China vs. India

[moderatevoter]

In all fairness, Sbane, even during the 70s and 80s, Air India (and Pakistan International Airlines, for that matter) were supposedly two of the best airlines in the world. Now they're both complete jokes.

Both of them, undoubtedly, have been hurt by the emergence of Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways.

[Sbane]

In all fairness, Sbane, even during the 70s and 80s, Air India (and Pakistan International Airlines, for that matter) were supposedly two of the best airlines in the world. Now they're both complete jokes.

Both of them, undoubtedly, have been hurt by the emergence of Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways.

Corruption is another reason for Air India's decline. Business seats being blocked for politicians and their families, forcing Air India to create inefficient jobs etc. Another reason is the lack of business travel into India. With Indira basically closing off the economy, it is not surprising Air India really went down the drain around that time. I don't think you can blame the middle eastern carriers though. Their growth is a more recent phenomenon.

[TDAS04]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

That's a rather inaccurate description. China is authoritarian but by no means totalitarian, not nearly. Both China and India are quite nationalistic (as are numerous other states including Russia, Israel, and the United States). Both China and India are multiethnic. Both China and India have socialistic elements to their economy. Both China and India have capitalist elements. Basically, none of your distinguishing adjectives really distinguish anything.

India is definitely more multiethnic than China.  China has ethnic minorities, but the country is >90% Han Chinese, and the Han are very dominant politically.  In India, there is no linguistic majority (native Hindi-speakers are only a plurality).  Even though the majority of the people are Hindu, there is no state religion and religious minorities have been well-represented in government.  Frankly, India is so diverse that it deserves credit for staying together and functioning as much as it has been.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Yes, the transportation and communication sectors should be publicly owned (and ideally worker-controlled to the extent feasible). Private telecom companies are unimaginably parasitic.

Note that I am not arguing that India's public services are well-run, merely that their ineptitude reflects much more on the planners (who, again, come from wealthy backgrounds and are primarily interested in personal financial gain) than the concept of public ownership.

[swl]

[...]

I have the feeling that you are talking about real problems, but that you decide to see them through a socialism vs capitalism prism that does not really apply there.

[swl]

[...]

I have the feeling that you are talking about real problems, but that you decide to see them through a socialism vs capitalism prism that is not really relevant there.

[Beet]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

That's a rather inaccurate description. China is authoritarian but by no means totalitarian, not nearly. Both China and India are quite nationalistic (as are numerous other states including Russia, Israel, and the United States). Both China and India are multiethnic. Both China and India have socialistic elements to their economy. Both China and India have capitalist elements. Basically, none of your distinguishing adjectives really distinguish anything.

India is definitely more multiethnic than China.  China has ethnic minorities, but the country is >90% Han Chinese, and the Han are very dominant politically.  In India, there is no linguistic majority (native Hindi-speakers are only a plurality).  Even though the majority of the people are Hindu, there is no state religion and religious minorities have been well-represented in government.  Frankly, India is so diverse that it deserves credit for staying together and functioning as much as it has been.

That is true, but the fact India's ethnic diversity is well acknowledged whereas China's rarely is, is all the more reason not to forget China's ethnic minorities. The general authoritarian nature of the PRC government makes it virtually impossible for any but non Han males to advance at the national level, and also had prevented a frank discussion of ethnic (along with religious, political, etc.) diversity. But that does not mean these people do not exist, of course.

[Gustaf]

Having spent a fair bit of time in India by now, I agree with Sbane.

[Sbane]

[...]

I have the feeling that you are talking about real problems, but that you decide to see them through a socialism vs capitalism prism that is not really relevant there.

