| ▲ | gruez 2 hours ago |
| Company makes too much money: "they're extracting monopolist rents! They need to be a regulated utility!" Company makes too little money: "there's no money in this industry! They need to be a regulated utility!" |
|
| ▲ | gorgoiler an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| A more fair assessment would be: company runs a utility => they need to be a regulated utility! The core part of air travel doesn’t really feel any different to a bus or metro or train. Off the tarmac then yes it absolutely feels like a Verizon store, as does some of the in-flight service, but there’s always been this weird feeling as a traveler that every carrier is basically the same thing but with different decals on it. Airline alliances are surely the ultimate example of this. |
| |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg an hour ago | parent [-] | | Have you ever flown spirit or any of the other ultra low cost carriers? It very much is a different experience than flying a legacy domestic mainline carrier. I’m not alone amongst people i know who will happily fly the cheap seats on United/Delta/AA but won’t even look at a ticket from Spirit or Frontier even at a significant discount. Compare it to a flag carrier like Singapore air and it is a shockingly different product. All that’s an aside: we know what regulated airlines look like since we already tried it, much more expensive, with airlines competing not on price but on amenities. | | |
| ▲ | tshaddox an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve flown Spirit and Frontier several times, and Southwest many times (I know they’re not quite in the same category, especially after their recent changes). I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to regarding the experience being wildly different. Other than a few quirks about what they do and don’t charge for and how they board and assign seats, I feel like there’s almost no meaningful difference between these and legacy carriers like United and American. I honestly don’t even feel like the prices are consistently that different. | | |
| ▲ | 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The two main differences are more armchair lawyering required to avoid fees (legacy carrier is often not going to put your bag in the dimension bin, but the Spirits and Frontiers of the world certainly will) and having to sit through three sales pitches instead of one on the legacy airlines. I think Delta is the only legacy carrier in the States that doesn't do obnoxious sales pitches - only the food cart upsell. Ryanair will come through with their hands out minimally three times since last time I rode them (though it's been several years, is it four now?) One other difference I can think of is that carry-ons are more rarely included in the base fare in the budget airlines than the legacy airlines, though maybe that has also gone away since the changes where bags must be included in the listed price that Southwest pushed for. |
| |
| ▲ | 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jmspring 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You state an opinion, but not why for that opinion. I’m mostly stuck with Alaska or a small handful being a couple hours north of Seattle and driving to/dealing with SeaTac is not fun. In the caliber you said you wouldn’t travel includes aliegent. I’ve not flown them and stick to Alaska and the local puddle jumpers to get off the island. | |
| ▲ | RajT88 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | My company travel tool won't even let me book Spirit without it being flagged to HR. | |
| ▲ | fcarraldo 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Singapore Air is majority government owned and is closer to having “utility” airlines than not. | | |
| ▲ | SOLAR_FIELDS 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Conversely, Air India was majority government owned, did a pretty bad job of it, and is now privately owned. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | devilbunny 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Meanwhile, first class today is not very much more than coach cost in the regulated era. Try flying Delta. It isn’t the cheapest option, but you really do get better service. If you want to feel special, do Aeromexico first class. The checked bags are waiting for you before you can even walk there on a domestic flight. Spirit was cheap. And if you’re poor, you need cheap. If you aren’t, buy better service and don’t complain that it’s just Greyhound on a plane. |
| |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr an hour ago | parent [-] | | Am I the only one who really doesn't care what kind of service I get on a plane? I don't drink alcohol, so I don't care about that. I bring my own water bottle, so I'm good on that. The little bags of pretzels are nice, but if they stood at the front and launched them out of a t-shirt cannon, I'd be good with that. As long as the required crew of flight attendants doesn't assault me, I've never really got off a plane thinking anything at all about the service. Just "where do I need to go next" or "I'm glad to be home". | | |
| ▲ | jhgorrell an hour ago | parent [-] | | When your flights are delayed/resechduled there is a world of difference.
"Get in line" vs "you are already rebooked". (my Air Canada experince.) | | |
| ▲ | alister 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > "Get in line" vs "you are already rebooked". (my Air Canada experince.) Which of the two was the Air Canada experience? | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Fair enough, I've been in those situations where the service on the ground side of the gate matters. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mysecretaccount 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even with your uncharitable framing I agree with both quotes. |
| |
| ▲ | jmalicki an hour ago | parent [-] | | Can you educate the rest of us by explaining your reasoning? | | |
| ▲ | throwawayqqq11 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Breaking down complex topics into binary black and white doesnt have to be wrong. The more important part is, how much wealth they extracted and how exactly. Was it market dominance with a superior product or amoral cost externalization. The angle of treating transportation as regulated utility shifts the business focus away from profit onto providing services, which sometimes can cost more than your income. Similarly, would you close schools, because they didnt make enough money? Airlines are highly subsidized anyway, treating them as regulated utilities falls short of taking public ownership as public institutions, where services just cost money/subsidies. | | |
| ▲ | kennywinker 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Utilities and transportation should be public services, and they are in many places. Sometimes it works well, other times it works less well… usually because the capitalists lobby it into neglect and then say “see it’s not working / losing money let the private sector take over”. |
| |
| ▲ | roxolotl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not op but I also agree with the framing assuming you add “and they provide a vital service” to both. If a vital service is being used to extract profits it should be regulated so that equal access to the vital service can be provided. If a vital service is being provided but cannot make money it should be regulated so that it can be sustained since it is vital. Now what is vital? Is Spirit vital? That’s the hard to define part. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!" 2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!" These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies. | | |
| ▲ | sailfast 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money." |
|
| |
| ▲ | kennywinker 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The extremes of capitalism have a negative impact on people’s lives. The first scenario it harms us by under-serving and scammy practices, the second scenario it’s over-extractive and funneling money from the many to the few. | |
| ▲ | bigyabai an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Companies like John-Deere should be able to survive without abusing their downstream customers. Many farmers are importing tractors from China because they're cheap and not hostile to repair like JD is. Some people might call it a "smart business model" to sell interdependent services, but in the long-term it's suicide. Whether or not you solve this through regulation, that's up to you. | | |
| ▲ | card_zero 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It would be nice if companies could commit suicide faster, instead of dragging it out over several decades. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | lostlogin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Company, always: "We need government subsidy". Then hell yes to regulating what they do. |
| |
| ▲ | filoleg an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Spirit wasn't asking for a government subsidy to get saved from bakruptcy. They were asking to be allowed to get merged with JetBlue (which could've saved them from bankruptcy) and got denied by the government. Those two things aren't the same. | | |
| ▲ | rogerrogerr an hour ago | parent [-] | | My understanding is that the Spirit/JetBlue merger was blocked by the Biden DOJ. Were they asking for that again, or was it a different thing that failed in negotiations with the feds recently? | | |
| ▲ | gizmo686 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The negotiations that were occuring directly prior to Spirit's shutdown were not merger related; but a direct government bailout. |
|
| |
| ▲ | happyopossum an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nobody asked for a government subsidy here, so what’s with the straw man? |
|
|
| ▲ | hilariously 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Company is valuable to us as a society in a fundamental way but is fucking us up in all sorts of unique ways: They might need to be a regulated utility. |
|
| ▲ | themafia an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Okay, but the process of underwriting an airline now somehow involves operating a successful credit card company. Which, you know, are not typically successful based upon operating excellence but upon rapaciousness of interest rates and merchant fees. I'm not sure it's great to have important infrastructure operated this way. Other than regulation do you see a way out? |