Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can Aviation Industry Survive Another 9/11?  
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5042 posts, RR: 16
Posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2082 times:

another question for debate: can the u.s. aviation industry survive another 9/11, with flights grounded for a couple of weeks and the associated reduction in passengers afterward, and the deep fare sales to lure people back?

which airlines do you think will not survive without a merger?

Can southwest do it again, and survive without any layoffs?

what do you think would be the impact if such an event caused a 25% (hypothetical) reduction in passengers from TODAY'S (12/24/03) levels?

Many airlines have already cut back, been thru bankruptcy, suffered major wage cuts and layoffs and I am wondering if they are prepared to have to do it again. I dont think the government can keep pouring money into airlines like last time.

bruce


Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

If the attack is a plane being shot down on take off or approach, then no, the industry cannot cope with it. The main reason being is that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it, and there is nothing that the government can tell us that will have us believe that it can be prevented. If another 9.11 style attack happens, you can stick a fork in the US aviation industry

J


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Southwest and some of the LLC's would survive as well as some of the majors but the question is What would actually survive. Without a doubt it would take American, United, and @ least several other major carriers down. This would allow the remainder to survive in some form.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5042 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Perhaps the only bright spot would be if they use a foreign airline, then Americans will believe "well, I'm safe flying in my own country". Same with cargo planes - people will think that cargo doesn't affect them.

But 9/11 happened with two of America's "legacy" carriers out of two of our busiest airports on popular routes.

don't forget, al-qaeda's goal is also to disrupt our economy. That's why I worry about this. Air Travel is such a major part of our economy and lifestyle.

I dont think numbers have fully recovered to pre-9/11 levels yet, correct? Anyone with any ties to the aviation industry, including stockholders, should be worried.

bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineDeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 22
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2030 times:

It would merely accelerate the process of industry consolidation to 1 or 2 majors that is underway already.

The more important question isn't whether the industry can survive but what effect it would have on the American people.



It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
User currently offlineRiverVisualNYC From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 930 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

The industry will consolidate, be somewhat re-regulated, and then outsourced to foreign low-cost operators working under heightened government supervision.

User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

"The industry will consolidate, be somewhat re-regulated, and then outsourced to foreign low-cost operators working under heightened government supervision.":


Are you crazy? Look at what is going on today. If another aviation style attack happens, then there would be no way foreign airlines would be allowed to operate in the US. You just can't be sure about the crews to the extent that you could be sure about a US crew. I would not be surprised to see serious restrictions on non US airline travel to and from the US in the future.


User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5042 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

But if there was nothing the airlines could do? if we are screening people to the best of our technology, have strong cockpit doors, etc then its not their fault. How could re-regulating help.

Is having one or two majors really such a bad idea? Isnt that the way things work in a few other countries?

bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

Couple of things:

1. Known foreign airlines from our allies/industrialized nations would still be allowed to serve the US: LH, SAS, BA, QF, AC and probably KE and JL, and probably even more European carries like AF and IB as well would be allowed. Heightened supervision, of course. I would expect serious cutbacks in the amount of flights those carriers I listed on flights to the US.

2. US will certainly go down. AA, DL probably would have to file Ch. 11, and CO and NW would probably be seriously affected.

3. WN would survive, but would face losses and probably layoffs for the first time. I would think one or more LCC's would merge or fail. It may accelerate a F9/B6 merger.

4. If it's cargo, our economy would be seriously disrupted.

5. Better not interfere with my trip to Europe next July, or I may do some terrorizing of my own!  Pissed


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

There is no point discussing who would survive. None of them will. Todays financial health will mean nothing. Confidence is security will be totally eroded, and nothing willl restore it. Yes there will still be some people that will fly, aviation as a medium of mass transit would be finished. Continental and NW are currently the healthiest of the US majors, and even today without the second 9.11, they are losing money. So anything that makes it worse will be the final nail

Jeremy


User currently offlineCanadaEH From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 1341 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

The attention seems to be solely on air transportation.