Ideology does matter. It is especially important for outsiders to understand the context of contemporary India. For outsiders not familiar with India, it can certainly seem like the country doesn't care about its poor people and that there are no social services provided to them. On the contrary all the services are in place. Every Indian gets a ration card which entitles them to get food from the government run supply store. The problem is that due to corruption and perverse incentives, most of the good stuff is sold on the market and the rotten food stuffs is given to the poor. Also, since they can't get this food from any store, there are problems with access in rural areas. That is why almost half of India's children are malnutritioned, not because there are no social services provided to them. Same goes with government hospitals. The government shouldn't be running the place, but rather subsidizing the care for the poor. It is because of ideology that India has made all these poor decisions and you can't blame it on the caste system or on colonialism.

In addition, these services require money in order to provide to such a large population. And you can't have money if you pursue policies that inhibit economic growth. Also the tax system needs reform but I'll save that for another rant.

[Sbane]

In all fairness, Sbane, even during the 70s and 80s, Air India (and Pakistan International Airlines, for that matter) were supposedly two of the best airlines in the world. Now they're both complete jokes.

Both of them, undoubtedly, have been hurt by the emergence of Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar Airways.

Corruption is another reason for Air India's decline. Business seats being blocked for politicians and their families, forcing Air India to create inefficient jobs etc. Another reason is the lack of business travel into India. With Indira basically closing off the economy, it is not surprising Air India really went down the drain around that time. I don't think you can blame the middle eastern carriers though. Their growth is a more recent phenomenon.

I disagree. You can completely attribute some of Air India and PIA's troubles to the Middle Eastern carriers. Let me clarify that, like you're suggesting, Air India and PIA were already in trouble before these carriers emerged. That is completely true. But these carriers have literally derailed Air India and PIA's chances at revitalization. Ironically, Emirates' first planes were loaned to it by PIA. Talk about creating your own Frankenstein.

Let's also look at some of the private airlines in India -- take Jet Airways for example -- they are now essentially a satellite carrier for Etihad.

Karachi used to be an incredibly busy airport, but the emergence of Dubai as an aviation hub (along with Karachi's poor political climate in the 1990s to a lesser extent) killed that off. Emirates, for example, flies six flights a day to Karachi and floods the market with Boeing 777s and Airbus A330s, which fly mostly full due to dirt cheap fairs they offer. Their planes are incredibly clean (can't say the same for either Air India or PIA), they are generally on time (again, can't say the same), and their service is top-notch. PIA simply cannot compete anymore at what is supposed to be its biggest hub. Put this into perspective: Emirates wanted to fly the Airbus A380 to Karachi. When Pakistan's CAA informed them that Karachi was not ready to handle the plane, there was discussion that Emirates had offered to pay for the renovations to make the airport A380 ready.

Pakistan and India were the first two countries Emirates served and are two of Emirates' major markets. A large part of this is because Emirates flies to secondary cities in both countries as well. There is no need to transfer (and thank goodness, because who wants to do that?) in either Mumbai or Delhi anymore if I'm aiming to get to Kozhikode. I can go through Dubai and not deal with the hassle of transferring from the domestic to international terminals in either Mumbai or Delhi (which used to be literally the worst experience ever). This has certainly become easier now with T3 in Delhi and T2 in Mumbai, but why do that when you can fly through Dubai? Emirates (and the other Middle Eastern carriers) have saturated travel from North America and Europe to South Asia, which is why US-India nonstop flights have largely been unsuccessful, why European carriers are routinely bitter, and why Air India and PIA have both had issues filling their planes for long-haul flights to Europe and the USA. This is why the Indian government (until recently) and the Pakistani government have tried to avoid allowing Middle Eastern carriers to fly A380s to both countries. Both national airlines are already in financial messes, and are unable to compete. Imagine if they're competing against twice as many seats.

I agree that it will be hard for Air India or PIA to compete with the middle eastern carriers today but it doesn't explain their decline since the 1970s or so. As someone who flew Qatar airways to India recently, I certainly agree it is a much more pleasant experience than flying through Delhi or Mumbai, even if there is a Mcdonalds in the terminal now to cure your jet lag induced 4AM munchies.