Major airline faces backlash after using ‘ghost flights’ to exploit a legal loophole: ‘They weren’t even selling tickets’::Ultimately, it’s incumbent on lawmakers to take steps to ensure this practice is discouraged.

  • realharo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But wouldn’t a more free market in this case let them do more direct flights to Melbourne without requiring the extra leg?

    The extra leg is only added to get around a specific kind of regulation of the market (limiting how many flights they can do with Melbourne as a destination), it wouldn’t exist otherwise.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Melbourne had unlimited capacity for flights, yes. But that’s where the free market stuff tends to fail in reality, it works if you assume a market without natural limits, but not otherwise.

      • realharo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But a free market solution would be the airport increasing its prices until the demand at those prices matches how much capacity they have (and probably a push to add more capacity, or a build a new airport nearby, etc.)

        The problem from Australia’s point of view is probably that this could cause their own airlines to be out-competed by foreign ones, or it could reduce the number of destinations where flights are viable, etc.

      • w2qw@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are slot limits that regulate that. This is just a policy to benefit domestic airlines while encouraging flights to airports other than Sydney and Melbourne.