Originally Posted by
threegreensconfirmed
Because Rex is run by morally bankrupt thugs who use threats and intimidation against governments, councils, suppliers to get their own way. If the demand exists which I’m sure it does, someone else will step in to fill the void, as has occurred time and time again in the past.
I only agree with a bailout if fresh management are brought in at most levels. And the boards main mandate is providing regional communities with reliable airservices.
As far as another ooerator filling the void, if this even happens they will just cherry pick the profitable routes at much higher prices, so the country loses more than continuing Rex services. Rex was a standout in how it could use its size to make regional fares somewhat affordable. Considering the lack of suitable airliners and the exponential cost increases of small fleets it's unlikely another Rex type operator will come along without significant government incentive. Its important to remember that Rex was able to operate the SAAB 340 at about half the cost of a small 340 fleet operator due to its scale and self sufficiency, even to the point they were cheaper to run than 20 seaters like the 1900.
By the way 100 million people use the Metro each year, yet we still subsidise it to the tune of $1 billion. Demand is created by pressence, the country towns losing these services just go back to driving and the businesses that rely on the extra flow of whatever came with the airlink close down.