04-24-2017, 03:31 PM
(04-22-2017, 03:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(04-22-2017, 02:40 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Well, yes, but ... with the current licensing it seems that the desired level of competition on any given route is a monopoly.
If neither can operate at a profit, one will pull out, restoring an appropriate level of competition. So the argument about preventing over-competition is completely bogus. If it were valid, it would apply to everything — I shouldn’t be able to start a grocery store without Zehr’s having an opportunity to object, for example.
The legitimate regulation in the transportation industry has to do with transportation-specific considerations. For example, suppose there is an existing operator. Now I schedule buses to leave 30s before each of theirs, and scoop up most of their passengers. This leads to an unstable situation that isn’t good for anyone. So some regulation is needed. But the idea that a new entrant shouldn’t be able to enter freely by following the same standards as existing operators is wrong. Same applies to dairy, taxis, and who knows what else.
I don't see the need to prevent a new operator from scheduling their departure 30 seconds earlier. I think that is more of an issue left to the station to settle. Airlines schedules are essentially regulated by licensing the available slots and not by when a competitive airline's flight is scheduled. If there is capacity, let the carrier (bus or plane) set their own schedule. Regulations should relate to safety and consumer benefit and not competitive issues. Helping carrier A vs carrier B should not be goal of regulation - focus on benefits to consumers.