after spending over an hour on the phone yesterday (unsuccessfully) trying to get them to honor the free flight they were supposed to give me, i said fuck it, i'll just pick a different carrier, even if it's a minor inconvenience. turns out a different carrier actually had a much more palatable departure time and a shorter layover, at a mere $10 over what USAir was charging. i happily booked my tickets, and was quite satisfied with myself...
until i found out that the carrier i booked with also happens to be owned by us airways. those fuckers still end up getting my money, i still end up paying $25 to transport my luggage, and they got away with dicking me over three different ways. next time, i'm just going to fly out of charlotte or columbia just to avoid them entirely, even though it's a much longer drive to either airport
they need to just set up a government run airline that's main goal is to break even. kind of like the postal service. if a private company wants in, let them, they just can't charge less than the government airline (similar to what UPS and Fedex do)
if companies can focus on just breaking even or have a little profit instead of constantly red lining it, perhaps they could again concentrate on customer service and not be such dicks.
just a thought. the airlines are practically run and paid for by the government as is so it's not that improbable.
And so why suggest that the government nationalize airlines? That's kind of like saying, "this cancer will make you suffer in the beginning stages, but once it completely takes over your body you'll be fine."
The fact that airlines are such cockscabs hinges entirely on the amount of government red tape involved. When a business is subsidized, it loses all incentive to be profitable or efficient.
[quote name="Verbal"]i would hate to be raped by an ugly person[/quote]
[quote name="ANGEL OF DESEASE"]This kinds of stuff are very gay cause is involved the brain, not the penis[/quote]
while you're busy cooking up another rant, I'll also inject that it seems the height of foolishness to want the same people who are responsible for rolling grenades into childrens' bedrooms and using nuclear weaponry on civilian populations to be involved in an industry that requires a great degree of care and safety
[quote name="Verbal"]i would hate to be raped by an ugly person[/quote]
[quote name="ANGEL OF DESEASE"]This kinds of stuff are very gay cause is involved the brain, not the penis[/quote]
[quote name="Chaohinon"] it loses all incentive to be profitable or efficient. [/quote]
I disagree. if a business has to compete with the government and isn't allowed to charge less than said, then they must find ways to make their service better, to be more efficient than the government or there is no point of their existence unless they are able to offer a lot more than the government airline offers while charging more and having enough demand to maintain it. I still say the example I gave of the postal service is good. the USPS runs and is fairly efficient, but yet there are companies like UPS and FEDex who charge more and do it better IMO, hence why they are able to stay in business.
i'm not sure regulations are necessarily responsible for most airlines being horrifically bad. there are a lot of variables involved, and to be sure, regulation plays a part in it, but it's rather stupid to shrug regulatory efforts off as inherently bad, as that falls into the trap of assuming that economic efficiency is inherently positive. economy without context is rarely a good thing. regulations ostensibly ensure there is some basic standard of service provided and some level of accountability, which is kind of necessary when barriers to entry in a given market are so ridiculously high.
part of the problem is, businesses seem to have an inability to balance customer service with consumer service. the customers, of course, are the stakeholders. the current trend seems to be shafting consumers at every possible opportunity for the sake of maintaining unrealistic growth expectations on a quarterly basis, of course for the sake of the customers. it's a very short-sighted approach, necessitated by a lack of investor's ability to grasp reality (or more realistically, who don't particularly care for anything more than reaping short-term benefits).
with all that said, i'd be wary of nationalizing airline service. take a look at amtrak's rates sometime, you'll see what i mean.
You don't need a blowjob from the man across the desk. At the very least you want someone to be polite, assistful and to solve your problem. We're not a bunch of Paris Hiltons here asking for royal treatment. The Paris Hiltons of society don't really matter anyway.
Right? Ok.
What is the cause for dickhead employees. Most of the time, low motivation. They're made to work long hours for small pay. They're not happy. So you address the source of that problem.
One such as Chao can butt in and say, "but the industry is nationalized, people can take it or leave it, that's why no incentive will be given. No competition."
Two things are being ignored here. 1) The possible dissatisfaction of employees and 2) The possible dissatisfaction of customers.
If things are really that bad for everyone that they merit complaints by both employees and customers, at some point the relevant authority has to take notice. If you flood their office with complaints, sooner or later they will have to.
On the other hand, if you are one disgruntled customer, in the larger scheme of things, its not that important really.
These are my brainstormed thoughts. What do you fellas think? I don't have some sort of dogmatic belief that nationalization cures all ills. I believe that sometimes, when you have to step into new territory, the answers must be discovered through creative means.
when you say customer complaints, you mean consumer complaints. change will only occur when the actual customers, the stakeholders complain. to accomplish that, you need a mass revolt on the consumer side, which is problematic in this specific case.
for example, even if there were a thousand consumers in the same small geographic location, that took the same path as i did, there is ultimately no difference to the customers; the parent company is allowed to operate under several names within the same market providing the same service, creating the illusion of competition. even if one chooses to defect from one company to another, the money still ends up in the pockets of the very organization they tried to avoid in the first place!
perhaps one useful regulation would be to curtail this kind of behavior. it is absolutely a deceptive practice, and it is unreasonable to expect the average consumer to understand that a single body controls multiple businesses within the same limited market. whether or not this illusion of competition is deliberate is immaterial. it's clear to see they are benefiting from this arrangement, and it seems rather anti-competitive to me.
When people harp on about Freedom - 'capitalism upholding free competition', doesn't that appear like a complete farce when the very nature of private run businesses is to veer towards anti-competitiveness and monopoly? In the interest of increasing domination of the market? What a farce I say. What do you say Chaohinon? Can this nature of private run businesses be denied?
