It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's a Free Market!

Airline deregulation isn't very sexy, but trips to Paris are. And thanks to the former, the latter is about to become a lot easier:

On March 30, the so-called open-skies agreement goes into effect, allowing airlines based in the United States and Europe to fly across the Atlantic between any two airports in each region. Before the pact, trans-Atlantic flights were governed by separate agreements between the United States and individual European nations. The pacts required airlines to take off or land in their native countries, and limited which airlines could serve certain airports.

For example, British Airways flights bound for the United States had to originate in Britain. And only two United States carriers were permitted to land at Heathrow Airport, near London: American and United.

The happy free market results:

When the open-skies agreement kicks in next week, those restrictions will be lifted, essentially letting the open market dictate all trans-Atlantic routes between the United States and Europe.

More sultry airline deregulation stories here and here. 

Comments

[sage]

Oh, that gives me a tingle right in my swimsuit spot.

[javier]

fuck yeah!!!

Direct flight from Iowa to Amsterdam.

Oh wait, the free market is about NOT wasting resources.

[Things They Don\'t Mention at]

Speaking of airline deregulation, they started letting pilots take their guns on the planes a bit back.

This weekend we had had our first in-plane shooting:

http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=113407

Moneyquote from the Air Marshall spokesperson:

"We know that there was never any danger to the aircraft or to the occupants on board."

lol

[kinnath]

javier, if your in Iowa (like me) you can be assured that you are never flying direct to anywhere of interest.

[sage]

This weekend we had had our first in-plane shooting:

Wow, who got shot? Oh, nobody? It was an AD? Gotcha.

I think there's a simple solution here: Don't let the pilots chamber a round. They probably will never need to and with the reinforced doors they should have plenty of time to rack the slide.

[Click \'n\' Learn]

Meanwhile, here's more "free" market cheer.

Everyone does remember the national debate we had about that, right?

[Marcvs]

javier, if your in Iowa (like me) you can be assured that you are never flying direct to anywhere of interest.

Sure you will: anywhere outside of Iowa.

[MikeP]

Lonewacko,

I read the whole thing. What's objectionable about it, aside from the article's sneering conspiratorial tone?

[Ayn_Randian]

lonewacko - would you care to actually debate a topic, using facts, logic, references or what have you?

Because I'd totally be down for giving you a verbal smackdown.

[Alan Vanneman]

Were the two additional links at the end "sultry" or "sundry"? I can never tell the difference.

[The Bearded Hobbit]

I think there's a simple solution here: Don't let the pilots chamber a round. They probably will never need to and with the reinforced doors they should have plenty of time to rack the slide.

.. I never have one in the chamber (although I would if I were hunting with my pistol) .. I flat-out guarantee that I could be on-target in just about the same time whether I had to jack one in or not ..

.. back OT, this deregulation sounds good .. we should try that on this side of the pond ..

.. Hobbit

[TallDave]

Airline deregulation isn't very sexy,

Boeing!

[Click \'n\' Learn]

1. Was there a public debate about this? Has anyone besides WND mentioned it?

2. You start "harmonizing" here and "integrating" there, and pretty soon you're all tied up in knots and don't know where one country ends and another begins. I realize that matters little to "libertarians" who refuse to even acknowledge *all* the costs of their policies and look only to the bottom line of corporations, but it does matter to the rest of us.

3. "[The future possibility of] serving locations within the U.S. on a competitive basis with U.S.-domiciled airlines" is definitely in line with the preceding failure of "libertarians" to discuss *all* the costs of that which they promote.

Maybe as a publicity stunt Reason could form a singing and dancing group called "Up with Corporations!"

[tarran]

MikeP

The problem is that there will be pilots with brown skin flying over U.S. territory. They will be able to look down at white women who are sunbathing! have you no decency sir, we must protect the virtue of white women from the lusts of the more savage races!

OK. Snark aside, this is a case of the owners of the Air Traffic Control system trying to be responsive to their customers. Take a look at the high altitude enroute charts at http://www.SkyVector.com. You will note that for many routes between points in the Northern United States cross in and out of Canada. Similarly much of the traffic flying over Mexico originates or ends in the United States.

If the A.T.C. system was privately owned, this would raise no eyebrows. I don't remember any protest when cell-phone carriers began to make the networks in Canada, Mexico and the U.S. be compatible. But because the ATC system is government-owned, they freak out.

[MikeP]

"[The future possibility of] serving locations within the U.S. on a competitive basis with U.S.-domiciled airlines" is definitely in line with the preceding failure of "libertarians" to discuss *all* the costs of that which they promote.

Uh... That's a benefit.

[MikeP]

Maybe as a publicity stunt Reason could form a singing and dancing group called "Up with Corporations!"

Incidentally, your point #3 about open skies throughout North America runs directly against the claimed interests of the corporations that run American, United, Delta, Northwest, etc.

[Click \'n\' Learn]

Anyone else care to waste their time pointing out who's basically in charge of corporations, and that they can and do move their money around? Any fifth grade classes out there want to pitch in?

