461–470 of 628 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and it was an absurdly expensive activity limited to rich people
And most families only had a single car prior to 1980. What's your point? Did airlines get cheaper due to deregulation or because technology and engineering made operating them cheaper?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does any of this imply they should become a regulated utility? This seems like a textbook case of the free market pushing prices down to cost. Having alternative revenue streams pushed that minimal price down; but even without that, there is no reason to think the market would have done anything other than push prices to the lowest level possible in that environment as well.
Because the amount anyone would actually pay is substantially below cost for most routes, but it's still a service that many people depend on (either directly or by the indirect economic impact of travel). It's a genuine force multiplier that is unaffordable without being subsidized; making it a utility would just shift the subsidy from credit card points programs to the government.
Like what?
Nearly all 'goods' are going to travel more efficiently by rail and truck. And I say nearly all to cover the outliers like maybe an organ flying across country for transplant.
So if it's not the distribution method of choice for goods, then leisure? It's probably a global positive if people fly less. People will end up going to more local vacation destinations instead of aggregating all of those resources into a few popular locations that end up being massively overcrowded. This in turn reduces carbon impact because driving 3 hours is significantly less impactful than flying for 3 hours.
If you are just talking about all of the labor that has built up to support this inefficient and wasteful enterprise, that's probably for the best to reallocate that labor elsewhere. It will happen eventually, unless you think cheap oil is a permamenent feature, so why not happen sooner than later?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like someone is selling securities without a license tbh.
> Important Legal Notice: This is a non-binding pledge of intent. No money is collected at this stage. All references to profit-sharing, dividends, voting rights, and ownership are proposed concepts only — not confirmed arrangements. Nothing on this site constitutes a securities offering, investment contract, or financial instrument of any kind. The final cooperative structure must be reviewed and approved by qualifi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and it was an absurdly expensive activity limited to rich people
You say that, but flying economy was much better back then. Less fights, more legroom. You've got to fly business today to get close.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consumer air travel is not a necessary service, though.
How do you feel about high speed internet vs dial up?
But also, 'Not necessary' doesn't mean 'not worth subsidizing'.
If you think the government finds value in having a connected population with easy access to information then there's value in subsidizing that. Assume the government valued it at $10 a month per person due to increased economic activity made possible from the information flowing, if the market price for it was $60 a month then you have expanded access to anyone who valued it at at least $50 a month.
You can make the same argument for air travel by the way. Why does the government value consumers flying around the country? Why would the government want to encourage people to fly from Charlotte to Florida to go to disney instead of drive to Pidgeon Forge and go to Dollywood? Or fly to NY 3x a year to see grandma for a weekend instead of drive to NY and see grandma for a whole week 1x a year?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trains have been proven to be able to go at least 375mph [0]. That would make NYC->SF take 6.9 hours to travel the 4162 km. The current average flight time from NYC to SF is 6.7 hours. So, it's at least technically possible. China is doing R&D on a partial-vacuum train (basically Musk's hyperloop thing) with a target of 1,243 mph[1]. That's probably a pipe dream, but worth mentioning nonetheless. > The government sho…
That's straight math. Not assuming any stops or slow downs. According to Gemini this hypothetical train would take about 18 hours. It would also cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a decade to build. Doesn't do much for seeing Uncle John next Tuesday. I like trains. I like them a lot. But they don't work over long distances. Particular when you have dozens of state and city jurisdictions to cross. Each of them g…
You just described the building of the interstate highway system, but I doubt there’s a person alive who would say it wasn’t worthwhile.
I fear Americans are simple to selfish to have any desire to do time consuming expensive things that will improve their country long term. They just want benefits for themselves , now.
I remember reading about how the major airlines now are more of a "bank that happens to have planes," due to the loyalty programs being worth significantly more than the airline. Delta Air Lines earned $8.2 billion from American Express in 2025, surpassing ticket sales revenue. [1] I primarily use my favorite's airlines credit card because it gives me perks such as priority seating, and free checked bags. I am pretty…
Here is a decent video explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggUduBmvQ_4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
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…
But I guess I also don't fly much, and I never had to deal with delays or rebooking with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buses and planes are both great! Both have advantages and disadvantages, and different cost structures. I trust people to make their own decisions about trade-offs for travel that work for them and their situation. When we arbitrarily pick one and shovel free money, land or infrastructure toward it, we are putting a thumb on the scale and depriving people of the power to make their own decisions. Of course, we can ar…
> When we arbitrarily pick one Aren't all modes of transportation in the US either subsidized or public-owned to some degree? We haven't arbitrarily picked one; we picked them all. Air travel is maybe the least subsidized, though? Essential Air Service is probably the main thing? Long-distance bus like Greyhound is only minimally subsidized too. But local transit (bus & rail), and regional and long-distance rail are…
A car with no gas could still be used to store stuff, or even roll downhill. A car with no land can’t be used at all for anything. And the amount of land required increases with the square of the velocity you want to travel out. But we never add that in.
As far as air travel, I haven’t done the math, but I suspect if you were to add up just the foregone property tax revenue associated with the land underneath the airports you’d end up with some pretty serious numbers.
Anyways, my basic point all of this is the same – we should be careful about subsidies because they tend to distort incentives and decision-making, whether we apply them to airplanes or horse buggies. It doesn’t mean that there’s no place for government involvement in transport, simply that we ought to be wise to the side effects and externalities. I could buy that the government should be involved in air travel, but I part ways with the idea that this should be extended such that if people get used cheap fares on Spirit then the government should guarantee Spirit operation forever. Maybe Spirit was just an anomaly, and we’ll be fine when it’s gone? Some people might fly a little less, some people will just eat the difference and not care, some people will take the bus, some people will buy a car. It’s all just normal people making normal trade-offs about decisions in their life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 this industry! They need to be a regulated utility!"
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!"