Capt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Capitalism and free markets have always been restrained to varying degrees by governments-as to whether that is a good thing, I don't know-would make an interesting conversation.
Hypothetically speaking, I'm not sure the British gov't would allow BA to go under-maybe they would, I guess it depends on the degree to which the population would be inconvenienced, and whether it would be possible for other airlines to satisfy the subsequent surge in demand. But overall, I don't think the party in power would be happy to allow it-the people may vote them out for causing such chaos and misery (not to mention all the unemployment that would result).
Isn't that why Bush decided to help out US steel producers-domestic politics?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Compared to US and some European carriers, the UK goverment has done little to 'protect' BA. And the post sept. 11th the insurance cover will lapse soon, and guess which goverment is lukewarm to an extension or creating an airline mutual scheme?
Carmy From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
I would hardly call SIA subsidised by the government. Very early on in the airline's history it was made sufficiently clear to the airline that if they couldn't make it by themselves in the industry, it was their problem and not the government's. SIA has never reported a loss since its seperation from Malaysian Airlines in 1972. The only other airline which can boast a similar record is Southwest, and even they are a budget airline and in a completely different league from SIA. This loss-free record is the reason why SIA can afford to continually renew their fleet with new planes. Absolutely nothing to do with government subsidies of any sort.
I don't see how SIA can have any sort of domestic domination. You can drive from one end of Singapore to the other end in like 40 minutes. If you took a plane it'd take like 40 seconds to get from one end to the other. Singapore from its most eastern point to its most western point is barely more than 40 kilometres. SIA has absolutely no domestic market to fall back on and all of the company's revenue comes from its international routes and customers.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Blair & the Dutch prime minister are both socialist and I believe even friends ... Labor is a socialist party but whats the problem about that ? Many socialist government in western europe for the past 50 (?) years
Singapore wouldn´t be on the world map as presently without SQ airlines. That is why the government has some very good tax deals & landing rights for them, gave them a great Hub, allows very uncivilized labor (recruitment) situations etc .
Its al possible Singapore is economical succesfull, is needly located between EastAsia & Europe and most of all :
is Definately Not A Democracy ...
But passengers don´t know / want to see this. They just get a great product /service, no question about that !