.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23 February 2009
21 February 2009
Another reason to avoid Ryanair
Ryanair launches in-flight mobile phone calls
Now I've never flown this airline that exists largely for the lager lout, chav, cheap weekend student and typical Brit drink/shag hedonistically weekend market (and to be fair all the eastern European workers who live in the UK and rightly prefer to fly instead of getting a bus to Romania - yes you can get a bus from London to Romania!).
Some of those using it paying bugger all moan incessantly about why they got no ground service, why Ryanair reschedules flights at times that the trains and buses from the airport stop running, they can't board because they are too late checking in when it is 90 minutes before the flight. You get what you pay for.
I've read enough about Ryanair to know that while Michael O'Leary is a business genius for running a safe cheap and nasty airline, it isn't aiming at those of us willing to pay a little more to fly from airports close to where we leave and where we are going, who have lounge access, business class checkin and luggage allowance as a right with airline alliances, and don't want to be crammed into the tightest possible seats with the demographics listed above.
Frankly when I can book weekends away with BA, Swiss, Lufthansa or other proper airlines for less than £150 return in Europe at good times, why use Ryanair? Especially when even business class within Europe (typically a huge ripoff as the seats are worse that Air NZ premium economy, but you get an empty seat beside you, and a proper meal) now can have surcharges of only £80 each way. I can check in online, choose seats, have decent baggage allowance, pay however I want, have lounge access and pay hardly any different from the likes of Ryanair. Why?
Business air traffic in Europe has collapsed, and airlines serving Heathrow know they lose their valuable slots if they don't use them after a while. So they rather fly empty planes than surrender slots that are typically worth tens of millions of pounds if they can sell the slots. So proper airlines have many cheap deals.
So why the hell do I want to sit on a plane while some onanist says "Hi i'm on the plane" at the top of his lungs like some retarded child excited about the amazing technology that allows him to talk to people far away while being 9km above the earth.
There have been phones on planes for years.
I can only hope that proper airlines resist this, especially in the front end where the money is made. I know Emirates has joined the mobile phone club, which is another reason to not use it (besides it not offering frequent flyer points for Star Alliance or One World). Most such airlines have phones at those seats as it is, which are rarely used, indicating how little demand there really is for this. An alternative is to set aside a small area for people to use to make calls, like the lounge on the Qantas A380.
One of the most annoying features of modern life are ring tones, especially the fools who don't switch off the common bog standard ones. Nokia ones are particularly bad.
So good one Ryanair, attract all the people who want to use their mobiles on planes - and help ensure the proper airlines with service, remain free of noise.
Now I've never flown this airline that exists largely for the lager lout, chav, cheap weekend student and typical Brit drink/shag hedonistically weekend market (and to be fair all the eastern European workers who live in the UK and rightly prefer to fly instead of getting a bus to Romania - yes you can get a bus from London to Romania!).
Some of those using it paying bugger all moan incessantly about why they got no ground service, why Ryanair reschedules flights at times that the trains and buses from the airport stop running, they can't board because they are too late checking in when it is 90 minutes before the flight. You get what you pay for.
I've read enough about Ryanair to know that while Michael O'Leary is a business genius for running a safe cheap and nasty airline, it isn't aiming at those of us willing to pay a little more to fly from airports close to where we leave and where we are going, who have lounge access, business class checkin and luggage allowance as a right with airline alliances, and don't want to be crammed into the tightest possible seats with the demographics listed above.
Frankly when I can book weekends away with BA, Swiss, Lufthansa or other proper airlines for less than £150 return in Europe at good times, why use Ryanair? Especially when even business class within Europe (typically a huge ripoff as the seats are worse that Air NZ premium economy, but you get an empty seat beside you, and a proper meal) now can have surcharges of only £80 each way. I can check in online, choose seats, have decent baggage allowance, pay however I want, have lounge access and pay hardly any different from the likes of Ryanair. Why?
