Jimmy Carter's airline deregulation

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I must say, this has been the most interesting thread I've read in months. High quality posts all around. I wish I had something more to contribute, but transportation policy (outside of trucking deregulation) is something I know little about.

[Simfan34]

Even Acela, our so-called “high speed train” is not actually a high-speed train. It averages just over 100km/h, which was being matched 80 years ago by the Milwaukee-Chicago service, while its top speed, limited to a very short stretch of track in CT and RI, is 240km/h. (You must forgive me, I’ve become used to talking about HSR in terms of kilometers) Between NYC and DC, the Acela takes 2 ½ hours—which is exactly the time the Metroliner took in 1969. Our “high speed rail” is no more advanced than what we had 45, even 80 years ago! In comparison, most modern HSR systems, average speeds are around 200km/h, and top speeds are anywhere between 300km/h and 380km/h. In China, before the 2011 train crash, you even had high-speed services with average speeds above 300km/h. Amtrak also plans to have trains on the Northeast Corridor with top speeds of 350km/h… by 2050. In other words, they have every intention to remain 40 years behind the rest of the world.

Amtrak should focus on building a network of high-speed trunk lines, which will not be cheap, but it will be the best way forward for rail transit. Suburban sprawl will make this more challenging than in other countries with more compact built-up areas; acquiring the right-of-way needed for turning radii wide enough to sustain the highest speeds will, in the NE Corridor, require barreling through towns and spending billions in compensation, but, one day, I hope, we will have the visionary leadership willing to make that effort. Perhaps, if we're unable to do that, we will have to elevate the tracks above existing highway right-of-way.

 Now, I do not have much faith in the federal government, and I realize this is a fantasy, but I have more faith in the federal government than I do California’s government, and I fear California, being California, will ruin their chance to build HSR, so this New Amtrak would be advised to take over their program.

Ideally these lines will be future-proofed and designed for top speeds of, say 500km/h or above, even 600km/h (although this would require gargantuan turning radii, to the tune 30k+ ft). In the interim, the government should identify potential high-speed rail corridors (which it already has), try to acquire undeveloped land along those corridors now, or otherwise place some kind of easement on properties along the corridors prohibiting future or additional development. The high speed trains, or even electrification, can wait, but the sooner each corridor is acquired, the sooner under- and overpasses are built to ensure future grade separation, and the sooner tracks are laid, the better—and the much, much cheaper. When possible, new tracks can parallel existing routes, but the ultimate aim should be to build a fully-electrified, completely-grade separated, passenger-only, ultra-high-speed intercity network. These will be the trunk lines of the national HSR network, the 21st century’s own version of the Interstate Highway System. Commuter, and “new regional” rail would all feed into the national network, just like how US Highways and State highways feed into the interstate.

Amtrak could then be split into two companies—one owning the railroad network and one operating passenger trains, as has been done in Europe (to mixed results). The operating company could potentially, if desired, then be privatized, and private rail operators would compete on rails just as bus companies compete on highways, although given the physical constraints of the tracks themselves, I’m not sure how much competition you can have. Either way, the system we'd have would be glorious. One (hostile) source (I think it was the CATO Institute) estimated that a national HSR network would cost $1 trillion. I think, spread over 20-25 years, $40-50 billion a year is a reasonable investment to make. Hopefully GE or some other firm will, during this time, snap up a passenger train manufacturer so we won't have to award all contracts for rolling stock to foreign companies.

Thus ends my hijacking of a thread about planes to talk about trains.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I must say, this has been the most interesting thread I've read in months. High quality posts all around. I wish I had something more to contribute, but transportation policy (outside of trucking deregulation) is something I know little about.

I had the same thought while reading this. Fascinating thread.


Simfan, I imagine your regional rail proposal would require interstate compacts, much like how Virginia, D.C., and Maryland jointly manage traffic on the beltway. Would your proposal preserve federal control over the passenger service (Amtrak) while shifting track ownership to the regional authority? Or would subsidies flow directly to private passenger service companies? Or is the proposal  for the regional authority to own both and set fares accordingly, like with urban mass transit? I had never considered encouraging train corridors governed by interstate compacts until now. Thanks for the insight.

[Simfan34]

Professor, tell us how to be competitive against a company that is getting BILLIONS of dollars worth of subsidies from their government.

