Doesn't mean it's wrong per se - depends on particulars of regulations being pushed for. Competitors aren't a force of good, from customer POV. They're as likely to introduce beneficial innovations as they are to cut corners and externalize costs to improve their competitiveness. The latter is undesirable. Would it be better for relevant regulations to exist before the incumbents became what they are? Sure. But even late regulation is better than no regulation.
Almost everything people complain about in air travel (other than security restrictions and inconveniences) is a consequence of the relentless competition over price. If we assume the customers are rational actors, then we must assume that this situation is optimal, and it is certainly the case that for a few bucks more on top of the lowest base price, you can often get an experience more suited to your preferences (not so easily, however, if you are taller than average.) Most people do not seem to see it this way, however.
At least regulation has broadly prevented a race to the bottom in trading safety for cost reduction.
People love to complain about airlines, but when it comes to buying the ticket, they always choose the cheapest one, even if it was no carry-on luggage, or a place to stretch your feet.
In Europe, I personally only use budget airlines because they have a variety of direct flights to different destinations, wheras nicer airlines tent to mainly fly through hubs, meaning you would have to have stopovers.
I think this is often the case for other people as well.
Airlines - the food was terrible and the portions too small
People have shown that they value the hard product most - being able to get from A to B fast.
That is optimal. If we increase service people that could afford air travel will decrease. Maybe a good thing for the planet ... but not according to the people being priced out.
First class is extinct beast - since business started to have full flats, there is just no reason to fly first.
except in many places you never had reliable taxi service. they would just drive past you if they did not like how you looked let alone avoid your area if they decided it wasn't worth their time.
let alone the fact many work under conditions no uber or lyft driver would.
if anything taxi companies had to up their game treating both their employees and customers better and they did not want to because they had the service locked down to themselves
Uber has been doing damage to society ever since they introduced the rideshare option. They don't have to be the only player available to be a problem; being a monopoly would just be a cherry on the cake.
Competition is fine, as long as it plays by the rules. That it has to play by a stricter rulebook than the incumbents had when they were starting isn't a bad thing, just suboptimal. "Better late than never".
They don't have a profitable business, it is driving down prices not through any innovation just shit loads of investment. I can only guess the investors are expecting a return as per usual. So how the fuck is that going to happen?
Not all competitors are SpaceX. Many are Uber.