It is possible that scott is a troll, however:
Scott does partly have a point, in that when Govt requires a high degree of protection by industry participants of consumers against purchase of a particular type of product, the barrier to entry for companies new to the industry becomes higher, and entrepreneurs are discouraged from opening a new company.
The strong protection afforded to consumers certainly helps those who have already purchased a product, but it may hurt consumers since new start-up companies look at things in different ways, and have the energy to shake up previous industry practices - an example is easyJet being one of the first to start the whole low-cost short-haul thing in the UK. It is highly unlikely BA would have voluntarily dropped their short-haul fares and adopted one-way pricing if they hadn't had EasyJet and Ryanair eating away at their customer base.
Air transport as an industry is regulated rather more tighly than many other industries. Of course it may well be entirely appropriate that the CAA demands an entrepreneur put up a large amount of cash when opening a new airline, both to ensure that consumers can be repatriated if necessary, and also to discourage the cowboy element. It may however incentivise people to start airlines elsewhere in the world where regulation is less stringent instead, or to choose a different industry when setting up a new business.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 17th Aug 2009 at 11:11.