[kwais]

I am pissed off that this is just happening now.

There was a law about what countries planes could take off from, and come too? WTF

Communist bastards. Get your fucking laws off my travel plans, and my corporations. Goddammit already.

Lonewhacko,
Movie to North Korea, or one of the middle eastern countries we haven't invaded yet. They are big on National Sovereignty, and protecting their culture with armed dudes, and all that shit

[kwais]

Lonewhacko,
If I own a corporation, and want to move my money around. Who has the right to tell me where I can and cannot move it. And why?

[tarran]

Hey, lonewacko, why don't you go find a fifth grader and ask him? Then once the 5th grader has finished educating you, you could ask someone a little older to help you out. Once you had worked your way up to the knowledge level of an adult, you could come back here and write what you have learned. I'll bet people will even stop making fun of you once you've educated yourself up to a 9th grade level.

Take your time; we'll wait.

[kwais]

Also for the dude that calls himself
"things that they don't mention on H&R"

So there was a gun accident you say? Kind of like what happens with the police and the military?

Hmm seems to me that guns are dangerous. Maybe we should ban them altogether?

Lets try that maybe in some place like DC first to see if it works shall we?

Maybe we should pass a law preventing pilots from carrying boxcutters too?

[MikeP]

Seriously, Lonewacko, your rhetoric has morphed from "nationalist interests are important" to "corporations always do the worst thing they can."

Not only does the latter have no specific nationalist flavor, it puts your message right in the same box as the worst statists you can imagine.

Is this really the impression the marketing department of Lonewacko Enterprises wants to send?

[Francisco Torres]

1. Was there a public debate about this? Has anyone besides WND mentioned it?

Why would there be a need to have a "public debate" (whatever that means) about opening a market?

2. You start "harmonizing" here and "integrating" there, and pretty soon you're all tied up in knots and don't know where one country ends and another begins.

And?

I realize that matters little to "libertarians" who refuse to even acknowledge *all* the costs of their [sic] policies and look only to the bottom line of corporations, but it does matter to the rest of us.

There is no policy involved in simply opening a market, except common sense. Also, you look at all things from the incorrect perspective: it HURTS the corporations bottom line to have open markets, due to competition.

3. "[The future possibility of] serving locations within the U.S. on a competitive basis with U.S.-domiciled airlines" is definitely in line with the preceding failure of "libertarians" to discuss *all* the costs of that which they promote.

Which are?

[Francisco Torres]

Anyone else care to waste their time pointing out who's basically in charge of corporations[?]

It's a whole other class of people called "stock holders".

and that they can and do move their money around?

Figures, since it is THEIR money, and not yours. Are you arguing from envy?

[Dave W.]

Kwaisie: people get accidentally killed in the military at an alarming rate -- I don't think they are the safety role model here.

Kwixie: Good to see you at the WXIA board. My handle there is "Atticus Finch" in case you want to pal around there. They are just beginning to really get to know me there.

[dr_dog]

Anyone else care to waste their time pointing out who's basically in charge of corporations, and that they can and do move their money around?

Ooh, I know, pick me!

It's Mexicans, right?

[tarran]

Fransisco,

Admit it, all that free-market anarchist stuff is a front; all you really care about is oogling white women lustfully.

[TallDave]

Hmm seems to me that guns are dangerous. Maybe we should ban them altogether?

We also need to ban cars. They kill tens of thousands of people every year. And many of those are children.

You won't give up your car? Do you hate children, you selfish bastard?

[LevStrauss]

Is this the trojan horse for Europe to slip in that airline tax that Chirac was trying to push through the UN? Climate change regulations? I don't see how agreements with individual European nations is a bad thing, I think it actually gives us more leverage, you know divide and conquer. I kind of like competition. European nations wishing to destroy their sovereignty and self determination (through the EU) is their own business but I wonder what the unintended consequences are.

Besides, does anyone wonder why the individual pacts were so restrictive to start? Seems to me like it could have either been collusion for integration or holding deregulation hostage for the cause of integration.

Finally since the judge in any disputes is the ICAO, which is incidentally charged with deciding climate change regulations instead of being included in Kyoto what else is coming down the pike?

I may be looking into it too much, but with every slippery slope that we have fallen down by underestimating the onset since Genesis, I don't think I am unjustified. Whenever I hear about how government just made my life so much better, without dissolution, and how the agreement is going to give us so much benefit I worry. Let's face it, every article out there reads like a PR piece and that is when my BS detector lets off its cautionary alarm.

[Mike Laursen]

You start "harmonizing" here and "integrating" there, and pretty soon you're all tied up in knots and don't know where one country ends and another begins.

Dammit, you're right! Why do we even allow Americans to travel to other countries, anyway?!

It's just going to end up causing harmonization and integration. Especially, with foreign people nowadays speaking our language! We should put a stop to people in other countries speaking English before they take all of our jobs away!

[Click \'n\' Learn]

I'm sorry I didn't talk down enough, but what I meant is that Reason - and some of the commentors here - are basically just useful idiots for the major stockholders of corporations. The names of the companies might change, but the names of the stockholders hasn't. One of the books from FerdinandLundberg (sp) might be helpful for those who want to learn.

