Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3925 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 6919 times:
Sure, there's always a chance. The government has bailed out various private industries before, including airlines - and it doesn't matter whether there's a supposedly conservative government in place or not. (In fact, most of the big bailouts I can remember - Chrysler, the airlines post-9/11, Goldman Sachs, etc. happened under conservative governments that supposedly believe in the "free market" deciding things.)
Pros and cons? There are no pros that I can see. The airlines affected would get to limp along a little while longer before folding up their tents anyway. This is not a temporary situation they're in with these oil prices, which is the only situation in which a bailout ever makes sense.
As for cons, it would be a huge waste of taxpayer money (though what else is new?), it would bring false hope to millions of passengers and airline employees, and it would set a really bad precedent.
The money would be better spent elsewhere, like accelerating government grants for research into alternative fuels and fuel efficiency.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
TN757Flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6867 times:
It looks like the government may be in the faced with bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. That's going to a very costly chunk of change. To bail out the airlines is going to add to a deficit many taxpayers are already up in arms over. The post 9/11 bailouts in essence just postponed the inevitable for a number of airlines, and I'm not sure this time would be any different. Certainly, there's no easy solution to this one unless someone can figure out how to get oil prices back down, and we know the likelihood of that happening in the near future.
I hate to say this, but if it did not take so long for the train to get places, I am sure more people would be riding it. I take a commuter train everyday and it is a nice way to travel, but it takes an hour to move about 40 miles. If it was possible to speed that up, I think the airlines would be hurting worse then they already are, especially in the intrastate market of some states (such as California).
OzarkD9S From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5454 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6614 times:
Not a bailout, and not by the feds. State and local governments can and have given tax breaks, incentives, fee waivers etc...to large airline employers in various locations in the past. But no state, or combination of states have the financial means, nor likely the legal means to "bailout" a major US carrier.
You say there are no pros because you assume that the situation is temporary. Why do you assume that? There seems to be a fair amount of disagreement about the trajectory of oil prices.
Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 1): This is not a temporary situation they're in with these oil prices, which is the only situation in which a bailout ever makes sense.
If it is temporary, there's a straightforward theoretical argument for a bailout: if the transaction costs of other carriers picking up the pieces post-liquidation are higher than the amount spent on the bailout, society comes out ahead with a bailout.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Boston92 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3390 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6505 times:
Quoting Sawb1980 (Reply 14): This is a nice concept! This will change the habits of the frequent traveler especially since it seems to hit a lot of the big cities. Be interesting to see if/when it goes through.
Its going to be on the NOV ballot. If approved, bids and construction may begin as early as 2010.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 27673 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6455 times:
Quoting Boston92 (Reply 15): Its going to be on the NOV ballot. If approved, bids and construction may begin as early as 2010.
And hopefully it loses!
The biggest financial boondoggle the state has ever seen, that will drain tax payer money for decades to come with just about zero chance of turning a profit. (unlike what they like to say on their website).
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
The problem isnt amtrak per se,but its the fact that they dont own many onf the tracks they run on outside of the Northeast. The corridor is rather efficient for the amount of trains on it, not just amtrak. For instance, I did Springfield,Ma-Washington DC in about 7 hours. Not really a bad ride, better then going by car and cheaper then flying. Two people 250.00 total. Lowest airfare to BWI/IAD/DCA was 189pp. For me, traveling anywhere in the Northeast I look at amtrak first then the airlines.
Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
AA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6364 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 13): I am definitely not in favor of a bailout, but I can't imagine the WTO would get around to dealing with such a thing for quite a while - how long have they been sitting on the Airbus/Boeing dispute?