• a Kendrick fan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    That the FAA had to save money by not doing one of their most important job meant American lives got cheaper, didn’t it?

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Both? They need so much regulation and control that it makes sense to just cut out the middle men.

            The manufacturers are so heavily subsidized by the government they might as well be publicly owned anyway.

            • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Too much government control of the airlines was definitely detrimental after WWII. They couldn’t compete on prices, couldn’t adapt to changing routes, and couldn’t really cost optimize anything. Deregulating the non-safety aspects improved air travel a lot.

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                There wasn’t government control of the airlines, just regulations. Protectionist regulations.

                The airlines were still privately owned and the government gave them sweetheart deals and intentionally limited the entry of new competition into the industry, allowing the formation of monopolies of the legacy airlines. There was no incentive for increasing the number of carriers because that would hurt profits, and the regulations helped by making entry into the market even harder.

                That problem goes away if you just seize the airlines and run them as public utilities.

                  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Electoral pressure would incentivize keeping prices and costs lower; voters actually get a say in how public utilities are run.

                    What’s the incentive for raising operating costs? No one is profiting from it.