A Stitch in Haste

Airline has-been Robert Crandall pens a remarkably schizophrenic op-ed on the ills afflicting, and his proposed cures for, American commercial air travel:

Although the system could conceivably be operated by a single efficient carrier, consumers clearly benefit from the existence of multiple airlines. The absence of competition never fosters better customer service.

No argument there (unless you're a health care socialist, in which case multiple insurers and providers competing for autonomous customers is, somehow, the worst free-market idea since the Edsel).

Market-based approaches alone have not and will not produce the aviation system our country needs.

So "competition" is good, but "the market" is bad? Don't worry — I don't understand it either.

The first steps toward achieving these goals should be to improve our outdated air traffic control system, to build much-needed new runways and airport facilities, and to lower the heavy taxes and fees now imposed on airlines and their customers.

"Air traffic control," "runways and airport facilities" and "heavy taxes and fees" are, for those who might be unclear on this, "the government," "the government" and "the government." Which somehow equates to "market failure." Go figure.

The financial standards for new airlines also need to be made more stringent. In the years since deregulation, nearly 200 airlines have come and gone. These inadequately financed carriers — whose principal goal has often seemed to be merely to exist long enough to reap the rewards of an initial public offering — have consistently cut prices to attract passengers. This downward pressure on prices has hurt airlines that seek long-term success.

Offering lower prices is bad? Competition is good, except when it works?

When Crandall writes, "the absence of competition never fosters better customer service," he seems to mean only the "right" kind of competition (but not price competition — that "hurts" the industry) and only the "right" kind of competitor (meaning his kind of competitor — people who, again, think price competition is "hurtful").

We should also revisit the basis on which we negotiate international aviation agreements. Since the 1980s, our government has too often agreed to "consumer friendly" pacts whose sole apparent purpose has been to try to lower prices for travelers.

Again, "competition = good" — but "price competition = bad." Somehow.

I suppose Crandall would have us return to the pre-deregulation, Civil Aeronautics Board, "jet set" days when "competition" only meant who offered the tastiest meals served by the sexiest flight attendants. But all at a price that most Americans could never afford, of course — wouldn't want to "hurt" the industry by lowering prices, remember.

(And note that Crandall says nothing whatsoever about our protectionist, even xenophobic rules about foreign ownership of U.S. airlines and our ban on foreign airlines running strictly domestic routes. File that under "competition, but not really" as well.)

Finally, we need to restore balance to the relationship between management and labor in the airline industry. Revising our bankruptcy laws to prevent failed airlines from continuing to operate would focus management and labor on the virtues of cooperation rather than confrontation. Similarly, binding arbitration of labor disputes would encourage both sides to avoid unreasonable positions and would free the nation's transportation system from the threat of work stoppages.

Government coercion in labor relations, government coercion in bankruptcy law, government coercion in the ability to litigate. Again, all so only the "right" kind of people — meaning only Robert Crandall and people who think exactly like him — are able to faux-compete for the government-spawned privilege of charging higher ticket prices.

Rate regulation of airlines is dead — long live rate regulation of airlines!

More thoughts from Windypundit.