Congress mulls raft of supply chain bills – but one is missing, say BCOs
Beneficial cargo owners and logistics providers are looking to the US Congress for legislation to ...
XOM: GO GREEN NOWKNIN: BOUNCING OFF NEW LOWS HON: BREAK-UP PRESSURECHRW: UPGRADESZIM: LAGGARDFWRD: LEADINGMAERSK: OPPORTUNISTIC UPGRADETSLA: GETTING OUTDSV: DOWN BELOW KEY LEVELLINE: DOWN TO ALL-TIME LOWS AMZN: DEI HURDLESAAPL: DEI RECOMMENDATIONAAPL: INNOVATIONF: MAKING MONEY IN CHINAMAERSK: THE DAY AFTER
XOM: GO GREEN NOWKNIN: BOUNCING OFF NEW LOWS HON: BREAK-UP PRESSURECHRW: UPGRADESZIM: LAGGARDFWRD: LEADINGMAERSK: OPPORTUNISTIC UPGRADETSLA: GETTING OUTDSV: DOWN BELOW KEY LEVELLINE: DOWN TO ALL-TIME LOWS AMZN: DEI HURDLESAAPL: DEI RECOMMENDATIONAAPL: INNOVATIONF: MAKING MONEY IN CHINAMAERSK: THE DAY AFTER
Ever so slightly off the freight topic, but this is a fascinating short piece in The Economist on airline competition. It notes that rival airlines with shareholders in common, for example a mutual fund, might be discouraged from normal market measures like a price war to lure customers from one airline to another. The shared ownership is, in essence, anti-competitive. And the study that highlighted this issue, discovered that routes run by airlines with shared ownership had higher prices – 3-5% higher, in fact. As the article rightly points out, this creates something of a headache for the authorities. Should you restrict share ownership? Or ensure a competitive market for consumers?
Comment on this article