8 ms·

Company makes too much money: "they're extracting monopolist rents! They need to be a regulated utility!" Company makes too little money: "there's no money in

• hilariously 6mo ago
  Company is valuable to us as a society in a fundamental way but is fucking us up in all sorts of unique ways: They might need to be a regulated utility.
  • parineum 6mo ago
    Hopefully we can regulate them like California electricity and let one airline be active per airport and let them charge more than triple national rates.
    • hilariously 6mo ago
      I am not trying to be flip - I am just saying the two sides are not bad regulation ripping us off and bad private companies ripping us off, we can instead do good things and attempt to do them well, we can hold people accountable and have integrity; these are choices we make every day.
• lostlogin 6mo ago
  Company, always: "We need government subsidy". Then hell yes to regulating what they do.
  • filoleg 6mo ago
    Spirit wasn't asking for a government subsidy to get saved from bakruptcy. They were asking to be allowed to get merged with JetBlue (which could've saved them from bankruptcy) and got denied by the government. Those two things aren't the same.
    • rogerrogerr 6mo ago
      My understanding is that the Spirit/JetBlue merger was blocked by the Biden DOJ. Were they asking for that again, or was it a different thing that failed in negotiations with the feds recently?
      • gizmo686 6mo ago
        The negotiations that were occuring directly prior to Spirit's shutdown were not merger related; but a direct government bailout.
      • wallst07 6mo ago
        Biden/Warren backed/forced the DOJ to sue Jetblue/Spirit to block the merger for antitrust. This doesn't seem to be a antitrust issue at all, it looks like it was one company bailing out another. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s... “Our win in court is a victory for U.S. travelers who deserve lower prices and better choices,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “We fought this case to protect consumers who, as the court recognized, ‘otherwise would have no voice.’ I am incredibly proud of the Antitrust Division’s team and our state law enforcement partners’ tireless advocacy.”
  • happyopossum 6mo ago
    [flagged]
  • eru 6mo ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    • lostlogin 6mo ago
      I know it’s frowned upon many circles, but regulation can work and do good. There is plenty of crap legislation and regulation about, but it doesn’t have to be that way.
      • eru 6mo ago
        Yes, but be careful not to commit the 'nirvana fallacy' of comparing real world circumstances against idealised optimal regulation.
        • kelnos 6mo ago
          Sure, that's fair. But often enough I see people (not accusing you of this) doing the opposite: seeing bad regulation, and drawing the conclusion that the only solution is to remove all regulation and "let the market decide".
          • freedomben 6mo ago
            Have you ever tried to get rid of bad regulation? I have, and it is essentially impossible. De-regulation is usually the only path once the initial regulation is in place. It also only ever seems to grow in complexity and onerousness, rarely ever goes the other directin. It's like dealing with a massive legacy codebase that also has the power to throw you in jail. I'm not against regulation, I think there are areas where it's needed (privacy is a good example), but it is fire, and fire should only be played with when you really need it because it can easily grow out of control and burn things you don't intend to get burned.
            • komali2 6mo ago
              Have you ever tried to regulate an unregulated industry preying upon a population? Look what it took to wrangle the cigarette industry. Look how unfettered gambling is ripping through the USA. Or look at industries pre-regulation. Meat, building construction, medicine... At minimum we have as much evidence that "the market" is capable of being as bad as "bad regulation."
• mysecretaccount 6mo ago
  Even with your uncharitable framing I agree with both quotes.
  • jmalicki 6mo ago
    Can you educate the rest of us by explaining your reasoning?
    • bigyabai 6mo ago
      Companies like John-Deere should be able to survive without abusing their downstream customers. Many farmers are importing tractors from China because they're cheap and not hostile to repair like JD is. Some people might call it a "smart business model" to sell interdependent services, but in the long-term it's suicide. Whether or not you solve this through regulation, that's up to you.
