I’ll Be Home for the Holidays… If I Can Afford It

View Flying into Michigan

I love being home for Christmas, and am overjoyed at a chance to be at the Mackinac Center during break. The great, snowy state of Michigan is clearly a fitting place to spend the holidays, but if you need to fly in like I did, you may end up asking, “Can I afford it?”

Though prices often depend on when a passenger buys their tickets, statistics show that the average domestic airfare has gone up from $319 in the highest quarter of 2009 to $355 at the start of 2011. This is not surprising as most airlines are basically bankrupt and need a profit for survival. One of the most commonly cited reasons for this is the volatile price of oil, which comprises nearly 35% of operating costs. Within two years it went from $39 a barrel to $100. Mix that with the bad economy causing fewer people to fly, and most observers could assume they knew the reason for the increases.

Though these factors undoubtedly play big roles, there are additional reasons for air travel problems. For instance, American Airlines recently filed for bankruptcy citing union contracts that cost them$800 million a year more in labor costs than their competitors. The Transport Workers Union (TWU) made their own statement after, fearing that workers would lose their contracts and that airplanes would be less safe. Though workers may be asked to take cuts, this is financially preferable to the company dying altogether. As for safety, any airline which wants to stay afloat will take adequate measures to ensure customer satisfaction, safe service and good publicity without union urging.

Regulations also affect ticket costs. Early on, the prices for commercial flights were high, but in 1978 there was a massive deregulation. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, it removed government control over fares and lowered ticket prices by almost 40%. It also allowed for the entry of new, cheaper airlines into the market alongside the luxury carriers. Today, the Department of Transportation recently passed new regulations, requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lost bags, give greater compensation to those bumped from flights and fine any plane which waits on the tarmac for more than three hours. These may be good ideas, but wouldn’t an airline which was seeking to be competitive already try to do these things? If an airline loses my bags I am not going to fly with them again, and they have the price of my future tickets to lose, not just the bag reimbursement. In fact, according to Joshua Mitchell of the Wall Street Journal, the regulations may make things worse, as airlines are three times more likely to cancel flights than wait out the time a little longer on the tarmac. If the fine is applied, the proceeds don’t even go to the passengers, thay go straight to the Department of Transportation.

Environmental regulations are another nightmare for both airlines and passengers. A NCPPR study shows that they contribute significantly to cancellations and delays by inhibiting construction of needed runways. Despite a 25% increase in departures since the 90s, only six new runways were added at major hub airports. A runway which should take two years to build can take ten or more, as airport authorities must obtain a number of permits under federal and state laws regarding environmental concerns. These permits are often further delayed by lawsuits from groups opposed to new construction.

Perhaps the key to enjoying cheaper flights and a more stable airplane industry is just to trust the free market. Freedom – that is what I want to find in my stocking and in my state. Happy Holidays from the Mackinac Center’s interns!

Not from the Onion

Here is a great letter written to several professor by Don Boudreaux:

It’s science.  (HT Caleb Brown)

Don
http://www.cafehayek.com/
………………………………….

1 February 2010

Professors Julian D. Marshall, Ryan D. Wilson, Katie L. Meyer, Santhosh K. Rajangam, Noreen C. McDonald, Elizabeth J. Wilson
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Dear Professors:

I just read your paper entitled “Vehicle Emissions during Children’s School Commuting: Impacts of Education Policy,” published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

In this paper you argue that increased school choice – by promoting more vehicular traffic – might have a detrimental impact on the environment.  As such, you suggest that policies to enhance school choice not be adopted unless and until they pass environmental muster.

Your insight is a real eye-opener, with implications far beyond the narrow issue of K-12 school choice!

For example, why limit your study to proposals for K-12 educational choice?  Too many young men and women who leave home to attend college surely commute too far – some actually going across the country! – thus poisoning everyone’s lungs in their selfish quest to attend the colleges of their choice.  Your research will likely discover that it’s best to prohibit Americans from attending colleges far from home.

And why stop with education?  Perhaps your next study can be on the environmental impact of supermarket choice.  After all, with people free to drive wherever they wish to buy groceries, it’s almost certainly the case that too many of us drive hither and yon unnecessarily, wasting our time and fouling the air.  I’ll bet that your research will show that restricting each American to shopping only at that supermarket nearest his or her home will reduce vehicular emissions and, hence, help the environment.

