The prospect of a stand off between Brussels and the airlines (“Brussels pressed to alter ‘ghost flight’ rules”, Report, January 10) invokes a fascinating question over deregulation and liberalisation: is the airline business actually a free market service, or is it regulated ultimately by Brussels and Washington? Moreover, the airport slot rule (“use it or lose it”), to which the story refers is evidence of the lack of co-ordination between public and private sectors, such that they often work at financial cross-purposes.
Our global aviation sector is made up of the “3 As” — airports, airspace, and airlines. Only one of these — airlines — has a generally widespread degree of private, commercial autonomy: the other two are, on a global average, either owned, controlled or operated by government (some operating under government privatisation licence).
This seems to leave two choices: either deregulate airports and air traffic control to harmonise competition policy across the transport network, or re-regulate airlines back into an integrated, co-ordinated public utility transportation system. Given environmental goals, the latter may be more effective, economically efficient and even consumer friendly.
This leaves the so-called low-cost, or discount carriers. As they generally duplicate what more traditional airlines provide (movement of people and freight between two points using the same technology systems) their value proposition appears somewhat tenuous, if overall system efficiency is desired. Actual structural alternatives — high speed rail, digital telepresence, or new electric air vehicle technology — are truer expressions of competition economics.
Matthew G Andersson
President, Indigo Aerospace
Chicago, IL, US
Letter: Is a free market for airlines simply pie in the sky?
Pinoy Variant