Well, they can start by being less terrible. Other airlines have been doing it, they've not only been able to compete, they're thriving. Turkish Airlines has grown rapidly right in the ME3's backyard.

Plucky little Ethiopian Airlines, pride of the nation, has been growing by leaps and bounds, all while remaining profitable-- posting a $100 million profit last year. The key to Ethiopian Airlines' success is that despite being fully state owned, it is free from government interference and professionally run.  This was a privilege respected even under the communist regime, and, as a result, unlike its African peers, has survived and thrived. Also unlike the government, otherwise mostly hostile to private enterprise, the airline is on track (exceeding, actually) to meet its ambitious targets of 22 million passengers, $10 billion turnover, and 150 planes by 2025. Kenyan lost $250 million in FY 2014, South African $300 million, and Egyptair $350 million. Sadly, African governments have not implemented the open-skies agreement ratified in 2007, so outside airlines are moving in, capitalizing on these losses, rather than other African airlines.

There is also growth in India, with new joint ventures. There is Vistara, the Tata-Singapore JV. Garuda Indonesia is also growing rapidly. There's still growth in China, but that's pretty insulated from the M3. But it's clear that by providing what customers want, and having a strategic vision for the next decade and beyond, rather than kowtowing to the demands of activists shareholders whose vision extends only to the next few quarters-- a year, if you're lucky-- you can compete.

I guess the only question to ask you at this point Simfan is, why do you hate America?

I don't hate America. I just have no love for our airlines. As my lavishing praise on Ethiopian Airlines shows, I am more than capable of taking nationalistic pride and being emotionally invested in an airline's success; but, whereas my mother's country has such an airline, the United States does not (and Ghana doesn't have an airline at all).

I also do not hate America, which is why I support Americans keeping more money in their pockets, getting better inflight service, and Boeing not losing business, and people not losing, jobs, because the legacies wish to make life more inconvenient for foreign competitors. Keep in mind the CEO of United lost his job last month and is now under investigation for awarding favors to the President of the Port Authority-- namely, running a flight between Newark and the President's hometown in the Carolinas's just for him! American exemplars they are not!

I am not saying this is a lie but it in no way gives a complete picture of the European airline industry... nor any airline industry.  At various times (post 911, post financial collapse) there has been major turmoil in the global airline industry and there have been deals to be had all over the planet.  Also for low cost airlines in Europe they give away a few seats at rock bottom prices as a marketing technique.  The average seat on a European airline does not go for €30.

And plenty of low cost airlines in Europe don't even give you a bag of peanuts or water without charging you.  The idea that there are airlines all over Europe handing out sandwiches and beers along with a free airline tickets for €30 is ludicrous.

Anyone that says there is not a severe race to the bottom being attempted in Europe is delusional.  Here is some insight from the CEO of Europe's second largest airline...

Some of the most grotesque ideas about air travel have come out of Europe... and Ryanair in particular.  Ryanair copied Southwest and "improved" upon the formula.  Now their garbage is being exported to airlines all over the world.  Ryanair was nickel and diming people for checked bags long before Delta and United got into that odious game.  Ryanair even weighs your cabin bag.  If it is over 22lbs they make you check it and add a fee.  If they deem your carry on bag to be too big even if it meets the weight limit they make you check it and charge you €50.  Don't trust a random person on the internet.  They post their rules on their website.

Sorry to go off guys but I've flown in Europe and there is a very good reason they still have a fairly robust train system.

I agree that it does not give the whole picture. It was just an individual snapshot. I'm actually not sure if there was beer-- I didn't have any, but I feel like there was something more impressive than just sandwiches, not just a soda. Or maybe I was just impressed by the soda. It was a short flight.

I will stick by the price, however. This was in 2011, when the Euro was 1:1.5 with the dollar. So 30€ would have been worth $45. Now, I can look up fares on this route on Google, and the same airline I flew-- Niki, is selling round-trip tickets for $107. I do not think the difference between $90 and $109 is so great, although now I think about I feel like the ticket was definitely less than $90; perhaps there was some promotion. Funnily enough, my quoted figure still comes out looking plausible, at least to me.

Now, I am aware of Ryanair, and how its CEO is prone to making outrageous statements on new ways to make life more miserable for passengers. But it is not like everyone is following his lead. I can report that others have confirmed to me that flying on Turkish, Lufthansa, Swiss, and Icelandic remain civilized experiences, more so than back home. I think many of the LCC's in Europe are less like Spirit and more like Southwest or even JetBlue-- lower cost structure, and lower fares, but not necessarily, well, horrible.

