[Reason077]

It's interesting how airports, especially regional airports, are often heavily subsidised in the US. But bus terminals, apparantely, are something that the private sector should provide without government support. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[tehjoker]

Yes, but also airlines will completely fail without government support. The only aspect of aviation that is private is the buying a ticket and purchasing and operating planes, creating a thin fiction of a free market. Everything else is supported. The airports, the airline manufacturers (that also make expensive weapon systems via govt. contracts), the fuel system (supported by endless diplomacy, monetary policy, and war), radar and satellite networks, subsidies when revenue can't support operations.... it goes on and on.

The airlines are critical to a big country like the US when our passenger rail networks are so slow, so the government supports it. They should also support bus networks etc. I suspect much of their road policy is designed to support Americans buying cars, the second biggest purchase next to a house that most people buy. It's very cynical.

[tim333]

The airline industry seems to work everywhere in the world regardless of the subsidy situation so I doubt it'd fail without support. A lot of subsidies seem to come from regions competing with each other eg. subsidise Boeing so the jobs don't move to Airbus/Europe, expand London airports so they don't switch to Paris etc.

[veqq]

Airlines are subsidized all around the world, and incinerate money everywhere. Very few airlines are profitable over even short periods. In the US, Southwest is the only one whose shareholder equity's grown in the last 5, 10, 20 or how many years you want.

[Marsymars]

> The airlines are critical to a big country like the US when our passenger rail networks are so slow, so the government supports it.

How does this follow? If they're critical and highly subsidized, that implies the value that people get out of tickets is much higher than what they're paying, so people should be willing to pay much higher prices if subsidies are ended.

[elashri]

They are critical because of the lack of practical alternative means. There is no train rail system that reach the same level of coverage. Even if you forget about the price and time, there isn't a usually route using rail system for most A-B points.

[tehjoker]

Airline tickets are already cost sensitive, it doesn't follow that people can pay more individually just because the societal benefit is very high.

[dzhiurgis]

Buses already rely on private car drivers subsidising them via road damage. Bus can do 10,000-20,000 times more damage. Extrapolate that and it’s actually cheaper to be in a taxi.

[bmsan]

I wonder if that's true. With the volume of taxis necessary to replace busses, you have to think about the increased fuel and maintenance costs, the increased costs related directly to traffic, and indirectly in the form of losses from accidents, etc.