[Retric]

Deregulation had far less impact on prices than people generally quote. Getting out of the energy crisis did a lot to shift prices quickly which made it seem like deregulation was suddenly working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis

Longer term Airlines got a lot better and a lot cheaper worldwide at roughly the same rates because things like fuel economy and engine maintenance timescales skyrocketed.

[opo]

The general consensus among economists is that deregulation had a big effect on airline prices. For example:

>...Every serious study of airline deregulation in the intervening years has found that travelers have indeed benefited enormously. As we documented in our 1995 Brookings book, The Evolution of the Airline Industry, airfares, adjusted for inflation, fell 33 percent between 1976—just before the CAB instigated regulatory reforms—and 1993. Deregulation was directly responsible for at least 60 percent of the decline—responsible, that is, for a 20 percent drop in fares. And travelers have benefited not only from low fares, but from better service, particularly increased flight frequency.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-fare-skies-air-transp...

[Retric]

Percentage drops don’t add they multiply.

A 20% drop on its own is 20%, but if prices fell 33% it requires a separate 16.25% drop not a 13% drop. Meaning deregulation was responsible for 55% of the total decline for the numbers to work out.

PS: If they’re confused or lying in just that blurb I’d question the rest of their analysis.

[opo]

33 * .6 = 19.8

My general feeling is always that if someone is going against the consensus of the experts who have studied something (whatever the issue is - it could be climate change or GMO food or effects of airline deregulation or whatever) I think the burden of proof is on the person who claims the experts are all wrong.

[Retric]

Try and make what you did work.

  33 * .6 = 19.8
  33 * .4 = 13.2

  1 - (19.8 / 100) = 0.802
  1 - (13.2 / 100) = 0.868

  0.802 * 0.868 = 0.696136

  (1 - 0.696136) * 100 = 30.38% discount not 33%

Thus your burden of proof. Either they are utterly incompetent or lying.

[Retric]

Thinking about this some more what they said is just as wrong as saying 2 + 2 = 5, but people are apparently innumerate enough not to notice.

I’m not sure if I should applaud the blazing disregard for people’s intelligence or appreciate that it works.

[opo]

Lol. It is pretty clear that the key point of the summary I quoted was that the consensus among economists who have studied this was that at least 60% of the decline in airfare prices can be attributed to deregulation. You didn’t need to put in all this effort to misinterpret it. (No one was adding percentages or whatever you were claiming.) Them rounding to the nearest multiple of 10 is reasonable - not rounding would be implying a higher precision than is really warranted.

If anyone is reading this thread, it illustrates a problem common in on-line discussions. Someone will make a big claim that contradicts the consensus of the experts in the fields who have studied the issue. (I have found that when discussions touch upon economics, it is virtually guaranteed, but it happens in many areas.)

Someone then points out that if the person is correct and the consensus position of the experts who have studied this issue are all wrong, the burden of proof is on them. The original poster won’t try and do this but will instead try to come up with a reason that those who devote their careers to actually studying these issues can’t be trusted or are incompetent, etc. Unfortunately, at this stage, the person is usually even more entrenched in their personal pet theory. They usually aren’t so blatant as to say “Either they are utterly incompetent or lying.”, but that is where we are.

[Retric]

You’re assuming they are accurately describing results of the field. They are not and in fact the field didn’t come up with such quotable round numbers.

I can point to plenty of research that says otherwise, but when you quote someone saying 1 + 2 = 4, they don’t merit a more comprehensive rebuttal but to simply point and laugh.

The guy being quoted presumably came up with numbers from thin air which is why they both don’t make sense and don’t line up with actual research.

[stevenwoo]

I am not an expert, just recalling the latest thing I heard/read about the subject but I think we can both agree that in the 1950-1960s inclusive, flying was not egalitarian as it was after the changes in operating environment we discuss.

[vel0city]

Yeah I mean you hear about what a lot of airlines were like and many domestic first/business class seemingly don't even compare despite energy costs were significantly higher.

[refurb]

Airline regulation set floor prices to certain routes so I’m not sure how the energy crisis resolving would have fixed that.

[Retric]

Which is why I said less of an impact not zero impact.

Regulators didn’t set floor prices to wildly unreasonable levels. So yes, it did modestly lower prices and service quality because airlines now competed in different ways. But we’re talking the difference in the cost of an inflight meal etc not some wildly different number. For that you needed wildly more efficient aircraft from other companies.

Post regulations we also got lots of bankruptcies and bailouts which shifted costs from consumers to taxpayers.