|
Post by Gerard on Dec 11, 2013 9:19:01 GMT -5
A list of a few of the many zero-fare transport systems in Europe and the New World: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fareShould Qantas attempt to change their services to "zero-fare" I expect their biggest problem will be with the number of hooligans who will want to come along. They already have a problem with drunken "athletes," particularly on the Queensland routes. The steamy tropics do something to the white races. Ordinary unassuming persons keep clear!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 9:44:38 GMT -5
Qantas's biggest problem would be funding "zero-fare", Gerard! It is true, for example, that the world's air forces are "zero-fare", in the specific sense that the military use of aircraft is entirely funded by government. I suppose that you could turn Qantas into a carrier for peacekeeping forces around the world instead. We could fly out to the Central African Republic (CAR) together this Christmas, Gerard! Another problem with making Qantas "zero-fare" would then be that other commercial airlines would no longer be able to compete with Qantas, which would break anti-competition rules around the world. Why buy a ticket with British Airways when you can go for free with Qantas? So the real problem with Qantas is not that it charges fares, Gerard, but that it does not charge enough to cover its costs! The same may be said for almost all traditional national carriers, including British Airways, for example. In contrast, a lot of commercial rivals do make a profit, for example Ryanair, as its costs are far lower. Qantas cannot therefore continue in its present form, Gerard! I suppose that the jetset age of glamorous air travel in the twentieth century is over. Passing through Heathrow, for example, is an ordeal I try and avoid. Writing in the FT, Tyler Brule has drawn up a Christmas shopping list for you to peruse and hope it covers everyone. FT - Globetrotter’s gift guideThere is no such thing as a free gift, Gerard, particularly from Tyler himself!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 11, 2013 16:22:47 GMT -5
A list of a few of the many zero-fare transport systems in Europe and the New World: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-fareShould Qantas attempt to change their services to "zero-fare" I expect their biggest problem will be with the number of hooligans who will want to come along. They already have a problem with drunken "athletes," particularly on the Queensland routes. The steamy tropics do something to the white races. Ordinary unassuming persons keep clear! "Zero fare" is nonsense! All that means is that the responsibility for paying money for fares is shifted from the traveller to someone else, as in the Blair case that you yourself mentioned; it makes no difference whatsoever to the need for every aspect of travel and transport to be paid for at every stage by someone, using what's called money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2013 16:34:12 GMT -5
One form of "zero fare" which works in London is called "Freedom Pass", ahinton. London Councils - Freedom PassI do not qualify, and my parents do not use it. Nevertheless, could you possibly explain to ' The Third' why you consider it to be nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2013 3:25:36 GMT -5
One form of "zero fare" which works in London is called "Freedom Pass", ahinton. London Councils - Freedom PassI do not qualify, and my parents do not use it. Nevertheless, could you possibly explain to ' The Third' why you consider it to be nonsense? Quite simply because it does not illustrate a circumstance in which transportation can be provided for free, that's all. OK, the traveller does not pay directly, but the fares are still paid for, by the taxpayer, so in reality it's no different to Tony Blair having his journeys paid for him other than that far more people pay for these ones; they still have to be paid for, with money. The provider also has to pay a fortune to acquire and operate the necessary transportation vehicles that make that transportation available for use by holders of the Freedom Pass. It's not the Freedm Pass scheme itself that's a nonsense - merely the notion that it somehow supposedly illustrates how transportation can be provided and used without any payments being made in order to enable it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 3:29:20 GMT -5
I suppose that if there is spare capacity on a transportation system, then the marginal cost is negligible. For example, at this time of day, London buses are full of commuters, but give it an hour, and most people will be at work, so the buses will be relatively empty. It is precisely in an hour that my parents, for example, can get on a bus for free. Because it is spare capacity, and the bus will be running throughout the day anyway, it does not actually cost any extra! Transportation can thus be provided for free, ahinton.
