5 ms·
From a customers' immediate point of view, this sucks for you. But it's great they are not regulated utilities. Because either everyone would have to pay for
by eru 6mo ago
From a customers' immediate point of view, this sucks for you.
But it's great they are not regulated utilities. Because either everyone would have to pay for extra legroom, even if they don't need it, or some freakishly long people would not be able to pay for the extra legroom that they need.
- twiss 6mo agoWhy do you think being regulated utilities would preclude having multiple classes of service? Airlines had first class before deregulation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_class_(aviation)#History
- vineyardmike 6mo agoAh yes, because I am also forced to buy the same amount of electricity and water from my regulated utility regardless of need.
- kelnos 6mo agoThat's not how regulation works. Or at least not how it has to work. I don't pay a flat fee for my water, electricity, or gas usage, regardless of how much I use. I pay for the gallons, kWh, and therms I actually use. (Yes, there are other fees on those bills, but my usage actually matters.) Airline regulation doesn't have to specify standardized seat pitch, etc.
- eru 6mo agoSure, there's probably some utopian nirvana regulation that gives you exactly what you need. In practice airline regulation did preclude the airline from adding more seats. So in practice it banned airlines from offering you cheaper fares in return for enduring less legroom.
- dghlsakjg 6mo agoAirline regulation as common carriers is not a hypothetical. We used to do it, and none of the things you describe were an issue
- eru 6mo agoIn practice airline regulation did preclude the airline from adding more seats. So in practice it banned airlines from offering you cheaper fares in return for enduring less legroom.