The Tribune ran this story on how flying this summer is a big pain in the ass. Basically, as airlines try to keep costs down, they run on such a tight schedule that *any* blip in the system causes huge breakdowns. This ripple only intensifies as people find it harder and harder to get onto new flights, since all the flights are running at capacity - leaving little room for passengers stranded with standby status.
What's interesting, to me, about this whole thing is the kinds of problems that arise when infrastructure - a public good - is left in private hands. It recalls the kinds of tensions that arose in the 19th century, in the US, over railroads. I'm not an expert in the rail regulation, but the basic gist was that short hauls were usually less efficient than long hauls. In addition, many minor rail routes served only a few small towns - and there was no competition. This led to really high rates for some farmers, which pissed off said farmers, and led to groups like the Grange pushing for national regulation of railroads. The basic tension was that railroads had become an *essential* factor in moving goods around the country - yet a few private interests controlled this asset (this is in large part a function of the way railroads work; even in the rails themselves are public highways - and the initial idea behind the rails was that they would, especially those that received public aid - it's not like people had rail cars and engines they could just load up on the line and use). Anyway, there's a real problem when people and the economy come to rely on a particular service - but that service is itself not controlled by the public. It gives that asset a great deal of power, and even if it's not *abused intentionally,* any kind of fuck up/change in practices can have drastic repercussions.
[It makes me wonder if that notion of *public control* isn't a huge part of why roads displaced railroads. Sure, the romance of the car, and the efficiency of the truck were huge factors too. But the escape from outside forces, in a quest for *greater* economic autonomy had to be part of it as well.]
I dunno where this leaves us in terms of airlines. I don't know enough about airline regulation or the business of airplanes to make any *pronouncements.* I'm not even 100% on the analogy with railroads (though, the private control of a high-cost asset makes the comparison, prima facie, seem appropriate). But it does make me wonder if we shouldn't have a publicly run airline. It would run lots of major flights between hubs (NY, NJ, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, LA, San Francisco, and Seattle *at least*; and maybe places like Mexico City, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Tokyo). It could run plenty of flights, since costs would be less of a concern. It could run bare bones and straightforward - like Amtrak.
[I believe some of the European airlines work on a system like this, re: having nationalized airlines. Or at least the did at one time. So this seems *possible* at the very least.}
The idea would be the airline would of course pay for itself. I dunno how well this would really work - again, the poor structure of Amtrak and the post office come to mind. Neither really manages to pay for itself. But then again - do they HAVE to pay for themselves? Perhaps, even if subsidized, do they in turn subsidize so much travel and business that it's worth it? (Richard John, in Spreading the News, makes this great argument about how modern newspapers totally grew because of the subsidy of cheap mail transport.) I think part of just rankles that airlines are run so badly already, and still receive public bailouts on the argument that they are "essential" to the economy. Which they are - and lots of normal folks depends on those companies too (for jobs). But part of me is always annoyed that my public money is going to help support a company so shareholders and CEOs can make loads o'cash (that's my populist side). Like I said, I don't enough about air regulation, bailouts etc - but part of me wonders: if these companies are SO essential, why not have a public alternative and just let the private sector fight it out on its own?
What's interesting, to me, about this whole thing is the kinds of problems that arise when infrastructure - a public good - is left in private hands. It recalls the kinds of tensions that arose in the 19th century, in the US, over railroads. I'm not an expert in the rail regulation, but the basic gist was that short hauls were usually less efficient than long hauls. In addition, many minor rail routes served only a few small towns - and there was no competition. This led to really high rates for some farmers, which pissed off said farmers, and led to groups like the Grange pushing for national regulation of railroads. The basic tension was that railroads had become an *essential* factor in moving goods around the country - yet a few private interests controlled this asset (this is in large part a function of the way railroads work; even in the rails themselves are public highways - and the initial idea behind the rails was that they would, especially those that received public aid - it's not like people had rail cars and engines they could just load up on the line and use). Anyway, there's a real problem when people and the economy come to rely on a particular service - but that service is itself not controlled by the public. It gives that asset a great deal of power, and even if it's not *abused intentionally,* any kind of fuck up/change in practices can have drastic repercussions.
[It makes me wonder if that notion of *public control* isn't a huge part of why roads displaced railroads. Sure, the romance of the car, and the efficiency of the truck were huge factors too. But the escape from outside forces, in a quest for *greater* economic autonomy had to be part of it as well.]
I dunno where this leaves us in terms of airlines. I don't know enough about airline regulation or the business of airplanes to make any *pronouncements.* I'm not even 100% on the analogy with railroads (though, the private control of a high-cost asset makes the comparison, prima facie, seem appropriate). But it does make me wonder if we shouldn't have a publicly run airline. It would run lots of major flights between hubs (NY, NJ, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, LA, San Francisco, and Seattle *at least*; and maybe places like Mexico City, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, and Tokyo). It could run plenty of flights, since costs would be less of a concern. It could run bare bones and straightforward - like Amtrak.
[I believe some of the European airlines work on a system like this, re: having nationalized airlines. Or at least the did at one time. So this seems *possible* at the very least.}
The idea would be the airline would of course pay for itself. I dunno how well this would really work - again, the poor structure of Amtrak and the post office come to mind. Neither really manages to pay for itself. But then again - do they HAVE to pay for themselves? Perhaps, even if subsidized, do they in turn subsidize so much travel and business that it's worth it? (Richard John, in Spreading the News, makes this great argument about how modern newspapers totally grew because of the subsidy of cheap mail transport.) I think part of just rankles that airlines are run so badly already, and still receive public bailouts on the argument that they are "essential" to the economy. Which they are - and lots of normal folks depends on those companies too (for jobs). But part of me is always annoyed that my public money is going to help support a company so shareholders and CEOs can make loads o'cash (that's my populist side). Like I said, I don't enough about air regulation, bailouts etc - but part of me wonders: if these companies are SO essential, why not have a public alternative and just let the private sector fight it out on its own?
VIEW 8 of 8 COMMENTS
toothpickmoe:
Now we're talkin'!
toothpickmoe:
I'm so down. Do I get to dress like Snoop Dogg?