acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (10/17/85)
In article <2649@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > >Why should we, in general, subsidize the air fares of foreign nationals >Brad? Why should we subsidize the air fares of Canadians even more, John? We already contribute $85 toward each passenger on VIA rail. We certainly don't need to extend this to the airline industry. > I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger >national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel >to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense >of unity. I am not totally convinced that travel and communication are enough to promote a sense of unity. As you point out the Americans have a rallying point with their flag and constitution and these symbols are probably far more important than the uniform, compared to Canada, population distribution. It is my distinct impression that the Easterners don't exactly like the Californians and the Californians aren't exactly in love with the East. Oregonians (sp?) are totally disgusted with Californians and there doesn't appear to be any love loss between the people from Arizona and the rest of the US. Then there are the people of New England who don't like the midwest and its acid rain on their hills. It seems that the citizens of the US have the same general types of attitudes towards other states as Canadians have to other provinces. As an aside, I am not too thrilled with the idea of real cheap subsidized air fares. After all I don't want everyone from Toronto out here every weekend :-). Donald Acton
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/17/85)
>In article <2649@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (k.j. chapman) writes: > > I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger >national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel >to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense >of unity. Deregulation of air fares resulted in substantially lower ticket prices in the US. Taking a similar approach here in Canada would make a lot more sense to me than having the gov't subsidize (with bucks that it simply doesn't have) yet another non-necessity. J.B. Robinson
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/18/85)
> >In article <2649@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (k.j. chapman) writes: > > > > I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger > >national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel > >to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense > >of unity. > > Deregulation of air fares resulted in substantially lower ticket prices > in the US. Taking a similar approach here in Canada would make a > lot more sense to me than having the gov't subsidize (with bucks that > it simply doesn't have) yet another non-necessity. > > J.B. Robinson As (I think) I said airfares are already fairly low. A return flight between Vancouver/Toronto can be had for $250 (if only they would do away with the 30 advance booking and have similar one-way flights). The major costs of flying are in the takeoff/landing phase rather than the actual travelling. I was talking to a Braniff employee late one night in Honolulu a few years ago and he told me that a fully loaded 747 would break even on a flight to Vancouver if they charged $100 each (this was the return fare!, of course Braniff went bust :-) ). Deregulation has it's dangers as well. It is in our national interest, both social and economic, to keep a population over the entire country. This is going to be harder to do if living in the boonies is going to cost a lot more.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (10/18/85)
> In article <2649@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > > >Why should we, in general, subsidize the air fares of foreign nationals > >Brad? > > Why should we subsidize the air fares of Canadians even more, John? We > already contribute $85 toward each passenger on VIA rail. We certainly don't > need to extend this to the airline industry. I don't recall saying that we should. I certainly don't think we should feel we need to subsidize foreign nationals just because we might subsidize travel by Canadians. As to VIA, I agree the service is atrocious and expensive. I've been travelling by train on and off for the last 16 years, from east coast to west and the service has been declining continually (as an aside it always seemed the cn trains we're better kept and gave better service compared to the other guys). If you look at the ways the rails are run it seems pretty clear that neither CN or CP wants to carry passengers anymore - they can make much more money shipping large volume freight (they won't ship small stuff anymore). They (to my knowledge) continue to carry passengers because they have to. > > > I don't see how Canada could help but benefit from a stronger > >national identity and it certainly is necessary to be able to travel > >to and/or communicae with your (national) neighbours to feel a sense > >of unity. > > I am not totally convinced that travel and communication are enough to > promote a sense of unity. As you point out the Americans have a rallying They may not be sufficient but they probably help a lot, and in Canada's case I think they are necessary. > point with their flag and constitution and these symbols are probably > far more important than the uniform, compared to Canada, population > distribution. It is my distinct impression that the Easterners don't . . . > Donald Acton