Originally Posted by
De_flieger
Holy thread drift, Batman!!
So if I was to run a Saab on biodiesel, would I be paying road excise if all the pilots applied to Jetstar, Lifeflight, Qantas, Virgin, Atlas, MinRes and anyone else that was hiring? And the second part of that question, is how is it everyone else’s fault?
Not really thread drift as its about how much we subsidise other forms of transport, with many of the big 'winners' of those subsidies being foreign companies, not just an Australian company with foreign shareholders.
So why get all heated if a Regional like Rex gets a few million to survive. I actually think most of Rexs network can operate without the need for subsidies, so it is not needed. However if you are going to argue against subsidising air routes for smaller communities you need to be aware how much subsidies already prop up links and services outside of aviation to these places especially. And considering the growth of country areas that have proper supply and transport links these subsidies are invaluble.
Reliable, consistant and frequent air links to a town also save millions on other subsidies, like incentive schemes for professionals like doctors to live in these areas and provide transport for locals to access services in other towns that would cost millions in subsidies to set up in each instance. Not to mention pollies can use the airline to travel rather than private jets at taxpayer expense. Also you get many moving to the country and commuting to the city, spreading population out, taking pressure off city infrastructure. So the airlink subsidies pay for themselves. I've seen many country towns that the regional carriers fly many more passengers than the demographic map suggests it can support for the above reasons, however the air services need to be well established and reliable so that users can trust to make significant future and repeat bookings.