Subject:
|
Re: Carryon vs. checked (Re: WTB: 6557 (really, really badly) and 6861
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Mar 1999 22:47:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Mar 1999 04:34:02 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following
profundities...
> 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".
How true. The airports sell a system to the airlines, extolling the
virtues of its wonderful new technology. It fails frequently, is usually
designed for passenger loads at the time when it was budgeted (and as
such is hopelessly overwhelmed, being 2-3 years out of date at start-up).
That tax you pay, PFC, passenger facility charges....
Up to 3 dollars for every airport through which you fly...
It is currently a large slush fund, worth billions, the interest earned
from it being used to subsidise Reagan's budget deficits....
ATA, passenger organisations, numerous other action groups lobbying
for its usage as intended, improving passenger facilities, but not
much luck so far!
It is often the case that any passenger improvements planned by airports
are paid for by forcing the airlines to foot the bill, who in turn
increase fares, etc.
>
> 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? :-)
I don't see that ever happening, and the airport at which I work is a
private concern....
> 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.
Though there are consumer issues concerning hubs, especially
the recent situation in Minneapolis with the Northworst strike,
remember airlines operate on some of the smallest margins of
any industry. It is a phenomenal Wall Street event if any of
them get to 10%! Resource concentration, flight feeding, etc.
all help to reduce the costs. (though with AA and UA posting
2.61 billion (American billion) profits, one might be inclined
to suggest costs are a decreasing concern!)
What must be done to mitigate the issue of hubs would be to
have a massive Lego building room in each terminal, and some
of the best Lego shopping opportunities known to man. That way,
at least the AFOL's would look forward to going through the
"fortress" hubs, so that they can take an hour or so and build
a fortress of their own!
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam dot
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