      • card_zero 6mo ago
        It would be nice if companies could commit suicide faster, instead of dragging it out over several decades.
        • chadgpt1 6mo ago
          [dead]
    • throwawayqqq11 6mo ago
      Breaking down complex topics into binary black and white doesnt have to be wrong. The more important part is, how much wealth they extracted and how exactly. Was it market dominance with a superior product or amoral cost externalization. The angle of treating transportation as regulated utility shifts the business focus away from profit onto providing services, which sometimes can cost more than your income. Similarly, would you close schools, because they didnt make enough money? Airlines are highly subsidized anyway, treating them as regulated utilities falls short of taking public ownership as public institutions, where services just cost money/subsidies.
• devilbunny 6mo ago
  Meanwhile, first class today is not very much more than coach cost in the regulated era. Try flying Delta. It isn’t the cheapest option, but you really do get better service. If you want to feel special, do Aeromexico first class. The checked bags are waiting for you before you can even walk there on a domestic flight. Spirit was cheap. And if you’re poor, you need cheap. If you aren’t, buy better service and don’t complain that it’s just Greyhound on a plane.
  • rogerrogerr 6mo ago
    Am I the only one who really doesn't care what kind of service I get on a plane? I don't drink alcohol, so I don't care about that. I bring my own water bottle, so I'm good on that. The little bags of pretzels are nice, but if they stood at the front and launched them out of a t-shirt cannon, I'd be good with that. As long as the required crew of flight attendants doesn't assault me, I've never really got off a plane thinking anything at all about the service. Just "where do I need to go next" or "I'm glad to be home".
    • baq 6mo ago
      [dead]
    • jhgorrell 6mo ago
      When your flights are delayed/resechduled there is a world of difference. "Get in line" vs "you are already rebooked". (my Air Canada experince.)
      • rogerrogerr 6mo ago
        Fair enough, I've been in those situations where the service on the ground side of the gate matters.
      • alister 6mo ago
        > "Get in line" vs "you are already rebooked". (my Air Canada experince.) Which of the two was the Air Canada experience?
• themafia 6mo ago
  Okay, but the process of underwriting an airline now somehow involves operating a successful credit card company. Which, you know, are not typically successful based upon operating excellence but upon rapaciousness of interest rates and merchant fees. I'm not sure it's great to have important infrastructure operated this way. Other than regulation do you see a way out?
  • sgerenser 6mo ago
    No airline operates a credit card company. They just put their name on a card and sell miles at a discount in bulk to credit card companies like Chase or Citi.
    • themafia 6mo ago
      Of course they do. Why do you think they get money in return? You don't think that's linked to performance? They just put their name on a card, get a fixed amount of monthly money, and that's enough to let them lead at a loss on airline tickets? Hacker News has become simple minded. It's embarassing.
      • sgerenser 6mo ago
        Missed this so coming in very late, but wow this is unbelievably off the mark. The airlines do not operate a credit card company, full stop. They sell airline miles, at a fixed rate per mile, to the credit card companies. That’s it. Citi, Chase, CapitalOne, etc. are the ones that operate the credit cards.
• gorgoiler 6mo ago
  A more fair assessment would be: company runs a utility => they need to be a regulated utility! The core part of air travel doesn’t really feel any different to a bus or metro or train. Off the tarmac then yes it absolutely feels like a Verizon store, as does some of the in-flight service, but there’s always been this weird feeling as a traveler that every carrier is basically the same thing but with different decals on it. Airline alliances are surely the ultimate example of this.
  • dghlsakjg 6mo ago
    Have you ever flown spirit or any of the other ultra low cost carriers? It very much is a different experience than flying a legacy domestic mainline carrier. I’m not alone amongst people i know who will happily fly the cheap seats on United/Delta/AA but won’t even look at a ticket from Spirit or Frontier even at a significant discount. Compare it to a flag carrier like Singapore air and it is a shockingly different product. All that’s an aside: we know what regulated airlines look like since we already tried it, much more expensive, with airlines competing not on price but on amenities.
