Corporations are authoritarian, tyrannical institutions where only the wealthy have any ability to make change. The US government may be immensely corrupt, owned by the rich, etc but at least it’s a democracy.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > And what if 1000s more people fly the airline and it becomes so wealthy it buys up all the other airlines? Then there is gonna be a gold rush of airline startups leading to amazing innovation, offers and low prices for consumers. Unless your government intervenes and regulates the market into a monopoly of incumbents, of course. > Corporations are authoritarian, tyrannical institutions Corporations are at the mercy of their consumers and investors. They get toppled every day. Remember Nokia? Motorola? IBM? Zoom? Heck even Intel lately?
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    > without mandated service, cities and regions across the country have lost commercial air service Yes, because nobody wants to run a business at a loss. > It sounds like planes stopped being directed to where customers were You're assuming the airlines are stupid. The fact that the airplanes were often nearly empty under regulation and nearly always full when unregulated is pretty strong evidence they were serving a far larger number of customers.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > Yes, because nobody wants to run a business at a loss. Which is why some important services (like the post office) shouldn't be run as businesses. > The fact that the airplanes were often nearly empty under regulation and nearly always full when unregulated is pretty strong evidence they were serving a far larger number of customers. They are serving a far larger number of customers in areas A and B while now serving zero customers in areas C D E F and G. It might be far better if fewer people in areas A and B could fly if it meant that more people in the other areas could. Airlines aren't stupid they are just doing everything they can to deliver the least to the public while charging the most they can extract from the public. Also, it isn't as if the changes airlines made to fill up seats couldn't have happened under regulation, or even that they never would have.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        If you want a similar situation, look at Amtrak - it has stops in tiny towns that may see less than fifty disembarks/embarks a year, but it's nearly impossible for them to close the station or not stop there. Many times it'd be cheaper for Amtrak to hire a car to drive the people who use that station to the next station, but they're not allowed to reduce service because those small towns complain loudly.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        You're suggesting that it's better to serve 10 people at double the price instead of 100 people at half the price. Never mind the enormous environmental cost of this inefficiency. > they are just doing everything they can to deliver the least to the public while charging the most they can extract from the public If you are sure they are gouging and making excessive profits, buy stock in the airlines and get your share. > it isn't as if the changes airlines made to fill up seats couldn't have happened under regulation, or even that they never would have They had 40 years to fix it and never did. The airlines fixed it overnight.
  - callalex 3y ago
    I’m replying here since the other comment is too deep. Congress very specifically, by design, does NOT represent the will of the people. It represents the will of land area. Even the part that was originally supposed to be representative of population no longer is due to shenanigans, and also over-represents land instead of people. We probably shouldn’t get into the pros and cons of this system here, but I did want to correct your fundamental misunderstanding.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      The main difference is that if you don't like how congress runs something, you can vote in someone else. You can't vote out the CEO of Delta Airlines. You are powerless and should expect the airline to treat you as such
      - SoftTalker 3y ago
        Or you can fly United, or American, or...
        autoexec 3y ago
        That assumes you have the option. Not all airlines fly to all locations. They love to carve up route maps and build up fortress hubs to prevent competition.
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Do they fly out of the airport I normally depart from, or any other that is within a 2 hour drive?
      - daniel-cussen 3y ago
        [dead]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - WalterBright 3y ago
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The places that lost service were small population areas that nobody wanted to fly to/from. Places that people want to fly get service, and it is a lot cheaper as they don't have to subsidize empty flights where nobody wants to go.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Congress still subsidizes airlines to fly to some smaller airports through the Essential Air Service program. It's not a mandate; airlines can choose whether to participate. https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-...
- Spooky23 3y ago
  The downside of that development is that it created an unsustainable market. So you have an industry that periodically starts a fare war that requires federal bailouts.
  - nradov 3y ago
    There is no requirement for federal bailouts. Large airlines have at times been allowed to go bankrupt, and that's fine.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      They've also been allowed to consolidate to the point that they are too big to fail.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Bankruptcy doesn't mean failure for large airlines. The shareholders get wiped out and bondholders take a haircut but the airplanes keep flying during the bankruptcy resolution so it's fine.
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        Why would an airline be too big to fail? They don't have counterparty risk like banks. The airline would go bankrupt, the shareholders would lose their investment, the bondholders would own the new corp, and perhaps the aircraft fleet would get a new livery.
        Spooky23 3y ago
        Political factors - even in these times, the obvious impact on pricing that the failure of Delta, American or United would bring isn’t tenable.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > an industry that periodically starts a fare war that requires federal bailouts American airline tickets contain a 7.5% excise tax, $5.60 per-trip September 11th fee and another excise tax of $4 per flight segment. (That's in addition to the usual sales, payroll and corporate taxes.) Taking just the former, I'm curious what the net give/take ratio is. Because it might be argued that we run our airlines as an indirect tax on high earners to fund the jobs program that is the TSA.
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> the benefits to society is … only because that’s directly aligned with … profits. Yeah, that’s the magic of capitalism. You make society more efficient and get paid for that. You say that being crammed into planes isn’t a benefit. But the opportunity costs should be taken into account. Every resource not spent on airlines is a resource spent on something else.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  Airplanes crammed full of people are a lot more fuel efficient per passenger than one mostly empty.
- riscy 3y ago
  there is no magic to capitalism, only greed. when that aligns with your definition of efficiency it’s a coincidence. capitalism can also be very harmful and inefficient for society. companies draining aquifers and producing tons of disposable plastic bottles to sell people that water for profits is a net negative for modern society. that money should go towards improving our water infrastructure so no one feels that their water is unclean. so much plastic pollution is the result of capitalism too.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    > here is no magic to capitalism, only greed It certainly was magical after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe to be able to visit capitalist countries and wonder at the shelves full of products and the countless affordable offers. Starving under communism on the other hand was not magical at all. We were told incessantly that we were making the world a better place, improving the society unlike the evil capitalism that was destroying everything - but we were starving. Funny enough the capitalist countries looked better and were less polluted too. Turns out rich societies tend to care more about the environment and invest accordingly too.
    - riscy 3y ago
      i never implied communism is the answer. the world is not black and white.
jabroni_salad 3y ago
It also happened because airlines were suddenly allowed to offer discounts to fill seats as the takeoff date approached. That practice did not exist during the pricefix era.

