Again, I know that. I have not been living in mud. Apparently my point still escapes you.
Okay, maybe my point did get through.
I'm not sure; you say you won't pay more for a company to clean up its act but say the companies should pay... Okay, so a company spills oil or something like that, sure, they should pay for cleanup. But an arbitrary fee that probably does nothing but get funnelled into the black hole called "general revenue" to be doled out by mandarins to whatever cause they feel is justified, I take it you're not in favour of it.
I think that's what the albums here are for.
Wouldn't help, I can't tell a moron from a genious by a picture
Yeah, I only pick on airlines. :roll:
So I take it you're an equal opportunity picker onner. Problem is, as I've said before, they are easy targets and are picked on by governments. It's quite easy as they are government regulated and are popular whipping boys in the name of political expediency. People with either nothing better to do, or are trying to justify their positions come up with new onerous regulations on a regular basis. The cost of compiance is quite high, in an industry that has very narrow profit margins. When the economy sneezes, it is an industry that catches pneumonia. As I've also said before, the UK and Europe are either implimenting, or planning to impliment carbon taxes on airlines, including exorbitant fees for short haul flights. Why don't they try that with trucking and shipping? Because it will upset more people. In the end it will be all for naught because it is just a tax grab they can justify publicly and
look like they are doing something, which is what it seems to be all about.
Perhaps it isn't a survey studying airlines, but a survey studying the people who reply to the survey. University people study all kinds of things.
Yes, but I've been watching the trend, I would be less suspicious if all modes of transport were included, or if aviation wasn't even a factor in the survey.