Spacedaddy
You either believe in free enterprise or you don't. The only regulation I believe in is that of safety - and that must never be compromised.
I guess it is an ideological argument. The document you posted can't really be taken as "gospel" as it is clearly written from a left-wing/interventionist (economic) perspective.
To support what I'm saying just look at say the last decade of economic performance in the US/UK economies which are probably the free-est to do businesses in in terms of lack of regulations. Their growth rates consitantly outstripped the main countries of the EU i.e. France and Germany where unemployment is running at least double the US/UK rates.
may the best man win as George Tower says and the traveling public can have
- no choice
- no service
- high prices
- air service only on profitable routes
You just don't get it do you. In Europe we have more choice. If I want to fly to France from London, I have a choice of airports, Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stanstead, Luton. Then I can choose to go with BA (full service) Air France (full service) Easy Jet (low cost) or Ryan Air (very low cost and rude to you more often than not).
So what a pleasure I can choose who I fly with and how I'm flown and from where. I can even choose not to fly and go via Eurostar. The point is I have a CHOICE. So where do you get this hiddeous notion from that under a free market the consumer has no choice.
As for SERVICE, I can enjoy this with BA and Air France. I can even have a bigger seat and nicer food by way of Biz class.
HIGH PRICES - well take the oil price out if the equation and I think you will find that privatisation/comptetion has led to price falls as lots of fat has been cut from companies.
Air service only on profitable routes - well here I have to say that you might be right. Lets say there are half a dozen people that live in Poffader and they want to go joburg twice a week, but they don't want to drive. Now suppose they demand am airservice as enjoyed by the residents of Cape Town, PE or George. So lets say that SAA/SAX (not inclusing Link 'coz they is privately owned bar a cheeky 10% transet holding) decide to offer this group of country folk regular services in a Dash8.
6 people on a Dash8, round trip of say 700nm isn't going to make any money for an airline unless your pax pay 10s of thousands of Rands each. So as is sensible there is no service between the town of Pofadder and Jo'burg because there isn't the demand to warrant one. I know it is a silly example but it was loss making unpopular routes that did help to bankrupt a lot of the major players in the industry. Also if you run a state airline at a loss your tax payers are subsiding it (including your competition - in the case of SAA its Comair and Nationwide that contribute towards SAAs coffers) which is morally reprehinsible. And if the example is expanded this leads to higher taxes for everyone, thats hardowrking individuals. Not fair me thinks!
Lets just continue with my example above and just suppose a young enterprising pilot spots the demand there is in Poffader and decides also that if there might also be demand in other small dorps in the area. He investigates and sees there is. Then he goes to the banks gets a loan a buys a small twin (just an example) and starts regular services at a profit. The punters are happy, they can go about their business, an entrepreneuir has spotted a gap filled it and everyone is a winner.
The moral of the story is that one airlines unprofitable route could be profitable for someone else, given the right combination of individual flair, marketing, choice of equipment, and research.
If this is regulated you have cretinous moronic pen pushers that don't know the first thing about business playing god with people dreams, ambitions, and livelihoods. It's a disgrace.
Some how I bet you're not convinced but I think I have made my point.