    • tshaddox 6mo ago
      I’ve flown Spirit and Frontier several times, and Southwest many times (I know they’re not quite in the same category, especially after their recent changes). I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to regarding the experience being wildly different. Other than a few quirks about what they do and don’t charge for and how they board and assign seats, I feel like there’s almost no meaningful difference between these and legacy carriers like United and American. I honestly don’t even feel like the prices are consistently that different.
      • SOLAR_FIELDS 6mo ago
        The two main differences are more armchair lawyering required to avoid fees (legacy carrier is often not going to put your bag in the dimension bin, but the Spirits and Frontiers of the world certainly will) and having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one on the legacy airlines. I think Delta is the only legacy carrier in the States that doesn't do obnoxious sales pitches - only the food cart upsell. Ryanair will come through with their hands out minimally three times since last time I rode them (though it's been several years, is it four now?) One other difference I can think of is that carry-ons are more rarely included in the base fare in the budget airlines than the legacy airlines, though maybe that has also gone away since the changes where bags must be included in the listed price that Southwest pushed for.
• throwaway2037 6mo ago
  I like the EU model. The regulators set a "bare minimum" set of requirements. They have much better minimums that North America, and the fares are (still) cheaper per kilometer travelled. Also, I love the penalty system when flights are late.
  • wallst07 6mo ago
    "They have much better minimums that North America" Can you enumerate these? As far as I'm aware Ryan Air is basically more "Spirit" than Spirit Airlines.
    • throwaway2037 6mo ago
      For one, the penalty system for late arrivals. It is such a big business now, that there are whole businesses setup to advise you and do the work for the cut of the penalty paid. And that penalty system applies for trains too. Also, look at Ryan Air (and Wizz Air) fares. They are consistently the lowest cost per kilometer travelled anywhere in Europe. Sure, it is like a flying bus, but it gets the job done, much cheaper than anything the US.
  • extraduder_ire 6mo ago
    Some of that lower cost in Europe is down to jet fuel being tax free, as well as the US having multiple mandatory taxes on plane tickets. The cost of EU passenger rights payouts is vanishingly small on the average ticket if almost all of them arrive as advertised.
• the_gipsy 6mo ago
  Bottom line: there never really is any free market. Because it doesn't work.
• Humorist2290 6mo ago
  Company offers a service that is considered essential to function in society, and the overwhelming majority of people _must_ pay for as if it were a tax: "this seems like something generally useful to the public! They need to be a regulated utility!"
  • lyu07282 6mo ago
    If it's basic essential infrastructure and in the absence of high speed rail it is, it shouldn't be a regulated utility it should be nationalized holistically. You have to 1) make sure nobody is profiting of a basic necessity because that will always eventually be unsustainable (profits need to rise always and forever like cancer), 2) holistically because the parts of it that are profitable need to be used to cushion the unprofitable parts (in contrast to privatization where the profitable bits get privatized and the unprofitable bits are subsidized like USPS vs. UPS/FedEx/Amazon)
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• threethirtytwo 6mo ago
  Changing it to a utility? Like Bart in sf? We should have Bart authority run the airline!
• ericmay 6mo ago
  Yea that's a good one. The problem is folks don't have patience. They see an airline fail and instead of waiting until a new competitor enters the market, as they inevitably will, they want to start regulating or look to other "solutions" but these things take time to work themselves out. It's a free market, not an instant free market.
  • wat10000 6mo ago
    Or maybe a new competitor doesn't enter the market, and we're stuck with a mere four major, three mid-sized, and some smaller airlines in the US. It's still a highly competitive market even with Spirit gone.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• jasonmp85 6mo ago
  [dead]
• xnx 6mo ago
  And similar illogical arguments on regulated transportation: "the trains are too crowded! We need more money." "No one is riding the trains! We need more money."