As for the trains... as my multi-installment soliloquy shows, I know a fair bit about them and am quite the fan, When I went to Italy, we actually flew in and out of Zurich, we travelled by train between Zurich and Milan both when arriving and when leaving. From Milan we travelled by train to Verona and Florence. I had wanted to take the train to Vienna, but in this instance... flying was just cheaper. So we flew. Multimodal competition! Also, just to add a bit randomly, the Spanish, when their economic situation has resolved itself, will be very glad they built as large an HSR network as they and when they did. I'm not even sure how they built it so cheaply compared to other European countries, even China... it was built during the boom so it's not like prices were cheap.

[bedstuy]

I was just reading up on Spirit Airlines.  Holy cow!  I thought I had it bad when I've been on American Airlines.  And, the rest are bad too.  The only decent domestic flight I've taken was on Virgin America anyway.

Simfan, do you know this song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRUszqMVM8

"Real union flight attendant, my oh my, you ain't nothing but a waitress in the sky."

[bedstuy]

What do you all think of Southwest Airlines? It's generally considered to be pretty good.

My rankings:
1. Virgin America
2. JetBlue
3. Delta
4. Southwest

Southwest is nice, low fares and one free checked bag.  But, you can't reserve a seat which is kind of uncivilized, and it can make the boarding process annoying.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I actually flew Spirit this weekend. No carry on bag though so I really did pay the advertised low fare.

I was just reading up on Spirit Airlines.  Holy cow!  I thought I had it bad when I've been on American Airlines.  And, the rest are bad too.  The only decent domestic flight I've taken was on Virgin America anyway.

Simfan, do you know this song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRUszqMVM8

"Real union flight attendant, my oh my, you ain't nothing but a waitress in the sky."

You do know that song is satirical? Westerberg has said the meaning is that his sister was a flight attendant and the song is written from the perspective of one of the assholes heaping abuse on her that he heard about so frequently.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

Professor, tell us how to be competitive against a company that is getting BILLIONS of dollars worth of subsidies from their government.

Well, they can start by being less terrible.

That is not a serious answer.  You are showing a lot of disrespect to the American worker.  No person that loves their country would demand their businesses and workers compete with companies that are being subsidies to the tune of billions by their home country.

Plucky little Ethiopian Airlines, pride of the nation, has been growing by leaps and bounds, all while remaining profitable-- posting a $100 million profit last year. The key to Ethiopian Airlines' success is that despite being fully state owned, it is free from government interference and professionally run.  This was a privilege respected even under the communist regime, and, as a result, unlike its African peers, has survived and thrived. Also unlike the government, otherwise mostly hostile to private enterprise, the airline is on track (exceeding, actually) to meet its ambitious targets of 22 million passengers, $10 billion turnover, and 150 planes by 2025. Kenyan lost $250 million in FY 2014, South African $300 million, and Egyptair $350 million. Sadly, African governments have not implemented the open-skies agreement ratified in 2007, so outside airlines are moving in, capitalizing on these losses, rather than other African airlines.

You were asked to explain your assertion American airlines who get no subsidy should be as good as Qatar and Emirates and your explanation features a grab bag of sub Saharan African countries?!  So we can assume you are abandoning your position and moving to another continent you are hoping we know nothing about?  Blaming Kenya Airway's loss on the gubment is ridiculous.  Kenya is rife with corruption.  You are acting like the private sector in that country is just blossoming with free market entrepreneurs having run away success.  The system in Kenya is broken.  Cherrypicking the government failures while ignoring the private sector failures is disingenuous.

I agree that it does not give the whole picture. It was just an individual snapshot. I'm actually not sure if there was beer-- I didn't have any, but I feel like there was something more impressive than just sandwiches, not just a soda. Or maybe I was just impressed by the soda. It was a short flight.

Ah, I see.  Your parents took you on a trip once and now you are a global airline industry expert.  I don't have to argue or debate with you Sim.  Anyone on this forum can go to the Ryanair website and see their fee for throwing your carry on in the hold is €50.  No airline I know of in the US charges a fee for that.  I somehow doubt if the number two airline is routinely charging €50 for what all American airlines give away for free that free beers, sandwiches, and €30 tickets are the norm.  From the sounds of it I've spent a heck of a lot more time in Europe than you have and I've never seen nor heard of this utopia you've constructed.

