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.