<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- name="generator" content="pyblosxom/1.2 3/25/2005" -->
<!DOCTYPE rss PUBLIC "-//Netscape Communications//DTD RSS 0.91//EN" "http://my.netscape.com/publish/formats/rss-0.91.dtd">

<rss version="0.91">
<channel>
<title>Russ Nelson   </title>
<link>http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/nationalize-airlines</link>
<description>Russ Nelson's personal blog</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
    <title>U.S. Airlines: From Bad to Nationalized?</title>
    <link>http://blog.russnelson.com/economics/nationalize-airlines.html</link>
    <description>&lt;ul&gt;&lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,431213,00.html?cnn=yes&quot;&gt;Time
Magazine&lt;/a&gt; reports that the Air Transport Association is suggesting that
the airlines might have to be nationalized.
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Without having read the report, I can state without fear that
nationalizing anything is a &lt;b&gt;bad&lt;/b&gt; idea.  First, what are the
costs that airlines face?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Landing fees at airports.  Before there&apos;s any talk of
nationalizing, how about dropping landing fees?  That wouldn&apos;t work
very well, because landing fees pay for the operation of the airport,
and the airport is typically municipally funded.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Fuel costs.  Well, fuel costs what fuel costs.  If fuel is too
expensive, and the cost gets carried through into higher ticket
prices, and people aren&apos;t flying, well, maybe it&apos;s because people
prefer not to fly.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Transportation Security Administration.  Oops.  That&apos;s not
paid-for by the airlines.  It&apos;s a cost, but the airlines aren&apos;t paying
it.  You are, even if you don&apos;t fly.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Amortization of airplanes.  They had to pay for the airplanes in
the first place.  That cost, although paid up-front, is accounted for
by reducing the value of the airplanes.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Staff.  Staff are pretty highly paid.  Hard to use fewer of them,
though.  They&apos;re unionized, but unions are a paper tiger in the face
of bankruptcy.  &quot;Wanna keep your jobs?  Take less money.&quot;&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Maybe the airlines can trim some costs, maybe not.  If they go
bankrupt, though, it&apos;s because people don&apos;t want to fly.  They&apos;re not
going to go bankrupt at the same rate.  Some will go bankrupt before
others, and stop operating.  Other companies may be able to pick up
their passengers, and avoid bankruptcy.  Nationalizing the whole
industry assumes that passengers want every flight to continue -- an
assumption based on a price-preference of zero&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Another effect that nationalization will have is to reduce the
pressure for profitablility.  Profitability is price - costs.  An
airline tries to keep its costs down, because its profits are based on
the difference between price of a ticket, and the cost to fly the
passenger.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Airlines can be interesting to run because every flight has a large
fixed cost.  The incremental cost of flying one passenger is very low
-- lower now that fewer flights have food.  This leads to all sorts of
price discrimination as airlines try to over their fixed cost while
still giving everyone a price they can afford and are willing to pay.
Still, that problem goesn&apos;t go away with nationalization.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The problem with nationalization and profitability is that
profitability goes out the window.  Nobody expects a nationalized
business to make money.  You lose control over the costs.  If every
airline has been nationalized, then you lose competition.  Without
competition, you have no reasonable way to set the price of the
tickets.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Nationalization is a major lose, and while airlines and their
stockholders would benefit, the flying passengers would lose, and
taxpayers would lose more.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
  </item>
   </channel>
</rss>