Business air traffic in Europe has collapsed, and airlines serving Heathrow know they lose their valuable slots if they don't use them after a while. So they rather fly empty planes than surrender slots that are typically worth tens of millions of pounds if they can sell the slots. So proper airlines have many cheap deals.
So why the hell do I want to sit on a plane while some onanist says "Hi i'm on the plane" at the top of his lungs like some retarded child excited about the amazing technology that allows him to talk to people far away while being 9km above the earth.
There have been phones on planes for years.
I can only hope that proper airlines resist this, especially in the front end where the money is made. I know Emirates has joined the mobile phone club, which is another reason to not use it (besides it not offering frequent flyer points for Star Alliance or One World). Most such airlines have phones at those seats as it is, which are rarely used, indicating how little demand there really is for this. An alternative is to set aside a small area for people to use to make calls, like the lounge on the Qantas A380.
One of the most annoying features of modern life are ring tones, especially the fools who don't switch off the common bog standard ones. Nokia ones are particularly bad.
So good one Ryanair, attract all the people who want to use their mobiles on planes - and help ensure the proper airlines with service, remain free of noise.
20 February 2009
No future for rail freight?
I'll give credit to the Green Party Frogblog for the post "The End of Kiwirail?" which shows that someone from the party at least went to hear David Heatley from the NZ Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation talk about"The Future of Rail in New Zealand". That presentation is now on Powerpoint here.
It is well worth a read.
The presentation addresses some simple myths about rail:
1. Rail network shrinked due to privatisation. Wrong. Almost all line closures were under state ownership when rail had a statutory monopoly on long haul freight!
2. Rail stopped being viable after free market reforms. Wrong, it stopped being consistently financially viable by 1945. It short pockets of profitability since then.
3. Track Maintenance was run down after privatisation. Wrong, it was already being run down in public ownership, track was run down more, but sleeper replacement under private ownership increased.
4. Rail is worth a lot as an asset. Wrong. The NZ$12 billion book value of rail on the Treasury accounts is a nonsense, equating it to all other SOEs combined (e.g. 3 power companies, Transpower, NZ Post) which all make profits. Most of the value is based on a replacement cost if it was built today, which of course would never be done. I'd argue it is probably worth 4% of that at best.
5. Rail only needed rescuing after privatisation. Wrong. It has been rescued several times before, then the commercialisation was reversed because of political pressure. It has long had serious economic viability issues.
6. Rail is good to reduce accidents, congestion and environmental problems Wrong. "the optimal level of externalities is not zero – at some point it becomes more expensive to lower them than the welfare created by their further abatement" Rail related deaths only slightly lower than truck related. No evidence that it reduces congestion. Sea freight is twice as fuel efficient than rail, but little interest in that.
Like I said before, the presentation basically says that rail is not as fuel efficient as is quoted, and that only 30% of the current network handles 70% of the freight. It suggests concentrating on the main trunk, and lines to the Bay of Plenty and the West Coast.
Sadly, Frog doesn't think the presentation answered concerns about peak oil or climate change, or if you "think trains are cool". Let's ignore that last remark as just light hearted, not a basis for sound public policy.
In the comments I have battled a bit with most others who worship the religion of rail, and give largely highly misinformed comments. One that, to be fair, I did once believe in before I did extensive work in the transport sector, because I quite like trains. However, the overwhelming evidence sadly doesn't match my personal nostalgia to keep lots of railway lines open with trains on them - as I can hardly justify making people pay for something they don't use.
If you want a bit more, check out this two part report (Part one, part two) the Treasury received a few years on the economics of rail in New Zealand. It starkly shows that compared to the US and Australia, the volumes and distances for rail in New Zealand are small, and fuel is only a small proportion of costs.
The rail religion remains a faith not a fact based initiative. I'd just like to know why environmentalists think subsidising a dairy product exporter, a coal exporter and logging companies is good? The entire West Coast railway network is dependent on exporting a dirty fossil fuel to Asia!