Now, I am aware of Ryanair, and how its CEO is prone to making outrageous statements on new ways to make life more miserable for passengers. But it is not like everyone is following his lead. I can report that others have confirmed to me that flying on Turkish, Lufthansa, Swiss, and Icelandic remain civilized experiences, more so than back home.

As sketchy as your first hand reports are I'm even less inclined to believe your second hand sources.  And keep in mind Sim I've traveled through Europe way more than you have.  You are not privy to any special information.  Also you keep cherrypicking various airlines instead of talking about the number two carrier in all of Europe.  And I can assure you what I'm saying about Ryan air is not merely "statements" by the CEO.  I've flown them multiple times when I didn't have a choice and it is even more nickle and dime than any carrier I've flown in the United States.

As for the trains... as my multi-installment soliloquy shows, I know a fair bit about them and am quite the fan, When I went to Italy, we actually flew in and out of Zurich, we travelled by train between Zurich and Milan both when arriving and when leaving. From Milan we travelled by train to Verona and Florence. I had wanted to take the train to Vienna, but in this instance... flying was just cheaper. So we flew. Multimodal competition! Also, just to add a bit randomly, the Spanish, when their economic situation has resolved itself, will be very glad they built as large an HSR network as they and when they did. I'm not even sure how they built it so cheaply compared to other European countries, even China... it was built during the boom so it's not like prices were cheap.

Sim, my point is if there were €30 airplane tickets connecting the whole of Europe the trains would die instantly because they wouldn't be able to compete.  Trains exist so we can infer from that €30 all you can eat/drink flights are an aberration.

Sim, your problem is you are doing massive amounts of cherrypicking.  Mentioning Qatar and Emirates and ignoring the fact they are getting billions of subsidies is just beyond terrible.  That is not a serious way to discuss an issue.  Cherrypicking some alleged €30 flight you can't properly remember the details of and ignoring the odious number two carrier in all of Europe is just not indicative of someone who is being serious.  And talking about a Kenya Airways' financial problems while not mentioning the private sector bankruptcies in Kenya is either demonstrating profound ignorance or indicative of someone who just can't admit they are wrong.  And balance sheets aside my experience with Kenya Airways was excellent.  Nice modern plane, excellent staff, free snacks and nonpremium drinks, no Ryan Air fees, etc.  Anyone who would rather fly Ryan Air vs Kenya Airways is on crack...  Or probably hasn't flown on either and is just talking out their rear end.

[Simfan34]

I'm very tired, but I'm awake enough to know that I really don't get what you're saying. The existence of Ryanair doesn't negate the fact the European aviation enjoys a freer market. I wasn't blaming Kenya for anything. I was just comparing it, SAA, and Egyptair, to Ethiopian to demonstrate how strong the headwinds-- in part, yes, due to the ME3-- have been, and how Ethiopian has managed to compete. I gave other examples. If you want to look at government interference, SAA is the better example-- until recently, they were forced by their shareholder (ie, the government) to fly money-losing prestige flights to Beijing. That is an example of government interference. Why do you think most African flag carriers have gone out of business? But this is all tangential.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Ryanair. You describe how their nickeling and diming is unparalleled, but I don't get what that's supposed to mean other than that other European airlines have not followed its lead, which is different from what's happened in the US with Spirit. The fact that it is exceptional proves my point. You brought Ryanair into this-- but it's not a monopolist. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that anything I said was trying to have "Ryanair vs Kenya Airways".

But to respond to your first point, I'm not ultra-nationalist enough to defend my "right" to be nickled and dimed by an airline, and receive a cramped seat and apathetic service in return. I'm... no kind of leftist, but my "love of country" is not going to make me applaud oligopolistic business practices. And what about the American traveller? The American Boeing employee? Do they not deserve respect, comfort, and employment? Or do the airlines come first, and the customer always wrong?

What are you saying?

I must say, this has been the most interesting thread I've read in months. High quality posts all around. I wish I had something more to contribute, but transportation policy (outside of trucking deregulation) is something I know little about.

I had the same thought while reading this. Fascinating thread.