by riscy 3y ago

WalterBright 3y ago

The benefit to customers was the planes were directed to where the customers were and flew to where they wanted to go. There was not a sudden decrease in aircraft flying. > the benefits to society is in terms of reduced fuel consumption, only because that’s directly aligned with the airline’s profits Companies don't burn fuel for fun. The fuel is about 40% of the cost of your ticket. Increased fuel efficiency is the major driver of new airline designs.

autoexec 3y ago
> The benefit to customers was the planes were directed to where the customers were and flew to where they wanted to go. FTA: "Worse still, without mandated service, cities and regions across the country have lost commercial air service" It sounds like planes stopped being directed to where customers were and no longer fly to where they wanted to go in many instances. This is not a win for the consumer.
- twoodfin 3y ago
  Planes stopped being directed where Congressmen wanted them to fly.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    Congressmen who are elected to represent the will of the people and serve in their interests. I'll take that over the airlines who serve only themselves and whose only motivation is to take as much money from the public as possible.
    - vxNsr 3y ago
      Right, because famously, politicians are totally selfless and never do anything self-serving.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        When are aren't doing their job to our liking, we have the ability to remove them and replace them. Try doing that with the CEO of an airline.
        hiatus 3y ago
        An individual has about as much power in either case. How many congress people have been removed at your bidding?
        jefftk 3y ago
        An individual has more power in the airline case: you can fly a different airline much more easily than you can move to a location with a different representative.
        boredpeter 3y ago
        Not at all, one individual won’t do anything against a business that large. And what if 1000s more people fly the airline and it becomes so wealthy it buys up all the other airlines? Corporations are authoritarian, tyrannical institutions where only the wealthy have any ability to make change. The US government may be immensely corrupt, owned by the rich, etc but at least it’s a democracy.
        nickpp 3y ago
        > And what if 1000s more people fly the airline and it becomes so wealthy it buys up all the other airlines? Then there is gonna be a gold rush of airline startups leading to amazing innovation, offers and low prices for consumers. Unless your government intervenes and regulates the market into a monopoly of incumbents, of course. > Corporations are authoritarian, tyrannical institutions Corporations are at the mercy of their consumers and investors. They get toppled every day. Remember Nokia? Motorola? IBM? Zoom? Heck even Intel lately?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  > without mandated service, cities and regions across the country have lost commercial air service Yes, because nobody wants to run a business at a loss. > It sounds like planes stopped being directed to where customers were You're assuming the airlines are stupid. The fact that the airplanes were often nearly empty under regulation and nearly always full when unregulated is pretty strong evidence they were serving a far larger number of customers.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Yes, because nobody wants to run a business at a loss. Which is why some important services (like the post office) shouldn't be run as businesses. > The fact that the airplanes were often nearly empty under regulation and nearly always full when unregulated is pretty strong evidence they were serving a far larger number of customers. They are serving a far larger number of customers in areas A and B while now serving zero customers in areas C D E F and G. It might be far better if fewer people in areas A and B could fly if it meant that more people in the other areas could. Airlines aren't stupid they are just doing everything they can to deliver the least to the public while charging the most they can extract from the public. Also, it isn't as if the changes airlines made to fill up seats couldn't have happened under regulation, or even that they never would have.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      If you want a similar situation, look at Amtrak - it has stops in tiny towns that may see less than fifty disembarks/embarks a year, but it's nearly impossible for them to close the station or not stop there. Many times it'd be cheaper for Amtrak to hire a car to drive the people who use that station to the next station, but they're not allowed to reduce service because those small towns complain loudly.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      You're suggesting that it's better to serve 10 people at double the price instead of 100 people at half the price. Never mind the enormous environmental cost of this inefficiency. > they are just doing everything they can to deliver the least to the public while charging the most they can extract from the public If you are sure they are gouging and making excessive profits, buy stock in the airlines and get your share. > it isn't as if the changes airlines made to fill up seats couldn't have happened under regulation, or even that they never would have They had 40 years to fix it and never did. The airlines fixed it overnight.
- callalex 3y ago