What about cruise ships? Train stations? Oil tankers? Sports stadiums?

How stupid do we think these terrorists are? They took a mode of transportation and turned it into a weapon; who would have ever thought of that? I bet the next big terrorist event will have nothing to do with aviation, but rather something completely different. Nuclear weapons factory? Power plants? Dams? There is a never ending supply of targets.



EH.
User currently offlineLuv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12090 posts, RR: 49
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

I also do not think the next attack will be via an airline/airplane/airport. I do think they are going to try and attack again, I think most likely it will be a suicide bomber or such, crowds at the malls because of the Holidays, sporting event, New Years Eve in Times Square. I hope and pray nothing happens, tho I live in the real world where I know and understand we as a country (USA) are hated.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1920 times:

>>>another question for debate: can the u.s. aviation industry survive another 9/11, with flights grounded for a couple of weeks and the associated reduction in passengers afterward, and the deep fare sales to lure people back?

I think the aviation industry would "survive" (in the sense that it wasn't going to disappear completely) but how well it would do so would depend upon a variety of factors.

First off, generally speaking, any second attack of the scope of the previous 9/11 attack is probably going to have a more debilitating effect on the nation and the economy. The first time on 9/11, it was all a big surprise, and a big shock, and there were various kinds of efforts taken afterwards to hopefully prevent a recurrence. Again, in a general sense, if another major attack demostrates those post 9/11 efforts as being inadequate, I think the recovery time for the American public, the aviation industry, and the national economy are going to be alot longer.

If a second attack uses aviation as the actual mechanism (missile shootdown, explosive device, another kamakazie-style attack, whatever) more folks (than post 9/11) will stay away from air travel, and stay away longer. The post 9/11 grounding was only a few days in duration (just long enough to get the security screening "fixed") (yeah, I know), but if a second attack involved a planted explosive device or a missile shootdown, the grounding period could be much longer, since corrective efforts would involve a much higher level of technology that take longer to deploy. This would especially be the case as far as equpping the civil fleet with missile countermeasures.

The biggest threat, IMHO, isn't necessarily via another attack using aviation, or nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, but is more so an "unleashing" of potentially destructive stuff that's already here. (It was the same rationale as they're using aircraft as missliles on 9/11 versus building their own missiles). I'm talking about stuff like petrochemical plants, road/rail transport of hazmat cargos. Also, attacks on various critical infrastructures like utilities, communications, roads, and bridges. If you thought the NE blackout was bad, imagine the effect on the economy (and overall morale) had it been an -intential- attack on the powergrid, and the damage taken weeks/months to repair before power could have been restored. Likewise if they go after a cheap EMP-generating weapon that fries a zillion things that we use in daily life that use electricity.

Don't get me wrong--any method of subsequent attack would have effects on aviation, and the nation's recovery from it--it just depends upon what form any second attack actually takes.


>>>I dont think the government can keep pouring money into airlines like last time.

They may have no other choice. If it came down to a matter of supporting the industry or letting major companies/industry segments fail (each with their own additional effects and negative contribution to the general economy), which do you think the government would choose? (It's called damage control).

As far as which specific airlines would survive, the only opinion I can express with any degree of confidence is that those with the lowest cost structures will have the best chance. With post-attack loads down, those with higher cost structures simply aren't going to be able to pull as much needed revenue as they need to operate. Depending upon when (or if) the goverment intervenes with financial support (and how much), any existing high-cost carrier has a better chance of failing.



[Edited 2003-12-25 02:08:56]

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16239 posts, RR: 56
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

The efficient & well-run airlines, ie. all the LCC's, could easily survive another 9-11.

