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.

Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn hammers David Cameron on green energy – but skips Syria

In a low-key exchange ahead of the Autumn Statement, the Labour leader covered two areas where the government is vulnerable: renewable energy and women's refuges. However, he failed to mention Syria and the Russian plane shot down by Turkey.

When PMQs precedes an Autumn Statement or Budget it is usually a low-key affair, and this one was no different. But perhaps for different reasons than the usual – the opposition pulling its punches to give room for hammering the government on the economy, and the Prime Minister saving big announcements and boasts for his Chancellor.

No, Jeremy Corbyn's decision to hold off on the main issue of the day – air strikes in Syria and the Russian military jet shot down by Turkey – was tactical. He chose to question the government on two areas where it is vulnerable: green energy and women's refuges closing due to cuts. Both topics on which the Tories should be ashamed of their record.

This also allowed him to avoid the subject that is tearing the Middle East – and the Labour party – apart: how to tackle Isis in Syria. Corbyn is seen as soft on defence and has been criticised for being too sympathetic to Russia, so silence on both the subject of air strikes and the Russian plane was his best option.

The only problem with this approach is that the government's most pressing current concern was left to the SNP leader Angus Robertson, who asked the Prime Minister about the dangers of action from the air alone in Syria. A situation that frames Labour as on the fringe of debates about foreign and defence policy. Luckily for Corbyn, this won't really matter as no one pays attention to PMQs pre-Autumn Statement.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.