Author Archives: TerrieMahler

Are US Airlines Worse Than European Airlines? This Chart Won’t Tell You.

by TerrieMahler Posted on April 14, 2017

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of days ago I wrote that we, the traveling public, have conclusively demonstrated that we care about nothing but price. This is one reason air travel has become progressively more awful. Steve Randy Waldman is sick and tired of people like me saying things like this:

There are two things wrong with this line that air travel is awful because consumers’ true revealed preference is that it should be awful and cheap. First, there is the fact that air travel managed by the main domestic carriers in the United States is uniquely awful, and there is no evidence that US travelers are any more price conscious than consumers in other countries. No frills, discount air travel is popular in Europe as well, and it is sometimes awful, but it is on the whole much cheaper than “discount” air travel within the US. Mainstream carriers almost everywhere else in the developed world are notably less awful than the big American carriers, and often just as cheap.

When I was writing my post, this was actually at the top of my mind. Is American air travel really uniquely awful? The problem is not just that I couldn’t think of any data to bring to bear on this question, I couldn’t even think of any anecdotal data that would be meaningful. It’s true that I hear griping about American carriers a lot more than I do about European carriers, but then, living in California I would, wouldn’t I? Complaint rates might be germane, but should that be per flight or per 100,000 miles or what? And are fares really the same or lower than in the US? That’s hard to say, since Europe is simply a different environment: different regulators, shorter distances, more concentrated population centers, real competition from trains, etc. Nor do I know how subsidies play out among various countries.

The bottom line is that this would take some very careful research indeed. However, if you absolutely insist, I just spent the past few minutes doing some un-careful research. All I can say about it is that I promise I didn’t cherry pick. For the US, I chose the four biggest airlines. For Europe, I chose four representative big airlines, and I chose them before I looked at the data:

US data is for March 2017 here. European airline data is for Q1 2016 from Britain’s CAA here. For Europe, this is not continent-wide data. It’s only for complaints filed in the UK.1

I have absolutely no idea if these numbers are really comparable. Do Americans simply complain less than Brits? (Seems unlikely.) Is it easier to complain in Britain? Are “enplanements” (US) the same as “passengers” (Europe)? Or do European airlines really suck way worse than US airlines?

I don’t know, and you shouldn’t assume this chart tells you. Still, it definitely doesn’t suggest that US airlines are uniquely awful. The bottom line is that we need real research to come to any conclusions here. If I’m bored this weekend, maybe I’ll look for some.2

1One thing you can’t do is use US data to compare domestic and international carriers. The international carriers are flying exclusively international flights into the US, and the rules and flying experiences are very different for domestic and international flights. One way or another, you have to use local data so that you get a roughly comparable split of domestic and international flights for all carriers.

2But probably not. I’ve got other work to do.

Continued here: 

Are US Airlines Worse Than European Airlines? This Chart Won’t Tell You.

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are US Airlines Worse Than European Airlines? This Chart Won’t Tell You.

Scott Pruitt vs. Science

by TerrieMahler Posted on January 18, 2017

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Outside Scott Pruitt’s confirmation hearing to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, the hall was packed with demonstrators. Some were Standing Rock activists protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. Others were wearing face masks to make a point about Pruitt’s polluter allies. Many environmentalists argue that Pruitt is simply too deep in the pocket of the oil and gas industry to make his EPA anything but a farce when it comes to science.

Inside the hearing, Pruitt at times seemed to bolster that case. Throughout the morning, he hedged on the basic science on a range of issues under the EPA’s purview, faltering even when it came to the most well-established impacts of pollution.

On climate change, Pruitt claimed there’s more scientific controversy than there really is. He acknowledged that global warming is not a “hoax” and that humans have at least some impact on the climate. But, he added, “the ability to measure and pursue the degree and the extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.” That’s a common line used by Republicans to dodge the tougher question of what policies are needed to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, there is virtually no debate in the scientific community over manmade climate change, and many of its consequences—from drought, to rising seas, to increased wildfires—are well-established.

Pruitt repeatedly insisted that as head of the EPA, his job would simply be to carry out the intent of Congress and that his “personal opinion is immaterial” when it comes to climate science. What he didn’t mention, however, is that the EPA administrator is mandated by Congress to evaluate the best-available science and implement regulations based on what is needed to protect public health.

Pruitt also seemed unaware of the science surrounding lead poisoning. “That’s something I have not reviewed nor know about,” he said when asked if there was any safe level of lead in the human body. “I would be concerned about any level of lead going into the drinking water. Or obviously human consumption. But I have not looked at the scientific research on that.” (According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “No safe blood lead level in children has been identified.”)

On other issues, Pruitt appeared to contradict his record as Oklahoma attorney general. Asked about the impact of mercury pollution, Pruitt said mercury is “very dangerous” and that he’s “concerned.” In 2012, however, he signed onto a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s mercury regulations, arguing that “the record does not support EPA’s findings that mercury…poses public health hazards.”

Asked about methane pollution—which often leaks from natural gas sites—Pruitt noted that it is a “more potent” greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. He added that he’s “concerned” about methane, but not “deeply concerned.” As attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA over its efforts to restrict methane emissions from oil and gas infrastructure.

Pruitt also told to Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that the EPA’s so-called “endangerment finding”—its ruling that that carbon pollution is a danger to public health and is therefore subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act—should continue to be enforced. “Nothing I know of that would cause a review at this point,” he said. As attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA in an effort to overturn the endangerment finding.

View the original here: 

Scott Pruitt vs. Science

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Pruitt vs. Science