Simfan, I imagine your regional rail proposal would require interstate compacts, much like how Virginia, D.C., and Maryland jointly manage traffic on the beltway. Would your proposal preserve federal control over the passenger service (Amtrak) while shifting track ownership to the regional authority? Or would subsidies flow directly to private passenger service companies? Or is the proposal  for the regional authority to own both and set fares accordingly, like with urban mass transit? I had never considered encouraging train corridors governed by interstate compacts until now. Thanks for the insight.

Amtrak does not own most of the trackage it operates on, and virtually none of the long-distance routes. Those are owned by freight companies, and Amtrak simply operates services on them. The envisioned high-speed intercity trunk network would be on all new, fully Amtrak owned right-of-way. The regional rail operators, which would be entirely new and separate groups owned by the states,  would operate on the freight-owned trackage formerly covered by Amtrak, and some might even expand to other lines, which they wouldn't own, either, however.

Eventually the regional rail systems, which would be owned by the state governments, would supplement and feed into the intercity network, but in the short term they'd operate unconnected to each other, for the most part.

The immediate effect would be that the overall (looking at all operators, state, federal, local) amount of rail services go down. Amtrak would shrink, and now be operating a collection of unconnected high-traffic, short to medium distance services As the states launch their operators, you'd see the amount of overall services pick up. You could probably travel by train between LA and Chicago again along the old Amtrak route, but that would now involve multiple transfers between different operators' services.

Finally, when the intercity network is completed, you will have a net increase in service. You could travel from city to city by intercity train, run by this "new Amtrak", and upon arrival, transfer not only to commuter networks but regional networks, which have hopefully expanded their services. You could now travel by high-speed rail between Chicago and LA, but that would not be what the network was designed for. Your itinerary would be something like Chicago-St. Louis-OKC-Albuquerque-Phoenix-LA.

So, in the short run you're more or less divvying up Amtrak's services amongst the states. In the long run, you'd build a system where you have local and state services girded by an entirely new Amtrak network, all co-existing.

Where demand existed for inter-state regional rail service, I'm sure the states could work something out. In the NYC area we already have something like this, where NJ Transit runs trains out of NY Penn Station, into Bergen County (with a transfer), and into New York, occasionally going as far as Port Jervis on the NY-PA border. Or you could have a joint venture between state operators, something like Thalys, which is a Franco-Belgian-German joint venture that operates trains between the three countries.

Regional rail of this sort is usually not profitable, but is considered a public service for those living in places with no alternative mass transit. It can be, but usually isn't. The Feds would give the subsidy to the operators, which, again, would be owned by the states. The model is something like what we have in NJ already. Obviously, nothing's stopping private operators from opening up and signing agreements with freight lines to run passenger service on their tracks, but that is not something I consider particularly likely.

However, as a footnote, the private sector would likely have a niche for the tourist rail travel market. A company like Belmond could operate a luxury rail cruise between Chicago and LA, which would account for the long-distance Amtrak tourist. It would probably grow the market, as the quality of service, and the general tourist appeal, would attract more people.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I'm very tired, but I'm awake enough to know that I really don't get what you're saying. The existence of Ryanair doesn't negate the fact the European aviation enjoys a freer market.

Yeah and they have Ryan Air which is far worse than anything I've ever flown in the United States.  Actually if you unbundle the national flag carriers in the Lufthansa Group Ryan Air is the number one airline in all of Europe.  I know you want to cherrypick and ignore Ryan Air and its terrible practices but if you fly in Europe it is the airline you are most likely to fly.  And if you are trying to fly discount it is definitely the airline you are most likely to fly.  Nobody discusses flying in Europe without discussing Ryan Air... unless they are an idiot or have an agenda.  If you look at year over year organic growth in your so called "freer market" no one beats the scumbags at Ryan Air.  You should be praising them.  Everyone is dying while the scum floats to the top.  Lufthansa is buying anyone it can just to keep up with the scum.

The thing that really pisses me off about what your are doing is a lot of Americans have never been to Europe.  They are trusting you to give them honest information.  Coming on this forum and posting distortions and misinformation is really uncool.  I once flew round trip from the Northeast to Europe for about $200.  Certainly it was less than $300.  I don't really tell people about it because it was a marketing thing and not a typical fare.  Plus some terrorists knocked down a couple of buildings to help us out with the price of airfare.  Telling people they can jetset around Europe for €30 with free food and free beer is just disingenuous and you know it.