  I’m replying here since the other comment is too deep. Congress very specifically, by design, does NOT represent the will of the people. It represents the will of land area. Even the part that was originally supposed to be representative of population no longer is due to shenanigans, and also over-represents land instead of people. We probably shouldn’t get into the pros and cons of this system here, but I did want to correct your fundamental misunderstanding.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    The main difference is that if you don't like how congress runs something, you can vote in someone else. You can't vote out the CEO of Delta Airlines. You are powerless and should expect the airline to treat you as such
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Or you can fly United, or American, or...
      - autoexec 3y ago
        That assumes you have the option. Not all airlines fly to all locations. They love to carve up route maps and build up fortress hubs to prevent competition.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        Do they fly out of the airport I normally depart from, or any other that is within a 2 hour drive?
    - daniel-cussen 3y ago
      [dead]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - WalterBright 3y ago
- bluGill 3y ago
  The places that lost service were small population areas that nobody wanted to fly to/from. Places that people want to fly get service, and it is a lot cheaper as they don't have to subsidize empty flights where nobody wants to go.
- nradov 3y ago
  Congress still subsidizes airlines to fly to some smaller airports through the Essential Air Service program. It's not a mandate; airlines can choose whether to participate. https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-air-service/essential-air-service https://www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-...
Spooky23 3y ago
The downside of that development is that it created an unsustainable market. So you have an industry that periodically starts a fare war that requires federal bailouts.
- nradov 3y ago
  There is no requirement for federal bailouts. Large airlines have at times been allowed to go bankrupt, and that's fine.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    They've also been allowed to consolidate to the point that they are too big to fail.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Bankruptcy doesn't mean failure for large airlines. The shareholders get wiped out and bondholders take a haircut but the airplanes keep flying during the bankruptcy resolution so it's fine.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      Why would an airline be too big to fail? They don't have counterparty risk like banks. The airline would go bankrupt, the shareholders would lose their investment, the bondholders would own the new corp, and perhaps the aircraft fleet would get a new livery.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        Political factors - even in these times, the obvious impact on pricing that the failure of Delta, American or United would bring isn’t tenable.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > an industry that periodically starts a fare war that requires federal bailouts American airline tickets contain a 7.5% excise tax, $5.60 per-trip September 11th fee and another excise tax of $4 per flight segment. (That's in addition to the usual sales, payroll and corporate taxes.) Taking just the former, I'm curious what the net give/take ratio is. Because it might be argued that we run our airlines as an indirect tax on high earners to fund the jobs program that is the TSA.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> the benefits to society is … only because that’s directly aligned with … profits. Yeah, that’s the magic of capitalism. You make society more efficient and get paid for that. You say that being crammed into planes isn’t a benefit. But the opportunity costs should be taken into account. Every resource not spent on airlines is a resource spent on something else.

WalterBright 3y ago
Airplanes crammed full of people are a lot more fuel efficient per passenger than one mostly empty.
riscy 3y ago
there is no magic to capitalism, only greed. when that aligns with your definition of efficiency it’s a coincidence. capitalism can also be very harmful and inefficient for society. companies draining aquifers and producing tons of disposable plastic bottles to sell people that water for profits is a net negative for modern society. that money should go towards improving our water infrastructure so no one feels that their water is unclean. so much plastic pollution is the result of capitalism too.
- nickpp 3y ago
  > here is no magic to capitalism, only greed It certainly was magical after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe to be able to visit capitalist countries and wonder at the shelves full of products and the countless affordable offers. Starving under communism on the other hand was not magical at all. We were told incessantly that we were making the world a better place, improving the society unlike the evil capitalism that was destroying everything - but we were starving. Funny enough the capitalist countries looked better and were less polluted too. Turns out rich societies tend to care more about the environment and invest accordingly too.
  - riscy 3y ago
    i never implied communism is the answer. the world is not black and white.

jabroni_salad 3y ago

It also happened because airlines were suddenly allowed to offer discounts to fill seats as the takeoff date approached. That practice did not exist during the pricefix era.