| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 145975 | 2018-03-21 19:03:00 | Stir: Shane Jones is Quite Right | Terry Porritt (14) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1447565 | 2018-03-25 20:53:00 | Still going on with all that increased population crap I see. Yes, because every day I see new evidence of why we need it. |
Digby (677) | ||
| 1447566 | 2018-03-25 21:10:00 | Right Wing purists argue against subsidization as a dirty word, but where there is a bit of social concience it is not always bad, indeed business often subsidizes,either as a loss leader or cross subsidization. www.mbaskool.com The funniest purist RW faux pas I encountered was in the 70s, when during local government reorganisation, certain people complained about paying a sewage rate when they were not on main drainage. A bloke got uppity about it and eventually took the case to the House of Lords where they agreed he did not have to pay. In those days it was common practise to charge every one the same whether they were on main drainage or not. This enabled devlopments in rural areas to be carried out without exhorbitant costs to individuals, costs were shared across all rate payers. Uptil then we paid a nominal charge to have the cess pit emptied, like 50 pence per load, and a small levy on the rates for sewage. After the Lords ruling, the local council complied and emptying charges were raised to the full value...........£5 a load.... a lot then. Guess who screamed the loudest...............LMAO :clap |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1447567 | 2018-03-26 04:16:00 | I’d like to see what the “Airport Charges” were on the destinations Air New Zealand are dropping before I “called out” Air New Zealand. ;) I do know that Airport Charges often exceed the airline fare, so maybe that is the source of the problem. Those of us who have travelled will be aware that the total cost of your fare is generally itemised, and I’m dammed if I can see how some airports justify their fees. :( |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1447568 | 2018-03-26 09:53:00 | I think a lot of people commenting on this issue have missed the point that company directors are required by law to act in what they believe is the best interests of the company. a director of a company, when exercising powers or performing duties, must act in good faith and in what the director believes to be the best interests of the company Source: www.legislation.govt.nz I think that they would be criminally liable if they chose to run routes for the good of New Zealand, or the good of the majority shareholder, if they felt it was not in the best interest of the company itself. I think that's fine - a company shouldn't be evil, but needn't be a charity either. Most companies don't provide significant unprofitable services for the good of the nation, unless forced by regulation (e.g. telcos) or assisted by subsidy (e.g. buses). Anyone who thinks that these routes are important should be thinking about what the right way is to have them served - we could nationalise Air NZ (a bit extreme), offer it subsidies to run the routes, etc. But besides the legalities, it would be plainly unfair to the 49% shareholder(s) for Air NZ to capitulate to the wishes of the government (not that it necessarily is that) against their own judgement. |
george12 (7) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||