Ryanair, Southwest, AirTran, Westjet at all barely skipped a beat after 9-11. Indeed, the hemmoraging of the legacy carriers after 9-11 actually strengthened the LCC's relatively.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBruce From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5042 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

daopnlguy has a good point.

we have just passed the century mark of powered flight on 12/17 and here aviation is such an incredibly vital part of our whole being as a country. the terrorists know this and know that the way to hit us where it hurts is to damage our aviation sector. The only other thing that could damage us as much is a nuclear device. And in that case, being in an airplane at 33,000 feet might be the only safe place to be!

bruce



Bruce Leibowitz - Jackson, MS (KJAN) - Canon 50D/100-400L IS lens
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1791 times:

>>>I dont think the government can keep pouring money into airlines like last time.
*****

The problem here is that the airlines are just the messenger. Al Qaeda have no interest in the airlines themselves, just using them as a tool to accomplish the mission. If you assume for the sake of discussion that the target is the US gov as opposed to the airlines, then the GOV has to take responsibility for this as they are essentially the reason this is happening. I am not in any way blaming them, or saying that they are deserving, just that they ARE the target.

J


User currently offlineStefandotde From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Bucky 707: " ... I would not be surprised to see serious restrictions on non US airline travel to and from the US in the future."

Yes, cool, that would be best result: each airline in it's own country! No more international flights - people should take trains and cars then. But would be very wet when people want to travel over the atlantic.


User currently offlineMoolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1702 times:

They all will, for the simple reason that now mostly the people flying have to, and so even after 9/11 (the second) those guys will have to still keep flying.

Besides there are many airlines with their heads still above the water, or just managing to keep thier heads up apart from the US ones.


User currently offlinePalebird From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

IF there is another attack on American soil then the terrorists are really going to see a war on their hands. They probably have no idea what they are getting themselves into. It will not be pretty but the US is now aware of the threats that are out there. I think a lot of people still think 9/11 was a one off deal. A fluke. If something else major happened well look out. It can be hard to wake the US to world events but once arroused(WWI,especially WWII) look out. As far as air travel that will never stop. Any further serious attacks will have a major impact on the world economy whether it is aircraft,train,power plants, buildings,etc..The result of another aircraft attack would be the closure of US airspace to outside countries. It would turn the industry on it's head again but what else would you expect? People will still fly but probably will not regard air travel as being safer than driving their car and will think twice about taking off for the weekend.Foreign carriers would really be hurt by being shut out of the US.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13940 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (10 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Back in WW2 it was well known who the enemy were and where they were. Today´s terrorists are an army of inconspicious sleepers who might as well lead ordinary lifes for years before attacking. And even the attacks on Afghanistan showed that there are uncontrolable regions where they can still have their training bases. Or was the Taliban ever completely defeated? Same with the communist Red Army Faction (better known to many non-Germans as the Baader-Meinhof-Gang) in Germany. The last generation never got caught. All they did was to send a couple of letters to some newspapers a few years ago stating that they considered the war to be over due to political changes (collapse of the Sovietunion)

Jan


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Future Aviation Industry Cycles posted Tue May 1 2007 16:36:47 by WithaK
Corporate Cultures In The Aviation Industry posted Sun Nov 26 2006 21:54:17 by Haggis79
Law And The Aviation Industry posted Sun Oct 22 2006 23:46:53 by Bobbydgg
What's Wrong With European Aviation Industry? posted Fri Oct 6 2006 21:31:50 by Katekebo
Books On Airplanes And Aviation Industry posted Thu Aug 10 2006 02:13:44 by Etrast
Another 9/11 Tape posted Wed Mar 29 2006 03:32:11 by Sfomb67
Nice Article About Aviation-industry Couple posted Sun Mar 19 2006 18:09:03 by RJpieces
Customer Helping In The Aviation Industry posted Tue Feb 21 2006 13:05:32 by Pe@rson
Presentation On The CIS Aviation Industry posted Tue Feb 14 2006 01:22:56 by Alberchico
Rapid Changes In Mexico's Aviation Industry posted Thu Jan 12 2006 18:42:38 by AR385