Don't start an airline if you want to be rich

Unless you are the CEO, I guess.

From the American Government Accountability Office (pdf) comes this chart of revenue, expenses, and profit in the US aviation industry:

Revenue in the industry has grown almost non-stop for the last 40 years, but expenses have more than kept pace. Only for a brief period in the 1990s did it look like flying passenger planes might make money, but that was derailed by the 2001 crash. As Matt Yglesias comments:

Some things that work as technology don't work as a business model. The Concorde was like that. An engineering marvel that couldn't make money. But... basically the entire passenger aviation industry in the United States is like that.

It's worth remembering as well that international flight isn't much better. Most of the industry is dominated by nationalised (or recently privatised) prestige carriers which can't be allowed to go bust due not only to their stranglehold on their domestic markets, but also through simple national pride. What would be interesting to see is whether that's a cause or an effect.

After all, if the all-encompassing British Airways had gone bust one of the first seven or eight times it ought to have in a proper market, perhaps the rise of the low-cost carriers (who do in fact make a profit from flying planes) could have happened a bit earlier. Or maybe government intervention was the only thing which allowed the aviation industry to mature enough that anyone could make a profit at all.

(via Richard Layman)

A Lufthansa plane takes off from Frankfurt. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.