FAA shutdown to continue as Congress leaves - Yahoo! News Clearly this is just an anomaly, and if we as a nation were to lower corporate taxes it would not only prevent these businesses from shipping jobs overseas, but these corporations (who apparently are looked as charity organizations in political discussions) would pass the savings onto the consumer. Right?
If you don't want to pay then don't fly. I know freedom of choice is looked down upon in today's society, but its still one of the most powerful forces in the world.
Got a better way for me to get from Minnesota to Germany within a day of travel and still be cost effective? Didn't think so. So what the Airlines are doing is basically highway robbery.
Hmm, i could be mistaken, but I seem to remember you being one of the people that said. " don't like tsa searches? then dont fly!" To which i would have to say. Don't like the prices airline set? Dont fly! Of course if im mistaken, and you never said that, then forgive me, and consider this post preemptive response to those that DID make that argument.
I was the person in that other thread that said "If you don't like searches, don't fly." I didn't have many supporters in that one. I say in this case too, if you don't like the cost, don't fly. Indeed, modern air travel is not sustainable in it's current form. It's only through bail-outs and Government subsidies that airlines even exist in the form they do. In a freemarket, air travel as we know it would cease to exist. Sure, some people would still fly, but it would return to what it was in the 1930's-1950's. A way for the rich to get around, not for the poor, middle class. Tickets would cost >$2,500 for a domestic trip and all seats would be first class. There just isn't a sustainable business model that moves 200lbs of cargo (a person, plus their luggage) across the country in mere hours for ~$500. Fuel cost per passenger on most flights is more than what airfare costs and it's only getting worse. UPS moves cargo coast to coast in an efficient manner and makes money doing it. Go to UPS's website and see how much it would cost to ship 200lbs from LA to NY by air. OK actually I just tried that. And the maximum size UPS will allow on their website is 165 inch ( Lx(2W)x(2H) ) and 150lbs. And to ship that maximum saize and weight, next day air from 90210 to 10112 (30 Rock) it is $1,053. Considering that a person with their luggage typically weight at least 50% more than 150lbs, and takes up >three times that much space. That gives you an idea of what an airline would have to charge to make money on basically shipping a person. "But" you say "competition would keep prices low." Competition is not going to make airlines take a loss on every passenger. They MUST make money in a freemarket. And if that means that they can no longer provide a service, then they are no longer going to provide that service. I don't have a problem with this. As long as my tax money is going to maintain an airport I don't use or subsidize someone else's airfare.
Airline companies provide a service that a lot of people use. They're not a charity. They should be allowed to keep some of the money they make. How do you know that they're not going to use that money to, I don't know, pay their employees, maintain/improve their planes, buy new ones, prepare for the impending economic collapse or some other meaningful use? Turning a profit isn't some immoral action that should be condemned. If you don't like what the airlines are charging, don't buy a plane ticket. EDIT: @Renaldo: UPS doesn't operate in a free market (false premise). You also seem to be assuming what you tried to prove (begging the question).
You were not the only one with that opinion to be sure. Maybe your right, maybe flying would become something only rich people could afford. In fact i tend to gree with you on his point, without bailouts and subsidies, the current situation is un sustainable. Whatever the real cost is, its still being paid. Only i dont have a choice in what competitor it goes too. Free markets dont make everything cheap, only cheaper. There is still a real cost that must be made back in order to profit, in all industry. The free market might not make air travel affordable, but it would help alternative modes of travel prosper.
Again if you don't want to pay then don't fly, its just that simple. Is it necessary, is your life on the line if you don't buy that ticket to Germany? I hold no sympathy for someone who is actually helping the Highway Robbers by buying tickets at their jacked up prices.
Ok...OP did a good job trolling me into this thread with the title...I bit... and I for one appreciate good sarcasm!!
JetBlue didn't raise their ticket prices, and they are offering refunds to all their customers. Maybe that's why they are consistently #1 preferred among consumers? Maybe if our media mentioned that instead of villifying the private sector we would see increased competition? But the airline industry is an anomaly because of the dependency on fuel prices. They took advantage of this opportunity to recoup the losses they've seen in the past 6 months. Jet fuel is up 58% over last year, I don't blame them. Maybe this is what ticket prices would be if there never was a tax? And the argument for lower corporate taxes isn't to lower costs for consumers, it's to lower costs for businesses. We wan't businesses investing in the US, not in China. Well, some of us do at least.
Right and I DO make that decision, I haven't flown in years. My problem has nothing to do with the prices of airplane tickets, I could give two shits how much it costs to fly. I was raising a point about what I believe to be this fallacious idea that we need to bend over backwards to allow tax breaks/loopholes for corporations. Am in favor of changing our ridiculously high and uncompetitive corporate tax rate? Yes. But only to help keep jobs in this nation. I don't want to hear this ridiculous notion that corporations will pass on savings to customers if we keep some loopholes or breaks open. Sorry brah, wasn't trying to troll you, however the sarcasm was intended.
I (like usual) agree with everything you said. I was parodying a point that I have heard being made (not necessarily on the city), that letting the private sector decide every facet of tax code will somehow be nothing but roses for the consumer, that's all. The private sector makes choices in their best interest, the consumer does the same. I feel like sometimes the populace forgets that the private sector is not some service agency all by itself, making decisions to better society. Shareholders. Happy. Margins. Higher. The article I posted in a snarky fashion only reinforces that notion, that was my point at large.
You're right, to a point. Free markets are first and foremost an information exchange. It's true that at first, consumer air-travel wouldn't really be economical for poor people, but the way the market works is that eventually it would become cheap enough after the market economized. Look at LCD TV's, for example. Poor people can buy TV's that put the most expensive TV's of 7-8 years ago to shame. Innovation wouldn't move as fast in air travel as it does in electronics, but you get the point. I question if air travel *should* be cheap. I personally don't think it should be affordable. If the market dictates that it shouldn't be affordable, I think that's perfectly fine. So much fuel is consumed by airplanes, which as you pointed out, tickets don't cover the cost of fueling planes. This is just another Government policy (on top of oil subsidies) that artificially increases the demand of petroleum.
Getting off on a tangent here, but oh well... There was a company in my 2nd home city (Albuquerque) that had a new vision of Commercial Aviation. They claimed that the future of affordable air travel lied in smaller planes with fewer passengers that flew directly from origin to destination. No set schedules. Everything would be charter service. Air taxis if you will. In this way, planes would consume much less fuel and offer less layover related headaches for the passengers. Security could be scaled back because a plane with ~10 people on it would not offer such a huge hijacking target in terms of number of lives aboard. There would still be larger commercial planes doing LA to NY and such, and even commuter planes between nearby major cities (Boston to NY for example), but if you were taking your family from Podunk Florida to BFE Montana, you wouldn't have to do three or four layovers to get to your destination. Air taxies vs. air buses. The burden on large airports would also be reduced, because they wouldn't have to act like hubs that every air passenger has to go through at some point in their journey. If there was a smaller airfield in the same town, the smaller planes could operate there at a lower cost. I don't know all the details of their plans or the numbers, but they sold the idea as being lower cost for a small group of people (like 4-10) than buying them all multi-layover tickets on a conventional airline. IDK, maybe it was just someone's idea to sell what would otherwise be luxury personal jets to larger Airlines... If air travel went there, I'd probably fly again. Hell, I'd probably even pay 50% more than what a plane ticket costs now, if I could fly direct and not deal with the major airports. I bet a lot of businesses would gladly pay 50% more if it just meant that their employees didn't waste a whole day on each trip with layovers. But the way Eclipse sold the idea, it sounded like it would be all that, AND cheaper. Eclipse is out of business now BTW.