Indeed, the possibilities suggested by your research are infinite.  No telling how much filth is spit into our environment everyday by people needlessly driving to churches, restaurants, shopping malls, physicians’offices, night clubs – even friends’homes – when they could easily go to churches, restaurants, etc. – and even to the homes of friends – who are located closer to their where they live.

I look forward to reading your follow-up research.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Think Before You Take Action

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

Here’s a letter I sent to the Midland Daily News today.

Dan Foster recently stated that decreasing our consumption of foreign oil by increasing fuel efficiency and utilizing alternative energies “…will improve our national security, revive our economy and clean the air” (Take Action, Aug 3).  Although I wish this assertion were entirely true, I find it hard to believe that such a beneficial venture would pass by entrepreneurs unnoticed.

First off, artificially decreasing the importation of oil from abroad would likely worsen our national security, not improve it.  If a foreign nation is generating wealth by trading with the United States, that same foreign nation would have no incentive to attack the source of its prosperity.  If, on the other hand, trade was cut off for political reasons – there would likely be conflict proving Frédéric Bastiat’s point – “If goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”

Second, if reducing the consumption of oil truly helps “revive the economy” – Why not pass a law banning the use of oil in all automobiles?  This would really stimulate the economy!  It would divert resources from the productive sectors of the economy and place them in the automotive sector.

Lastly, I do agree with Dan that a decrease in the consumption of oil leaves the air cleaner.  Unfortunately, since air is owned by no one, it is impossible for any individual to place a value on slightly cleaner air for society.  In fact, any commodity not owned privately will become victim to what Garrett Hardin called tragedy of the commons.  Pollution of the air is a perfect example.

In short, the reason we use oil to fuel our automobiles is to give individuals what they want – Cheap transportation.  If an individual truly shared Dan’s desire for fuel efficiency, they would pony up the extra dough to purchase the same hybrid he just purchased.  A well functioning economy should fulfill the desires of each unique individual consumer, not the desires of one individual.

Kurt Bouwhuis

Sarcasm??? I Hope So….

penguinKurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

“We’ve heard a lot of whining over the last few months that the “cost” of coming climate change legislation will kill jobs, destroy industry, kick puppy dogs, sicken orphans … basically the same old barge filled with scary warnings that have been used since time immemorial about every major piece of environmental legislation (if history is any judge of the efficacy of these warnings, we could pass new climate change bills from today until the end of time and not destroy the economy).” – Eric B. – Michigan Liberal

If climate change bills don’t hinder the economy – why not abolish pollution of any kind all together?  Surely, making it illegal to pollute will make production much less costly.

This logic is faulty and here’s why: If environmentally friendly solutions make production so much easier, why are profit seeking individuals not capitalizing on the new opportunities.  Additionally, I find it hard to believe that restricting individuals from conducting voluntarily transactions is some how going to make people better off.

Lastly, it would be difficult to measure all the effects of any one piece of legislation.  If wind turbines are made mandatory, and GDP goes up by .1%, we cannot say that the wind turbines caused the .1% increase.  Each and every year, thousands of new laws are passed, all of which affect the actions of millions of individuals that some call “the economy.”

Coldest Hot October Ever!

asnow1By: Isaac Morehouse at the SFE Blog
Posted on November 17, 2008

Another one for the “doomsday prophets falsifications” file.  After reporting that last month was the hottest October on record, Al Gore’s favorite scientist had to (once again*) retract his findings:  From the Telegraph:

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs – run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph – GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic – in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

*Also from the article – “In 2007 he was forced [...] to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Mackinac Center Current Comment :: 17 July 2008

<>< Josh Rule : : 2008 MCPP Intern

Director of the Mackinac Center’s Property Rights Network, Russ Harding has an incredible Current Comment today.  Incredible in the sense that I can hardly believe that what He is writing is true, but I do not deny that it is.  It seems that yet another state agency in Michigan is trying to shape Michigan’s economy to its own desires through central planning.  The Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) has been doing this type of central planning since 1995, and during that time Michigan has continued to fall further and further behind, economically.  I am not saying that  MEGA caused the state’s economic woes, but they certainly have not helped to prevent or remediate them.

Yet, MEGA is not the culprit here.  Instead, it is the Department of Environmental Quality.  Someone in the department “dedicated to protecting human health and to preserving a healthy environment” has decided that the best way to protect & preserve is to selectively choose which businesses are best in which parts of the state and deny access to others based on primarily social reasoning.  Truly, this development is a dangerous one, but to find out precisely why, I encourage You to go ahead and read Russ Harding’s Current Comment.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.