Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA And The British  
User currently offlineCyprus-Turkish From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 199 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Why is everyone blaming the British Government for protecting its own airline. Afterall why would they let it go bunkrupt?
George Bush did the same thing.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

Preaching around the world to ensure free trade and honest competition and the next week do the contrary (if the shit hits the fan for your own industry) can sometimes provoke some comments ....

keesje



User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Capitalism and free markets have always been restrained to varying degrees by governments-as to whether that is a good thing, I don't know-would make an interesting conversation.

Hypothetically speaking, I'm not sure the British gov't would allow BA to go under-maybe they would, I guess it depends on the degree to which the population would be inconvenienced, and whether it would be possible for other airlines to satisfy the subsequent surge in demand. But overall, I don't think the party in power would be happy to allow it-the people may vote them out for causing such chaos and misery (not to mention all the unemployment that would result).

Isn't that why Bush decided to help out US steel producers-domestic politics?

Regards



User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

Compared to US and some European carriers, the UK goverment has done little to 'protect' BA. And the post sept. 11th the insurance cover will lapse soon, and guess which goverment is lukewarm to an extension or creating an airline mutual scheme?


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

There also is the difference between

** free-listed/ privately owned airlines like all BA, US based, KLM, CX, LH and most smaller ones and

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Sven De Bevere



** government owned/directed airlines like Singapore, Airfrance, Iberia, Alitalia, Aeroflot and so on.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Ian Moy


Mostly they have the newest planes and domestic domination. (politics play are a big role in these areas) .

They are mostly directly or in-directly subsidized as proud flag carriers. Them going bust many times means the government has a problem, the people blame them (e.g. SN).

BA is privately owned, so the goevrnment is limited in protecting it. However Blair and his Socialists are in power now & patriotism isn´t seen as rightwing/primitive anymore ..






User currently offlineCarmy From Singapore, joined Oct 2001, 627 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

I would hardly call SIA subsidised by the government. Very early on in the airline's history it was made sufficiently clear to the airline that if they couldn't make it by themselves in the industry, it was their problem and not the government's. SIA has never reported a loss since its seperation from Malaysian Airlines in 1972. The only other airline which can boast a similar record is Southwest, and even they are a budget airline and in a completely different league from SIA. This loss-free record is the reason why SIA can afford to continually renew their fleet with new planes. Absolutely nothing to do with government subsidies of any sort.

I don't see how SIA can have any sort of domestic domination. You can drive from one end of Singapore to the other end in like 40 minutes. If you took a plane it'd take like 40 seconds to get from one end to the other. Singapore from its most eastern point to its most western point is barely more than 40 kilometres. SIA has absolutely no domestic market to fall back on and all of the company's revenue comes from its international routes and customers.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

'Blair and his socalists?'
Your Dutch Conservatives, or their equivalent, are probably more left-wing than Blair!


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

Blair & the Dutch prime minister are both socialist and I believe even friends ... Labor is a socialist party but whats the problem about that ? Many socialist government in western europe for the past 50 (?) years

Singapore wouldn´t be on the world map as presently without SQ airlines. That is why the government has some very good tax deals & landing rights for them, gave them a great Hub, allows very uncivilized labor (recruitment) situations etc .

Its al possible Singapore is economical succesfull, is needly located between EastAsia & Europe and most of all :

is Definately Not A Democracy ...

But passengers don´t know / want to see this. They just get a great product /service, no question about that !

cheers

keesje


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1551 times:

Not to forget that SIA went into debt as the SG Gov would not give them money to buy 3 Boeing 742s


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineCyprus-Turkish From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

you probably don't need to be owned by the government in order to be fed by it. The money AA, DL, UAL, etc got from Bush proves it.

BA does not seem to be financially fed by Westminister. All the parliament does is to make sure that LHR stays with BA. And that's fair enough

No offense Richard Branson


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

However Blair and his Socialists are in power now

Lol.Blair is not socialist!More like middle of the way


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7447 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!


An anagram of Tony Blair MP:

I'm Tory Plan B

David/MAN


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (12 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

LOL David  Smile  Big thumbs up


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...
BA And 'the Cross'........ posted Fri Nov 24 2006 18:00:38 by BAStew
BA And The 777 To SYD posted Mon Jul 24 2006 00:24:41 by Etuk380
BA And The DC-10 posted Sun Jul 9 2006 17:27:49 by Scalebuilder
BA And The 737NG posted Tue Feb 14 2006 21:46:41 by LY777
BA And The A380 For The 2012 Olympics posted Thu Jul 7 2005 08:19:01 by Megatop
BA And The 787? posted Thu May 19 2005 07:28:55 by VirginFSM
BA And The A380 posted Tue Dec 30 2003 02:08:54 by QANTASpower
BA And The A380 posted Sun Jun 8 2003 20:32:24 by Monarch
LHR T5, BA And The A380 posted Sun Dec 9 2001 15:54:43 by Scorpio
BA And The A321 posted Fri Oct 26 2001 12:59:35 by Speedbird744