4 ms·
I agree this is on regulators, but you are still victimizing the exploiter. Nobody forced the airline to do this, rather they found this loophole and decided to
by runarberg 3y ago
I agree this is on regulators, but you are still victimizing the exploiter. Nobody forced the airline to do this, rather they found this loophole and decided to exploit it. It is entirely their fault as the primary actor.
Of course you can also blame regulators for not being thorough enough (but honestly I would rather blame a lack of carbon pricing here)
- rhaps0dy 3y agoThe price of flights to Melbourne has to be very high to make it profitable to also fly to Adelaide with <10% seats. You could say the people really demanded it. I agree that this loophole should be closed, but maybe the way to close it is to just allow flights? I don't have a strong take, the original regulation must have been put into place for some reason; but it has a very real cost (which the passengers are happy to pony up for).
- gruez 3y ago>but honestly I would rather blame a lack of carbon pricing here Why? Even if there was a carbon tax, and the carbon tax fully covered the cost of the the carbon emissions, the regulation in question is still actively harmful. It's encouraging resources to be used for no useful purpose, no different than regulation that encourages people to dig holes only to have them be filled back.