777D From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 300 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1068 times:
If this is true what CNN is reporting, it was inevitable after the slowing economy but brought on more rapidly from the events from 09-11-01. UAL must be scrambling at it's HQ on how to recover lost confidence as well how to fill their empty seats. All airlines are fighting for passengers which has instantly became smaller after 09-11-01. All these carriers cannot survive, I honestly believe that one or two major carriers will be out of business within a year. I hate to see it happen but it shall happen. With the economy, low fare carriers, trains (playing a bigger role than ever), fuel prices and raises given to all employees in a time when the industry knew that it was slowing down, layoff were/are bound to happen. I know this will affect the industry that I am in, air freight. I have noticed a dramatic slow down and with the airlines experiencing this situation, the ripple effect will almost affect everyone.
There are 7-9 major carriers can they all survive?
UAL-FAN From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 369 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 976 times:
I certainly hope that the government does not intervene. I think that Market forces should prevail. If some of them go out of business, so be it. Recent events just accelerated the process which was already begun by airline employees demanding and receiving wages that the industry cannot support.
As a tax payor, I do not want to pay for this industries blunders.
777D From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 300 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 948 times:
I see the point of having the government bail out the airline industry, but what about the rest of the economy? The stores, air freight forwarders (my livelyhood), taxi cab companies, bus companies, contract workers and etc. Should they all receive a bail out as well? Not trying to make "waves" but asking a question.
Milemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1037 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 934 times:
There is something to be said about that..
It certainly was no secret that a terrorist attack of this magnitude was a risk to all airlines of the world. Every day they operate, they accept the assumed risk. When a new startup like Airtran, Legend, Jetblue, etc takes to the skies for the 1st time they are accepting this as a risk for the business model they have chosen.
For the sake of arguement, why should the taxpayer pay up essentially to corporations that didn't prepare themselves for crisis scenarios? It's alarming that an industry that personally handles millions of lives a year is spread so thin that if they can't operate for a few days, they're laying off tens of thousands of people and threatening bankruptcy. I do understand the anticipation of a severe drop in passenger loads as a major factor in requesting governmental aid.
Maybe airlines should've focused less on purchasing new RJ's and flooding U.S. business center airports and created more of a cushon for themselves. Then perhaps spent the money on security to lessen the risk of a business destroying tragedy like the WTC. I'm not suggesting airlines not be competetive by denying frequencies to major business hubs. I'm saying that they should be denied the opportunity to compete until they have established a credible security base to build & grow on.
So... because we americans have become so dependent on air travel that the economy craters without deregulated airlines, We(the taxpayers) have to bail them out for their lack of preparation.
Let me make sure I'm clear, WE NEED THE AID PACKAGE. But it's truly sad that we NEED the aid package to begin with.
If we weren't so dependent on air travel, would this even be an issue?
CRJCA From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 56 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 852 times:
No big surprise here. Those who said it before may be right, these may be inflated numbers. However, United was going to lose a BILLION dollars this year before the attacks. Layoffs were probably in the works anyway.
Sforamper From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 114 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 837 times:
Bailout is the wrong word here, and for those who dont know how an airline operates and makes money please stay off the subject. someone suggested that a couple of days on the ground is no big deal, well they still have to pay the employees not to mention airport fees. No doubt the goverment is gonna help whether u like it or not.
Coloneh From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 791 times:
I have read several articles, and the government DOES recognize that some airlines may have to shut down. And the gov't also recognizes that most of the airlines WILL INEVITABLY CUT BACK AND FURLOUGH EMPLOYEES EVEN IF GOV'T AID IS PROVIDED. As mentioned several times, and fact, the industry was suffering before this happend and is dying now.
But if the Gov't aids this industry, then what about the travel support companies? What about affected hotels? What about affected convention providers, such as Disney= who has already had 16 conventions CANCELED!?
Where does it stop?
The government is in NO way going to PREVENT any airline from cutting back, furloughing nor going out of business, they are attempting to TRY to balance things out. No guarantees here.