Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's Buy Spirit Air

letsbuyspiritair.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 628 posts

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#591

Post by xnx »

gruez wrote: post #102
gizmo686 wrote: post #94

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.

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!"

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."

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#592

Post by ksherlock »

bravoetch wrote: post #208
pm90 wrote: post #205

The real solution should be a massive intercity bullet train program that connects major transit hubs, like the interstate highway buildout. The massive infrastructure spend would kickstart the US economy and provide thousands of jobs.

Why do people want to generate jobs? I'd rather generate a jobless utopia where we all do art.

Scenario: It's Friday night. You don't have to work tomorrow. Are you more likely to pull out your hammer and chisel and work on a classical marble sculpture -or- get shit faced at a dive bar? Hey, maybe the vomit splatters will evoke Jackson Pollock!

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#593

Post by wat10000 »

hakfoo wrote: post #589
avarun wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a textbook case of competition pushing profits down to 0. That's an ideal case scenario. Why would you want to change this?

Because at the end of the day, "profits down to 0" also means things like "reserve capacity down to 0", "safety margins down to 0", and "any aspect of the experience that makes it less miserable than being crammed into the cargo pen down to 0". A modest regulated profit could result in a healthier industry-- one where the least economic hiccup doesn't cause carriers to shut down with limited notice, where they can af…

The industry is extremely safe. Neither of the two recent fatal accidents involved safety lapses by the airlines and air travel is so safe as to be difficult to measure.

I don’t understand how higher profits would translate to a less miserable experience. Nice experiences are available now! You just have to pay for them. All regulation would do is remove the option of not paying for them. If you want to pay more for a better experience, nothing is stopping you now.

The fact that the airline that just went under was one of the most miserable, most nickel-and-diming ones out there suggests that this isn’t actually the way to compete, and the market does allow for some room at the bottom there.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#594

Post by hakunin »

jodrellblank wrote: post #484
hakunin wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, all I’m saying is that air travel is so different than any other kind of travel, that it is very special, and borderline magical. Saying something like “nothing magical about air travel, things and people would still travel around the globe” is very reductive. I’m not giving my opinion on subsidies.

How are you not giving an opinion on subsidies? Person 1. "Airline service is more valuable than people will pay for, it's a genuine force multiplier that is unaffordable without being subsidized" Person 2. "Airlines are not magical, people and goods will move another way, so it doesn't need subsidy". You: "Airlines are magical. Those things cannot happen another way." There's three conclusions for what you think: 1)…

Your point 3 is a non sequitur. If air travel is magical and valuable, that doesn’t automatically mean it needs subsidizing. We sometimes allow magical and valuable things to go away if we find them not to be popular enough to garner widespread political support.

My statement is correcting a fact (descriptive) not proposing what to do about it (I.e. not prescriptive).

It’s very hard to imagine what the world would look like without subsidized air travel. I have to think long and hard to figure out if subsidies would actually be sensible for something like this. I can be convinced either way right now, but it would take a lot of good historical data on something very similar, perhaps has to be specifically air travel in countries that do and don’t subsidize it, and their economic outcomes, controlled for other factors.

But saying that air travel is somehow the same in kind as other kinds of travel is incredibly shallow and reductive. We get to travel orders of magnitude faster and to places we wouldn’t even be able to reach otherwise.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#595

Post by iberator »

Jtarii wrote: post #441
HWR_14 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because today the options are "jobs exist" or "people starve in the street".

Starvation is not a likely outcome from job loss in the western world.

homelessness and hunger is a real danger in the west. I got homeless in 2025... Extremely hard to get out.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#596

Post by m463 »

rapatel0 wrote: post #48

Fundamental problem: Flights don't make money. Airlines actually make all of their money through loyalty programs and credit card payments. They basically should have turned into regulated utilities long ago, but loyalty program revenue saved them. Unless this initiative will turn into a credit card company (which nobody likes or wants to do) it won't go anywhere Private equity will likely sell the company for parts.…

I don't know, reminds me of this article from a long time ago:

https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines.html

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#597

Post by eru »

kelnos wrote: post #365
eru wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess at least when they are given away for free or severely underpriced to the user.

Right, the externalities of those road systems aren't really paid for properly, by anyone. But that's hard to do, because for many people/uses, they have to use those roads to get done what they need to do. The alternatives (like high speed rail) just largely don't exist in the US, or are painfully sub-par.

We have to distinguish between several levels of externalities and between different timespans.

About the former: when you drive on the road, you cause congestion for other road users. But having the roads at all (and having them used) also causes externalities for others, who ain't on the road. Like cutting up nature or noise.

About the timespans:

In the very short term, demand for specific roads is inelastic: if you live in one place and work in another, you have to commute.

But over several years demand for specific roads is very elastic: people and jobs can and do move.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#598

Post by eru »

komali2 wrote: post #400
freedomben wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

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."

Gambling might be ripping though the US, maybe. But it's far from unfettered.

> Or look at industries pre-regulation. Meat, building construction, medicine...

You might like to read about what economists call 'Normal Goods': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_good

> In economics, a normal good is a type of a good for which consumers increase their demand due to an increase in income, unlike inferior goods, for which the opposite is observed. When there is an increase in a person's income, for example due to a wage rise, a good for which the demand rises due to the wage increase, is referred as a normal good. Conversely, the demand for normal goods declines when the income decreases, for example due to a wage decrease or layoffs.

Health and safety are normal goods. As people get richer, they demand more of them.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#599

Post by eru »

jodrellblank wrote: post #445
eru wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)

It JUST means that the creditors lose money? It doesn't stop the planes flying? It doesn't stop the humans and freight from being transported? The plane maintenance? The airport's budget isn't affected, the airline employees aren't affected?

Actually, yes: Airlines have a knack for going bankrupt all the time, but still keep flying their planes.

And planes are also fairly fungible: when one airline goes bankrupt, another airline can quickly snatch up the planes and fly them.

Re: Let's Buy Spirit Air

#600

Post by eru »

anticorporate wrote: post #377
eru wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)

It's funny how any time something comes along suggesting consumer choice should play a role in a market economy, these types of comments come along to suggest its not their place. There's no fundamental rule of a capitalist society that consumers have to make their choices out a narrow selection of options provided by corporate oligarchies between the criteria they would prefer to compete on. As a customer, I can cho…

Go for it. You can also pick them based on the colour of their livery.
Post reply on HN