It is well worth a read.
The presentation addresses some simple myths about rail:
1. Rail network shrinked due to privatisation. Wrong. Almost all line closures were under state ownership when rail had a statutory monopoly on long haul freight!
2. Rail stopped being viable after free market reforms. Wrong, it stopped being consistently financially viable by 1945. It short pockets of profitability since then.
3. Track Maintenance was run down after privatisation. Wrong, it was already being run down in public ownership, track was run down more, but sleeper replacement under private ownership increased.
4. Rail is worth a lot as an asset. Wrong. The NZ$12 billion book value of rail on the Treasury accounts is a nonsense, equating it to all other SOEs combined (e.g. 3 power companies, Transpower, NZ Post) which all make profits. Most of the value is based on a replacement cost if it was built today, which of course would never be done. I'd argue it is probably worth 4% of that at best.
5. Rail only needed rescuing after privatisation. Wrong. It has been rescued several times before, then the commercialisation was reversed because of political pressure. It has long had serious economic viability issues.
6. Rail is good to reduce accidents, congestion and environmental problems Wrong. "the optimal level of externalities is not zero – at some point it becomes more expensive to lower them than the welfare created by their further abatement" Rail related deaths only slightly lower than truck related. No evidence that it reduces congestion. Sea freight is twice as fuel efficient than rail, but little interest in that.
Like I said before, the presentation basically says that rail is not as fuel efficient as is quoted, and that only 30% of the current network handles 70% of the freight. It suggests concentrating on the main trunk, and lines to the Bay of Plenty and the West Coast.
Sadly, Frog doesn't think the presentation answered concerns about peak oil or climate change, or if you "think trains are cool". Let's ignore that last remark as just light hearted, not a basis for sound public policy.
In the comments I have battled a bit with most others who worship the religion of rail, and give largely highly misinformed comments. One that, to be fair, I did once believe in before I did extensive work in the transport sector, because I quite like trains. However, the overwhelming evidence sadly doesn't match my personal nostalgia to keep lots of railway lines open with trains on them - as I can hardly justify making people pay for something they don't use.
If you want a bit more, check out this two part report (Part one, part two) the Treasury received a few years on the economics of rail in New Zealand. It starkly shows that compared to the US and Australia, the volumes and distances for rail in New Zealand are small, and fuel is only a small proportion of costs.
The rail religion remains a faith not a fact based initiative. I'd just like to know why environmentalists think subsidising a dairy product exporter, a coal exporter and logging companies is good? The entire West Coast railway network is dependent on exporting a dirty fossil fuel to Asia!
Hide makes a start on local government
Kiwiblog cheers on Rodney Hide's speech to Local Government NZ. Now I saw how Local Government NZ worked with the Labour government, and it was a very symbiotic relationship. Local Government NZ wanted more power, Labour gave it more power (not as much as LGNZ wanted). Local Government NZ wanted more money from central government, Labour gave it a some more money. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to support its policy initiatives in housing, transport and environment, Local Government NZ did. Labour wanted Local Government NZ to help it rewrite legislation on local government, Local Government NZ was involved in partnership to help develop the Local Government Act 2002.
So when Hide says:
"I don't represent councils.I represent the people whose hard work and savings pay the rates"
About time!
"First, I want to keep rate rises down and encourage you to focus on core activities. On the necessities, not the luxuries" So I will be pushing for councils to accept that rates rises should be capped at the rate of inflation, or less. Sure, councils for good reason may need to increase rates faster than inflation"Well I'd cap rates permanently to squeeze local government out of non core activities, and encourage a progressive disengagement. I can't think of a good reason to increase a property tax faster than inflation, especially when property values grew beyond inflation until very recently. Nevertheless, it is a better direction than the past.
"what should be the core roles of councils ...Providing public services such as rubbish removal, road maintenance, parks, libraries, and light handed-regulatory controls."
