This is a win to many of the people in this thread.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This is a win to many of the people in this thread.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Change the law.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The IATA is just a trade association, is it not?
But then we wouldn’t need Air Canada, then who would we bail out?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Someone needs to get bailed out. Otherwise what would we need government for?
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
But maybe because it negatively impacts many other Canadians this is why it is this way.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Besides, there are many Canadian start up airlines that aren’t required to fly these smaller routes that still go bust, remember Jetsgo and Canjet?
The risk could be that a large airline could run the route at a loss until the other players went bankrupt. Then prices go up on the main routes and the service to small communities also suffers. Then of course is the loss of Canadian jobs.
Originally posted by InRich
I think it should be a MINIMUM payment of 20% across the board for any kinda house. Who can't save 20% nowadays, just stop eating out, drive a japanese shit box, and save, its not hard.. have some fucking discipline. Half you niggers shouldn't even be in the houses you live in now.
we can't all drive X5Ms
This is exactly the type of situations open markets solveThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
How?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
the "then prices go up" bitThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Doesn't seem good for the consumer.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
but good for new entrants into the market.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
It’s net good to the consumer, once you acknowledge that the residents of sandspit aren’t a market worth pursuing.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
Originally posted by Toma
fact.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
That’s not a solution, that’s a consequenceThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
au contraireThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Higher prices lead to more competition.
Which would solve the problem how? Like, actually how, not just some gibberish you learned in Econ 101. Come up with a reason why "competition" would lower the cost of inefficient flight routes, why would anyone want to compete on a losing proposition?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This is actually what started the demise of Canadian Airlines, when they partnered with American and all the international traffic started being funneled through Chicago. You might know how that one ended.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by InRich
I think it should be a MINIMUM payment of 20% across the board for any kinda house. Who can't save 20% nowadays, just stop eating out, drive a japanese shit box, and save, its not hard.. have some fucking discipline. Half you niggers shouldn't even be in the houses you live in now.
we can't all drive X5Ms
It's like there's two parallel conversations in this thread.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
There is no such thing as an inefficient flight route. There are more expensive routes, and less expensive routes. Competition doesn't change the COST of doing those routes.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So it wouldn't solve the problemThis quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
You don’t fly much, do you?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
The airline industry, when you look at all the ancillaries attached, is one of the largest sources of GDP in the country. Without flights, there are no hotel bookings, no taxi fares, no people eating in restaurants, or spending money on tourism, no car rentals, etc. And the tertiary effects of that, such as the restaurant workers, the hotel housekeeping staff, the airport security workers, the airport restaurant owners, the ramp guys and fuellers, hell even the guy washing the cars for enterprise rental all get shit canned because the airline industry isn’t moving people.
But I guess (according to you) allllll of those companies have unsustainable business models, right?
...
What problem?This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
If your "problem" is that we need to force the passengers of low cost routes to subsidize the prices of high cost flights ...then the entire premise is dumb.
Maybe we can make domestic air travel like postage. One price for every route regardless of distance or cost. That would work to solve one of the problems that's beening discussed here.
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote