Subject:
|
Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 04:34:02 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpien@STOPSPAMMERSiwantnospam.ctp.com
|
Viewed:
|
479 times
|
| |
|
|
Tom McDonald wrote:
> But in the airlines defense, to supply such TLC for luggage requires more
> personnel.
No, it requires luggage handling equipment that does not mangle luggage.
Most rips occur because the equipment is not properly designed, or was
not properly maintained. Since this is typically a shared resource,
owned by the airport itself, rather than the using airlines, it falls
prey to "tragedy of the commons".
Airlines need more power to pass luggage damage claims back against the
airport instead of having to eat them. Then they'd both have incentive
to improve the equipment. But that won't happen as long as the airports
are government owned monopolies (99% of airports are not privately
owned). But you knew I'd say that, didn't you? :-)
When you, gentle reader, are railing against the fortress hubs that
distort the market, remember what made them. Silly governments selling
landing slots forever instead of for a relatively short time. Shorn of
any connection to the market, government authorities run by unelected
officials can make remarkably stupid decisions in a repeatable,
consistent manner.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
Stop the FDIC from spying on us! Go to
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com and sign the petition.
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
