On Mar 9, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:40 PM, Lawrence Sica wrote: > >> You've also seen a net stripping of services on flights which I think >> is a negative. Not to mention a general deterioration in service. >> Also most of these smaller airlines had and have real quality issues. >> Look at it today. Overcrowded flights were the norm Also the fare >> reduction is not evenly distributed. Fares along high traffic routes >> tend to be higher. > > Of course. But the services and the less crowded flights weren't worth > the $100 billion to real people. The fact that the flights got more > crowded shows that airfares became affordable to a much larger segment > of the population. I don't think you judge the worth of a social > policy by its effect on the elites. If you do, ending slavery was a > really bad idea.
This has nothing to do with the elite. When you get charged for everything but a "lower fare" you don't really get a lower fare at the end of the day. I am talking about simple things like bags and a glass of water. >> >> I'd have to check but I think we actually have less airlines now. >> Also it seems like the industry is slowly dying since they did de- >> reg. > > > We have more airlines but they are dying. This is not a bad thing > considering how inefficient and harmful to the climate air travel is. > Still the death of the airlines has everything to do with the price of > jet fuel and the shitty economy. I doubt that you can give > deregulation the credit. By 2001 we lost nine major and a few hundred smaller carriers. This was before 9/11 hit. I don't think you can say that. --Larry _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
