But if you want a wave of new and better services there will be another

But if you want a wave of new and better services, there will be another one along in a minute.There is, however, a larger point to be made about the latest restructuring. It is that the dynamism of the airlines market is the best answer to the bleatings of various vested interests that oppose urgently needed changes to promote efficiency and protect the environment. The industry is both too heavily regulated and too lightly taxed. The market in landing rights needs to be freed so that the most efficient operators pay the best prices to use congested airports.

Aviation fuel, which is untaxed for international flights, ought to be taxed as heavily as other forms of petroleum to reflect its environmental costs.Both changes would cause dislocation, and the second would certainly increase fares. But capitalism has shown it can take these challenges in its stride, while continuing to offer better services and to bear down on prices Bye-bye Buzz. You were not fleet-winged enough to survive, but other newcomers will be.. Once again Tony Blair has exhibited his skill with words He is part lawyer, part therapist.

“When people say to me how long do you give it, you give it as long as it takes to come to a conclusive and final judgement that they are not co-operating,” he said in America. On one reading of that sentence, he earns our heartfelt agreement. Saddam Hussein’s regime should be contained by an open-ended United Nations inspection regime, with the threat of further action reserved unless and until there is “conclusive” evidence that Saddam is concealing chemical or biological weapons, or of a link with al-Qa’ida.But there was also an implication in Tony Blair’s words that it is only a matter of time before that conclusive judgement is reached. In his next breath, he slid into the question of whether the Iraqis are co-operating now: “At the moment they are not.” True, they insist on minders accompanying scientists to interviews with the UN inspectors.

But is this in itself enough to engage in a military action, consequences unknown? No.Typically, Mr Blair uses words that pretend the issue has not already been decided, and then tries to tilt the debate in favour of the conclusion to which he has, in truth, already committed his premiership and his nation. He made it clear some time ago that, if the US went to war in Iraq, Britain would fight alongside.His gamble is that he will win British public opinion round, but his dishonesty is in pretending that the outcome could be altered by a vote in either the House of Commons or the UN Security Council. Of course, he would prefer to have those votes behind him, but Britain is locked into conflict anyway if George Bush decides upon it.That makes it extremely difficult for Mr Bush and Mr Blair to persuade those who are so far unpersuaded of the necessity of war. And the unpersuaded form a large part of opinion even in America, a larger part in Europe and an even larger part not just in Arab countries but in the rest of the developing world, as Nelson Mandela’s intervention this week showed.When Mr Blair says “as long as it takes”, he does not mean it. “There can be no excuse for slipping into war because of the dictates of logistics or the weather,” he said.That is surely right. There is no case for setting a deadline for Iraqi co-operation.