United asks city to limit competition

The heads of major corporations always profess their allegiance to the laws of capitalism. They claim they want less government regulation since all that red tape only drives up the price of production. They want greater freedom to pay workers what they want without the government looking over their shoulders. They want those pesky little environmental officials to go away because it costs money to privatize the cost of pollution rather than socialize the cost like they've always done.

 Hobby Airport, Houston

There are two major airports in Houston - Intercontinental (I refuse to call it Bush) on the north side and Hobby on the south side. United has one of its main hubs at Intercontinental - after acquiring Continental and its terminals and gates. Southwest is the top dog down at Hobby.

Intercontinental Airport, Houston

Over the past few years Southwest has made a handful of acquisitions, including some carriers with flights to Mexico and the Caribbean. These are Southwest's first foray into international travel. But flying those routes out of Houston would require that an international terminal be built at Hobby.

Southwest argues that the flying public will benefit because more international flights out of Houston means more competition and more competition (should) mean lower fares.

United, on the other hand, is now a fan of government interference in the marketplace and is arguing that one international terminal in Houston is enough. For, you see, if Southwest were to start flying to Mexico out of Hobby then folks might choose to fly Southwest over United if the fares were lower. If that were to happen then United wouldn't make as much money on those flights out of Houston and might have to cut back on the number of international flights and flights bringing passengers to the Houston hub.

I’ve struggled to understand it myself. Here’s an example of how it works that United provided for me, which I’ve edited for brevity. It is an argument that a passenger flying out of Hobby rather than Bush Intercontinental (IAH) affects other IAH flights. 

A flight from Hobby to Mexico City could divert a number of local and connecting passengers away from  IAH flights to Mexico City.  This then makes one of our IAH flights to Mexico City fall into unprofitability, and we cancel it.  Onboard that canceled Mexico City flight were passengers who were connecting from Tucson and Phoenix, among dozens of other points.  Given that that Mexico City flight no longer exists, we lose those passengers from the Tucson and Phoenix flights, thus rendering some of those Tucson and Phoenix flights unprofitable and subject to cancellation.  This progresses into a cascade that results in many flights being canceled, because those flights carry customers who may want to connect from IAH to London or Amsterdam or Auckland, so there are fewer passengers connecting at IAH for those flights, making them unprofitable.  Hubs are fragile. They need the “feed” to continue to grow.  When the feed stops, they shrink and the airport becomes weaker.

In other words, United is telling the government to save it from competition and to keep air fares artificially high.

United's arguments are full of "ifs" and other assumptions. And, as you should know, the more "ifs" in your argument, the more faulty the logic. And, given the number of times both United and Continental have been in bankruptcy court, the more faulty the argument.

Another assault on privacy

It's just never enough. No matter how much data the US government can collect on citizens, there is always more data just out of reach.

Last week the European Parliament voted to pass a bill allowing the US Department of Homeland Security to have access to the Passenger Name Records of any airline either operating out of the 27 countries of the European Union or any other airline incorporated or "storing data" in the EU.

And, no, you shouldn't need to ask why los federales need such information. It's the latest salvo in the war on the right to be left alone terrorism. Apologists for the overreaching arms of the state will point out that such information allowed the United States to catch various baddies over the years.

And now ordinary folks from across the pond will be giving up some of their personal data to Big Brother for the privilege of coming to America.

Some MEPs say the proposals leave too many unanswered questions, such as how will the US use this information, how long will it keep the data and who will have access to it? 

Dutch Liberal-Democrat MEP Sophie in 't Veld was involved in drafting the proposals but voted against the bill. 

"The results of the vote show clearly that there are very strong reservations against this agreement. However, the US made it very clear that a 'no' vote would be answered by suspending visa-free travel to the US," she said. 

"Many colleagues - understandably - did not want to make this sacrifice. But it is highly regrettable that the fundamental rights of EU citizens have been bargained away under pressure."

And why did the EU prostrate itself before the United States and agree to give up personal data on their citizens? Because of threats by the United States to suspend visa-free travel from Europe. Oh, the things our representatives are willing to cede on our behalf for the convenience of others.

Somewhere along the way in this war on the Bill of Rights terrorism, the government has forgotten one very important proposition. The proposition that we are all innocent unless proven guilty. Slowly, but surely, our basic right to be left alone by the state has eroded - and continues to erode because few people are willing to stand up and do anything about it.

Most folks will stand in that line at the airport and grumble about having to take off their shoes or pass through a full body scanner or have to suffer the humiliation of a scope and grope and just complain. Well, I guess that's just the price we pay for safety, they say.

This isn't about safety. It's about the unencumbered intrusion of the federal government into our private lives. It has to stop or else one day you will wake up and wonder where your right to privacy went.