[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]when you say customer complaints, you mean consumer complaints. change will only occur when the actual customers, the stakeholders complain. to accomplish that, you need a mass revolt on the consumer side, which is problematic in this specific case.
for example, even if there were a thousand consumers in the same small geographic location, that took the same path as i did, there is ultimately no difference to the customers; the parent company is allowed to operate under several names within the same market providing the same service, creating the illusion of competition. even if one chooses to defect from one company to another, the money still ends up in the pockets of the very organization they tried to avoid in the first place[/quote]
This is clearly deception. You deserve transparency.
I'm I psych major, so let me preface this by saying that this is purely a rant. I'm pretty clueless about the economy.
Anyway, I agree, this is one of the things that anti-trust laws seemingly fail to take into account. Nobody understands these laws anymore, as they've become so unbelievably draconian.
Large corporations seem to have found a way around most of these laws, and it seems nothing can be done to stop them. The AOL/Time-Warner corporation owns far too large of a portion of different media for my comfort. There are far too many examples of phenomenon. It seems, in essence, that the legal concept of a monopoly has become far too literal, and giant holdings companies are allowed to keep taking over more territory as long as don't do it all in one place.
The only clear benefit of allowing this sort of business practice to continue is that up to a certain point, the large companies have both the motivation and the capital to make the largest innnovations. Greed is quite a powerful human motivation, and the current consensus among Americans is that we're going to harness this effect as long as we possibly can. In other words, corrupt business practices may be useful, as long as the company is fiscally obliged to use its excessive profits to actually contribute something to society.
However, this is a clearly flawed plan, because greed tries to find a way out of contributing. For instance, let's say a company is out-maneuvering its competitor by just enough to stay ahead. Now, the business owner could use the profit to create a better product, but this is extremely uncommon once you start looking at the larger corporations. The only way to stay that dominant is to run your business like a war...and in war, victory goes to the faction that doesn't fight the way opposition wants them to fight. In business, this means bending the rules.
In the long run, I really don't know shit about economics, so I'll just pose some thoughts/questions.
1. Do you agree that competition can foster key innovations that benefit mankind?
2. When the government is solely responsible for a certain service, does it not, in effect, tend to operate the same way as a private monopoly would?
3. Where is the balance point between government control and private control? Because it seems, in either case, that both will wind up the same way.
Need a new signature? Why not Zoidberg? (V) (;,,;) (V)
I hate airlines, airports, and flying in airplanes, my ears have a very hard time adjusting to the pressure changes. On the was to Jersey the pain spread from ears to my jaw ond top and back of my head, and it felt something was inside my skull was expanding it very forcefully.
Two things are being ignored here. 1) The possible dissatisfaction of employees and 2) The possible dissatisfaction of customers.[/quote]
thats the problem with ALL big business.
The customer is NOT always right any more because there's so many idiot fuck customers behind you that it's not profitable to worry about a few disgruntled people..money is lost while they talk to you about your concerns cos jimmy and jane shitbrain want to buy that cheap flight (before taxes and without excess luggage charges).
I Fly at least 5 times per year and swear to god i get fucked over in some way or another 3 out of the 5 times.
I'm considering buying a cunting boat and some javelin missiles.
[quote name="ANGEL OF DESEASE"]Peter Theobalds is a full of win.[/quote]
[quote name="HbW"]1. Do you agree that competition can foster key innovations that benefit mankind?[/quote]
Undeniably so. Competition has contributed to innovation. But is competition the only stimulus for innovation?
We are beings who live in a world driven by contradictions. Life is such that we always have to reckon with things. Whether to master the starting of fire to keep warm in the cold, or whether to learn how to hunt certain animals to eat.
It was the need to increase the means of subsistence that lead to tool discovery. In that vein, agriculture was discovered and animal husbandry was discovered. The need to keep things in storages led to pottery. The need to communicate with more than just spoken words led to the development of writing. Early trade of commodities led to simple forms of mathematics.
Thus man must always come face to face with problems to which he must find answers, to live a longer, healthier, safer, convenient and fulfilling life.
Similarly, contradiction between competitors also leads to new discoveries when one faces the other in an antagonistic sense.
But are we so incapable of innovation without having an enemy at the gates, be it a rival company or a rival nation? Is it so unthinkable that gains in innovation can be made through cooperation and sharing of knowledge and ideas rather than withholding them in the name of competition? Do we need competition to find cures for diseases?
I am not convinced that we do. It is so for only those who must justify ‘free competition’ capitalism who become obsessed with this idea to dogmatic levels. But with monopolies and the very natural tendency of private companies to aspire towards monopoly and anti-competition, ‘free competition’ in capitalism is a very short lived feature.
[quote name="HbW"]2. When the government is solely responsible for a certain service, does it not, in effect, tend to operate the same way as a private monopoly would?[/quote]
No. Government o.wned enterprises can bear to operate at a loss to meet demand. The shareholders of a private monopoly can’t bear that for very long. That is the first difference.
However, with a command economic model, nationalized enterprises can be subsidized to continue producing high quantities. So theoretically what may be an economic loss to the individual enterprise is a gain to the national economy. Because through increase of production, goods are made cheap. Since high prices (inflation) occur when goods are in short supply. Cross subsidization of the nationalized enterprises was among the reasons for the break neck speed with which the economy of the SU grew.
[quote name="HbW"]3. Where is the balance point between government control and private control? Because it seems, in either case, that both will wind up the same way.[/quote]
Deep, critical study first. Dismissive conclusions later.
::::::