QED
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 6:27:51 GMT -5
Writing in the FT, Tyler Brule has drawn up a Christmas shopping list for you to peruse and hope it covers everyone. I laughed at what I imagined to be kleines c's witticisms and excesses. So imagine my surprise upon seeing that they were in the original! Who is this Brule? Is he known?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 7:07:24 GMT -5
Tyler Brûlé is known, Sydney. I initially came across him through his weekly Fast Lane column for the FT Weekend Life and Arts section, where he comes across as a globetrotting lifestyle guru. I found it amusing because an American colleague always used to ask me "How's life in the fast lane, kleines c?" when I turned up for work. I was later introduced to Tyler, and have to admit that my initial prejudices against him were reversed. Wikipedia - Tyler BrûléIn October 2006, Tyler announced that he would create a new magazine, to be called ' Monocle', which launched on 14 February 2007. Tyler later stated that "Monocle is the media project I always wanted to do". Monocle is a journal published ten times a year in the UK – but with 'bureaux' in Tokyo, Hong Kong, Zurich and New York. It covers everything from politics to shopping. Monocle bears the tagline, "A briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design". About MonocleWhat will interest Sydney is that Tyler then launched a round-the-clock radio station in October 2011, which is broadcast from Monocle's headquarters at Midori House in Marylebone. You can listen live @monocle.com, as well as downloading shows from the site or iTunes; Monocle also has a handy app. The station delivers news and comment, plus magazine shows covering a range of topics including food and drink, urbanism, design and print media. Monocle's newsgathering operation will soon stretch to new bureaux in São Paulo and across Asia, as well as more correspondents in emerging and established territories. Monocle 24 - RadioTyler explained that Monocle 24 wants to be an upmarket, global BBC Radio 4, in a similar way to The Third's upmarket, global BBC Radio 3. What do you all think of it?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2013 8:36:53 GMT -5
I suppose that if there is spare capacity on a transportation system, then the marginal cost is negligible. For example, at this time of day, London buses are full of commuters, but give it an hour, and most people will be at work, so the buses will be relatively empty. It is precisely in an hour that my parents, for example, can get on a bus for free. Because it is spare capacity, and the bus will be running throughout the day anyway, it does not actually cost any extra! Transportation can thus be provided for free, ahinton. QED QED what? The cost to the provider of transportation provision remains more or less the same whether the planes, trains, coaches, buses, taxi cabs et al are full, empty or somewhere in between; those providers still have to purchase (or lease) the vehicles in the first place and then operate and maintain them as well as operating the services themselves (i.e administration, marketing &c.), all of which costs money. The fact that there might happen to be some discounted deals from time to time that enable certain travellers to use any of those services without paying for that use is nice for them but, again, makes no difference to the cost of provision of the services concerned; that provision has to be paid for, even if (as in the case that you mention) not necessarily always by the users of those services.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2013 8:43:00 GMT -5
Qantas's biggest problem would be funding "zero-fare", Gerard! It is true, for example, that the world's air forces are "zero-fare", in the specific sense that the military use of aircraft is entirely funded by government. Zero "fare"? Hardly! It's not as if they provide passenger services for civilians, even on a part-time basis, is it?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 8:57:47 GMT -5
If I may address all three of your final questions directly, ahinton: There is no discount at all, ahinton. The service is free. Zero fare means no fare, ahinton. c. It's not as if they provide passenger services for civilians, even on a part-time basis, is it?! Their role is military rather than civilian, ahinton. QED
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2013 10:46:28 GMT -5
If I may address all three of your final questions directly, ahinton: There is no discount at all, ahinton. The service is free. Well, that's a 100% discount, then - but, once again, this is not the point that I'm making, which was and is that someone has to pay for the service even if not the passenger and someone has to pay to make such a service possible in the first place; planes, traoins, coaches, buses, taxi cabs &c. in service all cost money to make and operate and that has to be paid for. Zero fare means no fare, ahinton. I know that - but that doesn't make the journeys free of cost to someone. c. It's not as if they provide passenger services for civilians, even on a part-time basis, is it?! Their role is military rather than civilian, ahinton. QED Again, QED what? Of course their rôle in military, so I don't see how aircraft used exclusively for military use have a place in any arguments about the cost of civilian passenger travel in the first place!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 11:01:58 GMT -5
In the kingdom of ends, ahinton, everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 12, 2013 12:53:11 GMT -5
In the kingdom of ends, ahinton, everything has either a price or a dignity. Sometimes both, perhaps... What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity. Well, in the present and foreseeable future context, all commercial activity, of the kind upon which almost all of us depend, nevertheless requires money - and that naturally includes transportation; when any public transportation (other than transports of delight, for which neither a Freedom Pass nor an Oyster Card is valid) attains that staus of "above all price" and "therefore admitting of no equivalent, it will have acquired "a dignity" unrecognisable and contextually incomprehensible to those who have travelled on planes, trains, coaches, buses and other forms of public transportation. Back to Qantas! Strap yourself in Ansett back!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2013 14:32:22 GMT -5
On the contrary, no money is required, ahinton!
|
|