Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
Atlwarrior wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
Squeezix wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
picarus wrote:Wow, that's bit harsh. I don't work in the industry anymore, but I don't think that putting over 250K people out of work benefits anyone, particularly those of us who need to travel and generate economic activity. And before you flame me, I'm not aligned with any politcal party and am fairly fiscally conversative--meaning I agree with you about stock buybacks being folly and self-serving.
But, It's not as simple as filling a void...we're not talking about the corner Taco Bell closing down. Allowing airlines that control 80% of traffic in U.S. to disappear would be devastating.
Squeezix wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
32andBelow wrote:picarus wrote:Wow, that's bit harsh. I don't work in the industry anymore, but I don't think that putting over 250K people out of work benefits anyone, particularly those of us who need to travel and generate economic activity. And before you flame me, I'm not aligned with any politcal party and am fairly fiscally conversative--meaning I agree with you about stock buybacks being folly and self-serving.
But, It's not as simple as filling a void...we're not talking about the corner Taco Bell closing down. Allowing airlines that control 80% of traffic in U.S. to disappear would be devastating.
It’s folly to think the big 3 are actually going to shut down if we don’t bail them out.
32andBelow wrote:picarus wrote:Wow, that's bit harsh. I don't work in the industry anymore, but I don't think that putting over 250K people out of work benefits anyone, particularly those of us who need to travel and generate economic activity. And before you flame me, I'm not aligned with any politcal party and am fairly fiscally conversative--meaning I agree with you about stock buybacks being folly and self-serving.
But, It's not as simple as filling a void...we're not talking about the corner Taco Bell closing down. Allowing airlines that control 80% of traffic in U.S. to disappear would be devastating.
It’s folly to think the big 3 are actually going to shut down if we don’t bail them out.
Triple7Lr wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
And what do you purpose for the airline employees who can’t control how management decides to use profits like the Ticket and Ramp Agents? I do agree that the airlines have been irresponsible with their profits. The buybacks were out of control but I don’t think we should punish the little guy because of the corporate fat cats.
If they get bailed out maybe there can be a stipulation that prohibits buybacks and requires some type of rainy day fund.
32andBelow wrote:It’s folly to think the big 3 are actually going to shut down if we don’t bail them out.
flyoregon wrote:I'd be able to stay "open" if I didn't have a single flight or a single sale for about 8 months.
panamair wrote:32andBelow wrote:It’s folly to think the big 3 are actually going to shut down if we don’t bail them out.
Depends on how long it lasts. Even the strongest carriers will run out of cash by the end of the year if the current situation persists.flyoregon wrote:I'd be able to stay "open" if I didn't have a single flight or a single sale for about 8 months.
Well, guess what? That is currently what is being predicted if the situation does not improve - even the strongest airlines could run out of cash by the end of the year (i.e., in about 8 months time)
Scotron12 wrote:Triple7Lr wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
And what do you purpose for the airline employees who can’t control how management decides to use profits like the Ticket and Ramp Agents? I do agree that the airlines have been irresponsible with their profits. The buybacks were out of control but I don’t think we should punish the little guy because of the corporate fat cats.
If they get bailed out maybe there can be a stipulation that prohibits buybacks and requires some type of rainy day fund.
Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
Squeezix wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
Atlwarrior wrote:dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
32andBelow wrote:How bout offering stock from the stock they bought back from all their profits.
32andBelow wrote:How bout offering stock from the stock they bought back from all their profits.
32andBelow wrote:How bout offering stock from the stock they bought back from all their profits.
calpsafltskeds wrote:The bailout bill is up for grabs, I guess. And, per usual, Democrats want to push against airlines for a one-side protection of their interests, which they portray as worker and traveler rights.
https://www.businessinsider.com/airline ... 020-3?op=1
I would propose a balanced measure that would include do some of the below:
Airlines would be required to reduce capacity within 10% of each other's domestic capacity. I'll estimate 50% domestic capacity cut for now.
Executives making over $200 would take something like a 33% cut in pay.
Airlines would be able to retain slots if service is reduced in slot controlled airports
Airlines would have some type of bidding system to temporarily suspend service to smaller airports - groups of like-sized airports could lose 1 or 2 of the Big 3 temporarily under a draft type system. The airline that operates in the small airport can't start new routes or add permanent gates.
I'm not sure how WN would be treated.
Airlines would be allowed to ground any fleet type that would just temporarily allow scope rules to be relaxed.
Employee compensation would need to be addressed, first offering time w/o pay, pay guarantees for those with temporary station closures, minimum pay or cash for crew members whether working or not.
To minimize virus spread, temporarily aircraft should utilize seating to spread out passengers in the Y cabin, regardless of fare paid. If flight is under 60% full E+ passengers would get E+ seating and be guaranteed an empty middle seat before any Y passenger would be reseated to minimize 3 seats in a row are all full in Y.
Prevent airline buyback of shares at these current low prices.
Ban additional fees, but should not include a mandated rollback of current fee structure.
It's silly to do something about carbon as this downturn will ground and most likely remove older aircraft from the fleet. The airlines are in trouble now and aren't going to be able to accelerate phas out of older aircraft if it means new expenses.
