51–60 of 364 posts
Airlines almost never make profits, because their revenue and main cost are strongly pro-cyclical: In the booms, they fly full, but with high fuel prices. In the recessions, they fly empty, but fuel is cheap. Covid-19 has devastated travel, but also dropped the oil price - still no profits.
Covid 19 is a good opportunity for extremely sensible change. Lets all stop needlessly flying, lets all work from home (if your just doing an office job anyway), lets use local products and not stuff from half way across the world.
A decent percentage of people put food on the table and a roof over their head by doing a job we could classify as needless
Airlines almost never make profits, because their revenue and main cost are strongly pro-cyclical: In the booms, they fly full, but with high fuel prices. In the recessions, they fly empty, but fuel is cheap. Covid-19 has devastated travel, but also dropped the oil price - still no profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This rule says it's ok to squat on slots just as long as you burn fuel while you do it.
Yes — because such behaviour results in losses for the company and, if sufficiently extreme (i.e., pushing them to bankruptcy) is self-correcting (they leave the market and vacate the slots).
Better yet, institute a proper carbon tax and either a carefully thought-out market for slots and/or fines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's ok with you that they buy up all the slots so competitors can't operate... just so as long as they burn fuel while they do it?
As I’ve answered elsewhere: burning fuel (and sustaining other operating costs) while they squat on slots ultimately ensures that squatting on too grand a scale and/or for too long will result in bankruptcy and thus ensures that the system is self-correcting (by limiting incumbent advantage).
Airlines almost never make profits, because their revenue and main cost are strongly pro-cyclical: In the booms, they fly full, but with high fuel prices. In the recessions, they fly empty, but fuel is cheap. Covid-19 has devastated travel, but also dropped the oil price - still no profits.
Airlines (and other businesses with very high fixed costs) can be profitable if there’s enough consolidation in the industry. Otherwise they get into price war death spirals with no way out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do those two things concern people as much as you think? I don't see it as a major issue people vote on.
Equating “what people are concerned about” with “what people vote on” is unwise. It’s not as if we all get a direct vote on “should we tackle climate change?” But hey: “For Democrats, climate change is now one of the two most important issues in politics, according to a new poll.” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/poll-us-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes…
> Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). This would lead to them getting fewer customers as they got a name for awful reliability, like Alaska Airlines have a reputation for being assholes from top to bottom, or United have a reputation for destroying musical instruments. If you want to more directly disincen…
As a frequent flyer on both airlines, I'm not sure that either of those reputations exist, at least I've never heard them. I vaguely remember some incident with a broken guitar (?) But I couldn't tell you which airline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I have a corporation I have to benefit society with it? Else what, the government must expropriate my corporation from me?
Are you just mindlessly trolling here or do you have a point? Climate change is a thing that concerns people. Waste is a thing that concerns people. Is any of this surprising?