Rubbish removal can be privately done, road maintenance of local streets could eventually be privately done, parks can be privately managed, as can libraries. Regulatory controls should only be the application of private property rights. However, if all councils just did this we would all be a lot better off.
"When I look at the expanding breadth of activities that councils engage in, the answer must surely be, "Businesses should be doing this - not the council."
So when Hide says:
"I don't represent councils.I represent the people whose hard work and savings pay the rates"
About time!
"First, I want to keep rate rises down and encourage you to focus on core activities. On the necessities, not the luxuries" So I will be pushing for councils to accept that rates rises should be capped at the rate of inflation, or less. Sure, councils for good reason may need to increase rates faster than inflation"Well I'd cap rates permanently to squeeze local government out of non core activities, and encourage a progressive disengagement. I can't think of a good reason to increase a property tax faster than inflation, especially when property values grew beyond inflation until very recently. Nevertheless, it is a better direction than the past.
"what should be the core roles of councils ...Providing public services such as rubbish removal, road maintenance, parks, libraries, and light handed-regulatory controls."
Rubbish removal can be privately done, road maintenance of local streets could eventually be privately done, parks can be privately managed, as can libraries. Regulatory controls should only be the application of private property rights. However, if all councils just did this we would all be a lot better off.
"When I look at the expanding breadth of activities that councils engage in, the answer must surely be, "Businesses should be doing this - not the council."
Indeed!
"Even if it is a job appropriate for local government, the answer may still be "No, our ratepayers can't afford it."
In fact it may better be, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to pay for it.
"Ratepayers want to know who is responsible for council decisions - and who to hold to account"
Sadly all the transparency in the world wont get back money wasted, but it should put people in fear of losing their jobs.
"I want to see respect for private property rights. I want the freedom of individual New Zealanders enhanced."
Wonderful stuff!! When did you last hear that? Will National Party Cabinet Ministers say this?
However then he talks about changes to the RMA and the Building Act, which um aren't exactly about private property rights and individual freedom.
"It's taking nine months to get a resource consent to put in a cable car ... so that an elderly lady can get to her house easily up a steep cliff from the street."
Exactly. Sheer nonsense.
So I expect Local Government NZ is scared, fearful its members are about to get their hands tied, their petty fascist ways over and the age of nanny cities and nanny districts is over. It wont be, but it sure sounds like the tide is changing.
Now read the speech by Sandra Lee, the first Minister of Local Government when the Labour/Alliance coalition was elected in 1999.
"I believe our communities are, overall, very well served by their local authority elected members. I have yet to meet a district, city or regional councillor, or community board member, who was not deeply committed to the service of his or her local community."
Well she was one, she'd wouldn't want to say there is always some deadwood out there and blithering idiots.
"I agree with your President that the powers it (new Local Government Act) contains should, in general, be more enabling and empowering rather than just an updated version of the prescription contained in the current legislation"
Do more not less!
"One of the more unusual aspects of our work as elected representatives is that we get to spend other people's money"
Shock! Really? Unusual is it? I thought that was state socialism par excellence. Indeed the nonsense of accountability through local democracy is palpable, as most local body consultation responses are from vested interest groups wanting the loudest voice - not the average ratepayer fed up with being fleeced and pushed around.
The change in attitude is to be welcomed. If only Hide can do as he says it will help, as a first step. It is time to roll back the creeping hands of local government, and no Labour style partnership with local government will enable that. Rodney is going to have to get legislation drafted to not only cap rates, but cap what local authorities do.
The report at No Minister about how the ARC wasted $1.7 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on the David Beckham exhibition soccer game is only the latest example of why the "power of general competence" of local authorities is to many ratepayers a rather sick joke. They have the power, but how often do they have to show rank incompetence?
19 February 2009
State predatory pricing kills business
and that means private schools.
Cactus Kate points out that if private schools fail because parents can't afford to pay for a private education, then the state sector couldn't handle the numbers.
