My favourite quote is: "Creating policy in response to outliers is an unusually imperfect and risky business". I suspect that depends on the nature of the "outlier". The more egregious the outlier, the higher the likelihood of policy intervention. The vast majority of the population do not, for example, engage in illegal activities. Should we ignore those activities as outliers?

Its unfortunate that we've reached a point - globally - where airline behaviour has become so poor that policy interventions are required. The author would do well to dwell on airline behaviour instead. If he had advised his member airlines to sort out IDB compensation, CTA wouldn't have had to make a policy intervention. For some reason, he didn't.

Even for a paid lobbyist, this is very intellectually lazy stuff. I'm actually embarrassed for him.

Can and should AC be better in the future...yes

Should govt intervene now...maybe

Was AC better in the past...definitely NO

http://www.intervistas.com/downloads...July2008_h.pdf

how about a little contest, count how many of the airline service improvements identified by the eminent aviation economist Dr. Mike Tretheway points out in this article were directly caused by state intervention ? the answer less than you might think

ps...And if you think for a second, state intervention comes for free, I have a 4 inch thick book to lend on the theory of the firm under regulation for some bedtime reading that will dissuade you from such a wrongheaded way of thinking

Does reasonable IDB compensation count as an "airline service improvement? Because that's what we're really talking about - using economic penalties to change airline behaviour away from its current "passenger hardship does not matter if it suits the airline's bottom line" approach.

As for state intervention, a democratic state may impose rules on airlines on behalf of its people it represents. This really isn't a big deal. No one expects them to put forward unreasonable policies. The real problem here is that airlines need to be compelled by policy to be reasonable.

If we can all agree on a definition of “reasonable” this would be a recipe for air service nirvana.

I won’t be holding my breath anytime soon, and as plainly evident, forcing airlines to undertake a so-called reasonable IDB policy that other airlines choose NOT to use overbooking is actually putting the thumb of govt on the playing field, tilting the game.

this does not protect consumers in any way, it’s simply drives up costs for the rest of us, when the marketplace does offer alternatives for those who consider IDB un- acceptable- and if your E75k or SE then you directly have access to IDB, whether you use it or not

but how about I make a proposal for everyone’s consideration, how about government intervene in communications between airlines that have IDB as a tool, and make it absolutely evident with a big red notice either a ticket or at the time of purchase that this could happen,

market intervention should be about transparency not tilting the game as we are not children and we can make adult decisions if were properly informed

Tilting the game? I don't follow.

The issue here isn't IDB. It's IDB compensation. If an airline chooses to inconvenience pax by pursuing IDB, it should compensate those pax accordingly. The government intervention here is levelling the playing field by establishing what reasonable pax compensation is for any airline that chooses to go down the IDB route. Same policy for all = level playing field, no?

If IDB is raising the cost of your ticket in an age of record profits, then I'm afraid the higher cost you're paying has precious little to do with IDB compensation policies.

Either way, how come you're in favour of the Government intervening in communications to explain IDB can happen? Why should it have to? AC can, after all, advertise that voluntarily, can it not? On the one hand, you appear to be against policy interventions, but on the other hand, you seem to accept that policy interventions are required to change airline behaviour. Which is it?

pax agree to IDB & the level of existing compensation in the AC contract so how is this inconvenient? Chose WJ if you do not wish to be inconvenienced!!!

you mean temporary record profits, arising from airlines pocketing the oil price crash...oh yeah Brent Crude today traded over $78 usd...ouch

in no way did I say that there should be zero intervention, I pointed out the cost of intervention which depends on the scale of action, and a key component of the marketplace is a buyer and seller being fully informed, so better marketplace communication is a highly recommended approach in the toolbox in the theory of the firm under regulation, And for Air Canada, this is already underway with regards to full price disclosure on the reservation system.

and if we wish to be serious about this, I would like to call out the minister of transport for sitting and supporting a cabinet policy for the legalization of cannabis, when the government of Canada has no way at present for a legally acceptable process for determining intoxication of flight crews, maintenance people etc.

so if the government wishes to intervene in the marketplace, probably a focus on public safety first is in everyone’s best interest

The contract wasn't divinely revealed to AC by God. It was written by AC to suit AC. If parts of it are inadequate or unreasonable, they should be changed. If they don't do it voluntarily, the government should intervene. That's what happened with IDB and that's what's happening with this passenger rights thing.

Communications is great and all, but for whatever reason, airlines have chosen not to use it so far. You never seem to hold them accountable for that. Why not?

This passenger rights issue is an issue of the airlines' own making. They've just ticked off too many folk - probably by using the "COMPUTER SAYS NO" philosophy you seem to be pushing - and it's come home to roost.

The public safety issue is a false dichotomy. The government can sort out air passenger rights and deal with that simultaneously. It's not an either/or.

1. State intervention never comes for free, and ultimately consumers pay for what folks pretend will cost nothing
2. The terms of trade are abundantly clear, yet when folks buy AC product and don’t do their homework first on what they are buying that becomes suppliers fault, according to your logic
3. Having worked in 3 levels of govt in Canada, agree tiny minuscule squeaky wheels get the grease - and politics all about exploiting the lowest common denominator for gains in the polls
4. Having been the author of laws enacted at both provincial & municipal levels, never ever was it acceptable to put policy recommendations for public debate and approval WITHOUT including implementation tools, including for those of you who live in B.C. where I authored road safety laws, regs, and budgets to effectively implement.

the federal govt is acting with complete irresponsiblility when enacting law and telling all of us in the flying public, trust us eventually we will figure out how to legally determine whether flight crews are under the influence of the active ingredients in Cannibis