I'd comment more, but I need to go celebrate the Mike Gravel news.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Airline deregulation isn't very sexy...

Damn! I'm starting to wonder what happens at those board meetings after you turn the Reason.tv cameras off.

[Mike Laursen]

I believe Ferdinand Lundberg spelled his name with a space between the second D and the first L. I hate to talk down to you, but you may not be aware that you can insert a space character (ASCII 0x20) into his name by clicking (once) with your mouse between the second D and first L, then pressing (once) the wide, narrow key on your keyboard that spans the area directly beneath and adjacent to your C, V, B, N, and M keys.

[bigbigslacker]

"but you may not be aware that you can insert a space character (ASCII 0x20) into his name by clicking (once) with your mouse between the second D and first L, then pressing (once) the wide, narrow key on your keyboard that spans the area directly beneath and adjacent to your C, V, B, N, and M keys."

Don't listen to him. Every time someone does this, another dirty Mexican sneaks into the country.

[Kolohe]

Hey, lonewacko, why don't you go find a fifth grader and ask him?

Now, tarran, that's cheating. You could get your troll-hunting license revoked.

[Aresen]

Marcvs | March 25, 2008, 5:43pm | #

javier, if your in Iowa (like me) you can be assured that you are never flying direct to anywhere of interest.

Sure you will: anywhere outside of Iowa.

The problem for the airlines is finding people to fill the planes flying back into Iowa.

[Kolohe]

people get accidentally killed in the military at an alarming rate

cite please, if esp if you talking about guns and about accidental discharge.

per this pdf which was originally on the SecDef website, total accidental deaths from '94 to '04 were about 400-500 per year - so out of 1.3 million, about 38 per 100,000.

Per the cdc the accidental death rate for 15-34 year olds (approx the military demographic) is also about 32-38 per 100,000. (and if you adjusted to equate with the greater maleness of the military it would be even higher)

So in the aggregate, there ain't no difference. And I can't find the data, but from countless GMTs the majority of these accidental deaths are traffic accidents (and specifically, either drunk or reckless driving, or both)

[Brian Ewart]

Well, I suppose that would explain why Delta keeps emailing me about flights to London starting next month.

[Dave W.]

cite please, if esp if you talking about guns and about accidental discharge.

Sure:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/tillman.hearing/index.html

[Lamar]

"Maybe as a publicity stunt Reason could form a singing and dancing group called "Up with Corporations!"

This is more about leveling the playing field between corporations, not giving them power against the little guy. Come back when they retrofit an Ercoupe to fly across the Atlantic. Then we'll talk about corporate power vs. the little guy.

[LarryA]

I think there's a simple solution here: Don't let the pilots chamber a round. They probably will never need to and with the reinforced doors they should have plenty of time to rack the slide.

Just the opposite, they need to remove the restrictions already in place.

I've talked to several pilots who are also "flight deck officers" when they were taking my concealed handgun classes. The federal rules require the pilot's gun be kept in a lockbox when outside the cabin. This results in pilots having to "handle" their firearms several times a trip instead of just putting it in their holster in the morning and leaving it there all day.

cite please, if esp if you talking about guns and about accidental discharge.

Sure:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/24/tillman.hearing/index.html

Nope. That was a "friendly fire" incident in the middle of combat; nothing to do with a negligent discharge.

Actually, unless they are in an active combat zone, most U.S. military personnel are seldom armed, and very seldom have live ammo.

[Dave W.]

Nope. That was a "friendly fire" incident in the middle of combat; nothing to do with a negligent discharge.

The relevance is that it means that military facts and statistics are bunk. There are tons of accidental deaths in the military. Sometimes they make it into the official stats and sometimes they don't. the military is not a role model of how to do things safely (outside of a war zone anyway), nor should they be.

I mean, we don't have to go all the way back to Pat Tillman to see how careless they are with the truth. In this case, the Air Marshal (maybe not military, but similar) said that the accidental discharge inside the cockpit never posed a risk to anyone. I quoted that above. When they feed you garbage like that, then you know it is time to stop believing them.

Anyway, what you gun-nuts should do is admit the truth: you want people to be allowed to carry guns on planes whether or not they make the planes safer, on balance.

[MikeP]

Anyway, what you gun-nuts should do is admit the truth: you want people to be allowed to carry guns on planes whether or not they make the planes safer, on balance.

Well... It doesn't take a gun nut to think that, if guns don't make planes less safe, it should be okay to carry them.

[Happy?]

Anyway, what you gunnuts should do is admit the truth: you want people to be allowed to carry guns on planes whether the people with the guns make the planes safer or unsafer, on balance.

[Skoal]

Good to see you at the WXIA board. My handle there is "Atticus Finch" in case you want to pal around there.

Anyone who wants to pal around with Dave "The Dub" W better do it quick. After all:

They are just beginning to really get to know me there.

Which means the ban hammer is coming down on his ass any day now.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.