She's right, but the solution is not to fix the state sector. The solution is to end the unfair competition of state schools, which everyone is forced to pay for, against private schools which get funding only from those using them. State schools are the French farms of the education sector, bloated, inefficient, heavily subsidised, and their output has guaranteed markets because of protectionism.
Parents sending their kids to private school pay twice. The PPTA socialists don't give a damn about that. They are ideologically opposed to competition in education, and opposed to their members ever being accountable for their performance. The PPTA would only be happy if there were monopoly state schools everywhere, centrally managed and perpetual pay increases for teachers above inflation. The PPTA thinks what parents want is not as important, after all the workers always know what's best for the consumer don't they? Lockwood Smith's biggest political mistake was not to confront this bullying labour cartel when he had the chance, and remove decisions on teacher salaries from central bargaining.
So the appropriate solution to save private schools is NOT a "bail out", but something more sophisticated than that. End paying twice for education. It can be done different ways. I'd say just give parents back their education taxes and let them spend it. That's Libertarianz policy. In fact, just letting them opt out of taxpayer funded education would do the job. They could always pay directly for a state school if they change their minds.
However, there are other approaches:
- Parents who choose private education could simply have the proportion of their income tax taken for education refunded;
- A standard amount could be refunded to reflecting the average cost of a state secondary education per student; or
- ACT's policy of allowing funding to follow the student. Private schools then get the same funding as state schools.
Whatever it is, it is crying out for radical reform. The Nats wont want to be seen to be propping up private schools, but having either a tax credit or letting funding follow students would make a positive difference to schools.
After all, education is the sector most desperately in need of reform so that those paying for it actually can exercise the power of consumers, and those wanting to provide it can make their own decisions.
Expect the left to fight it tooth and nail though, after all, without the teaching labour cartels, the Labour Party would lose a key source of funding, membership and candidates, and the Greens, who sometimes fight monopolies, embrace them when Nanny State is in charge.
Cactus Kate points out that if private schools fail because parents can't afford to pay for a private education, then the state sector couldn't handle the numbers.
She's right, but the solution is not to fix the state sector. The solution is to end the unfair competition of state schools, which everyone is forced to pay for, against private schools which get funding only from those using them. State schools are the French farms of the education sector, bloated, inefficient, heavily subsidised, and their output has guaranteed markets because of protectionism.
Parents sending their kids to private school pay twice. The PPTA socialists don't give a damn about that. They are ideologically opposed to competition in education, and opposed to their members ever being accountable for their performance. The PPTA would only be happy if there were monopoly state schools everywhere, centrally managed and perpetual pay increases for teachers above inflation. The PPTA thinks what parents want is not as important, after all the workers always know what's best for the consumer don't they? Lockwood Smith's biggest political mistake was not to confront this bullying labour cartel when he had the chance, and remove decisions on teacher salaries from central bargaining.
So the appropriate solution to save private schools is NOT a "bail out", but something more sophisticated than that. End paying twice for education. It can be done different ways. I'd say just give parents back their education taxes and let them spend it. That's Libertarianz policy. In fact, just letting them opt out of taxpayer funded education would do the job. They could always pay directly for a state school if they change their minds.
However, there are other approaches:
- Parents who choose private education could simply have the proportion of their income tax taken for education refunded;
- A standard amount could be refunded to reflecting the average cost of a state secondary education per student; or
- ACT's policy of allowing funding to follow the student. Private schools then get the same funding as state schools.
Whatever it is, it is crying out for radical reform. The Nats wont want to be seen to be propping up private schools, but having either a tax credit or letting funding follow students would make a positive difference to schools.
After all, education is the sector most desperately in need of reform so that those paying for it actually can exercise the power of consumers, and those wanting to provide it can make their own decisions.
Expect the left to fight it tooth and nail though, after all, without the teaching labour cartels, the Labour Party would lose a key source of funding, membership and candidates, and the Greens, who sometimes fight monopolies, embrace them when Nanny State is in charge.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)