I didn't feel I was being inconsistent. What I said was that after squeezing the routes dry for all they could get, Air NZ unceremoniously cast them aside. That may or may not be true, but it isn't inconsistent with my argument.
I believe it is obviously untrue and emotive. You can't 'squeeze a route dry' because the route doesn't get used up. If a route is unprofitable, why should they be forced to operate it by people who don't own it?
What you are advocating is about as reasonable as me demanding you take homeless people into your home because it's for the greater good.
If Air NZ has an obligation to investor taxpayers (it does), then the way to meet that obligation is not to overcharge them so it can give them their own money back.
So you say. I disagree and so does their board and presumably the vast majority of their shareholders. For a start, not all their investors use their service and any, why are you now talking about overcharging? We're talking about provisioning a service to Kapiti Airport, aren't we?
The argument is that Air NZ is milking its profitable domestic routes to subsidise lower fares on its international ones.
is it? Personally I don't believe they are - at least not on any route that Jetstar is on. Airfares have never been lower to most places and I don't believe for a second that an AirNZ service to Waikickamoocow is going to do much to subsidise their flights to LAX. Do you?
At the same time, by dropping the insufficiently profitable domestic routes it is crapping on its customers who have no other equivalent alternative.
Who says they won't in due course? Kaitaia dropped but Kerikeri has been massively upgraded. Kapiti dropped but they can use Wellington and if there's enough demand Chathams or the like will move in. Not everyone can have an airport! Unless perhaps you are in the sort of socialist utopias as Venezuela in which case the government can just mandate that they can!
And *that* is where idiots like Shane Jones are coming from.