This coming from someone employed in our newer universities as a travel policy analyst:
Nicole Badstuber is a transport policy and travel behaviour researcher at University College London and the University of Westminster
OK, airlines all going bust, they need – at least desire – bailing out and so on. So, how should government so this?
Our brave researcher then talks about how emissions must fall anyway and therefore:
With a stake in the airlines, the government could directly oversee a policy of reducing air travel, which would be part of a wider low-carbon transport strategy. Applying pricing tools such as a frequent flyer penalty, carbon emissions-based tax or airport user surcharge would discourage air travel.
Real brainbox stuff, don’t you think? For if you own the airlines then you don’t need the pricing tools, do you? You own the airlines so you can just jack up prices anyway. Or, as would actually happen, get government running them and prices will rise, quality fall and the job would be done anyway. We do actually have experience of this, we used to have state run airlines and they got wiped by the lower prices and better service of the independents when they were allowed. Yes, hard to believe, but Ryanair service is actually better than BA’s used to be. In the full and in the round that is, the proof being the growth of Ryanair as a result of people freely choosing it.
The pricing tools are what you do to a service that you don’t own, that you’re not directly in charge of. Because only be interfering in those prices can you influence the decision to fly or not.
That expansion of the universities was a bad idea, wasn’t it?
No, it gets worse. Of her three pricing policy proposals she does seem to have missed that we’ve got the latter two anyway.