And the BS about Emirates and Qatar is unforgivable.  Don't denigrate US workers when they are competing with companies that are subsidized to the tune of billions.  If you didn't know that was happening just admit it and move on.  That is really indefensible.  By the way I dated a girl who worked as a flight attendant for one of those airlines who's dick you are sucking and my cousin married a girl who was a flight attendant for one of them.  Let me just say their HR practices are 100% illegal in the United States.  My girlfriend was from a country in the middle of a civil war and my cousin's wife came from a third world country.  My girlfriend told me about the interview process and that thing was way illegal for the US.  The airline my cousin's wife works at is so illegal by American standards he was sweating bullets when he got her pregnant.  Not sure how American workers are supposed to compete with companies getting billions in subsidies and routinely doing things that violate US laws.  I've had employees from these Gulf airlines sitting at my dinner table and from those conversation all I can say is your weird distorted critique is shambolic.

Guys do yourself a favor and massively fact check anything this guy says.  Let me tell you Ryan Air is huge and growing and it is bad news like nothing you've ever seen before.  The CEO was dead serious about standing room in airplanes and the only thing that stopped him was government regulation.  That sociopath will do anything to make a buck.

Here's how the number one airline in Simfan's perfect market works...

The airline has made no secret of its desire to eventually fly to America, with chief executive Michael O’Leary claiming repeatedly that the firm could offer flights for as little as €10.

And then...

Ryanair forced to admit it is not considering trans-Atlantic flights after all

Simfan, you, Emirates, and Ryan Air are full of sh-t.

Ladies and gentlemen I give you Simfan's dystopian "freer market" future...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/14/3623267/qatar-airways-flight-attendants/

I don't normally read nor quote thinkprogress but that statement lines up 100% with what the women in my life have told me.  Simfan either you are really ignorant or you are a massive jerk.  There is something wrong with anyone that would condone misogyny on that level.  But I guess the war on women marches on.

[tallguy23]

It definitely opened flying up to the masses. Most flights were way too expensive before the bill passed.

Most of the problems with airlines come down to a lack of competition (similar to cable companies). If you know your customers don't have many choices, you won't work as hard to win them over.

Having said that, I've never had a bad experience with Southwest or JetBlue. 

[Simfan34]

...what? No need to get so riled up. Relax, don't fly Ryanair, and enjoy Ethiad's First Apartment:

https://youtu.be/F_ZnqlbqQRI

[Citizen Hats]

For many reasons, I'm not inclined to think that cheap flying is a good thing:

• Tickets remain expensive by the standards of most households - even prohibitively so, as, in any given year, most Americans do not purchase a commercial airline ticket - so it is primarily a benefit to those who are at least sort of well off.
  
• There's no way to rack up a person's carbon emissions so quickly as a few flights around the world or even across the continent. Any sophisticate who weekends in Europe a couple of times annually, or who flies across the country regularly, is doing as much damage as the lowbrow who commutes 30 minutes in his F-350 five times per week.
  
• The hollowing-out effect that flying has had on other forms of transportation, especially rail, has been awful. There's no way that we'd lack the collective political will to build and maintain a better passenger rail system if flying were as inaccessible as it once was.
  
• Huge amounts of public funds have been wasted on airport construction as a "public benefit" that will catalyze "economic development." The benefits are obviously not as widely distributed as their proponents claim, and the result is almost always a massive, lavish facility built on the outskirts of town, that many citizens will never use or even visit, and that catalyzes the development of a sprawling mess of hotels and shopping centers well outside of the city center more than anything else. (Contrast this with the siting of most of the US's once-great train stations.)

And all of this for the sake of an industry that consistently fails to earn a profit! The idea that the biggest problem with today's airline industry is that you need to pay extra for your luggage is ridiculous. It is a dirty, corrupt, and inequitable business that would be unsustainable were it not for significant and protracted government largess. And it is disgusting.

That's an argument for...

• I'm really not sure, cartels are good so long as the burden is born by statistically better-off people
• a carbon tax
• also put in a carbon tax, and much more importantly stop subsidizing motordom, and you'll have much less hollowed out railroads. It's the roads that have hollowed out what should still be the useful functions of the rail network far more than flying has
• generally not subsidizing transportation as Americans are amongst the most fond.

Why that has anything to do with being asked to pay for the quantity of luggage you bring is beyond me. 

[Simfan34]

Bring it back!