Scotron12 wrote:Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
32andBelow wrote:Then they can raise money.
dallasnewark wrote:There is no need for the bail out. If the airline was too shortsighted in using all the profits for equity buyback to increase the share prices, they deserve to be out of business. If there is a demand or need, a new company will emerge
calpsafltskeds wrote:The bailout bill is up for grabs, I guess. And, per usual, Democrats want to push against airlines for a one-side protection of their interests, which they portray as worker and traveler rights.
https://www.businessinsider.com/airline ... 020-3?op=1
I would propose a balanced measure that would include do some of the below:
Airlines would be required to reduce capacity within 10% of each other's domestic capacity. I'll estimate 50% domestic capacity cut for now.
Executives making over $200 would take something like a 33% cut in pay.
Airlines would be able to retain slots if service is reduced in slot controlled airports
Airlines would have some type of bidding system to temporarily suspend service to smaller airports - groups of like-sized airports could lose 1 or 2 of the Big 3 temporarily under a draft type system. The airline that operates in the small airport can't start new routes or add permanent gates.
I'm not sure how WN would be treated.
Airlines would be allowed to ground any fleet type that would just temporarily allow scope rules to be relaxed.
Employee compensation would need to be addressed, first offering time w/o pay, pay guarantees for those with temporary station closures, minimum pay or cash for crew members whether working or not.
To minimize virus spread, temporarily aircraft should utilize seating to spread out passengers in the Y cabin, regardless of fare paid. If flight is under 60% full E+ passengers would get E+ seating and be guaranteed an empty middle seat before any Y passenger would be reseated to minimize 3 seats in a row are all full in Y.
Prevent airline buyback of shares at these current low prices.
Ban additional fees, but should not include a mandated rollback of current fee structure.
It's silly to do something about carbon as this downturn will ground and most likely remove older aircraft from the fleet. The airlines are in trouble now and aren't going to be able to accelerate phas out of older aircraft if it means new expenses.
panamair wrote:Scotron12 wrote:Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
It's not just Boeing or the airlines...it's CORPORATE AMERICA. You guys have an issue with CAPITALISM in America. It's so easy to blame shareholders but under the Capitalist system, shareholders are key; who do you think provides the CAPITAL in capitalism? And lest we forget, many employees are shareholders as well. Share buybacks benefit all shareholders, be they employees, grandmas, management or institutional investors...
Swadian wrote:Squeezix wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
Then bail out the employees. Not the airlines.
Midwestindy wrote:panamair wrote:Scotron12 wrote:Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
It's not just Boeing or the airlines...it's CORPORATE AMERICA. You guys have an issue with CAPITALISM in America. It's so easy to blame shareholders but under the Capitalist system, shareholders are key; who do you think provides the CAPITAL in capitalism? And lest we forget, many employees are shareholders as well. Share buybacks benefit all shareholders, be they employees, grandmas, management or institutional investors...
However, all of Corporate America is not asking for a bail out, at least not yet
Midwestindy wrote:panamair wrote:Scotron12 wrote:Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
It's not just Boeing or the airlines...it's CORPORATE AMERICA. You guys have an issue with CAPITALISM in America. It's so easy to blame shareholders but under the Capitalist system, shareholders are key; who do you think provides the CAPITAL in capitalism? And lest we forget, many employees are shareholders as well. Share buybacks benefit all shareholders, be they employees, grandmas, management or institutional investors...
However, all of Corporate America is not asking for a bail out, at least not yet
panamair wrote:Scotron12 wrote:Water under the bridge, but don't you think the airlines were taking their cue from Boeings playbook? Massive stock buybacks to generate huge paydays for management and Wall Street?
Now they are all hat in hand. Jeez...$43Billion in buybacks and $17Billion in dividends Boeing spent in a 6yr period 2013-2019! Bet they wish they had kept a big chunk ha??
It's not just Boeing or the airlines...it's CORPORATE AMERICA. You guys have an issue with CAPITALISM in America. It's so easy to blame shareholders but under the Capitalist system, shareholders are key; who do you think provides the CAPITAL in capitalism? And lest we forget, many employees are shareholders as well. Share buybacks benefit all shareholders, be they employees, grandmas, management or institutional investors...
picarus wrote:
I’m afraid not. Consumers are the key. Wipe out demand and no amount of CAPITAL will protect share holders.
32andBelow wrote:Squeezix wrote:Atlwarrior wrote:
I absolutely agree. All those years of airline profits, something should have been set aside for a high-risk event.
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
They can work at the airlines that fill the gap. Air travel won’t just end on these routes.
I feel like a broken record but this business model of not making any money on the core product and trying to make it up on fees, shoving a butt into every seat available, cutting costs by cutting customer service and treating paxs like human cattle is not sustainable when some kind of adverse economic impact hits. The industry again has built massive capacity flying people half way across the country for $139 round trip but treating them like garbage, giving them a substandard product and finding other means to gouge them. Until the airline industry has a sane profit making business model the bailouts will be constant as well as the constant complaining.
planecane wrote:Are you suggesting the government should pay all airline employees their salary to do nothing?
EA CO AS wrote:Sorry, but no amount of cash set aside from earnings would have insulated against an event of this magnitude.
AAPramugari14 wrote:I’m Flight Crew... without this bailout expect the US3 to fail and possibly disappear. On top of that expect millions to be out on the street without jobs. Airlines aren’t the only ones effected. There’s so many contract workers who are tied to the survival of the US3 that if we did all go belly up it would be a disaster for the world economy. Let’s not even forget the immediate impact on Boeing and Airbus. Some of you need to think about the repercussions...
VS11 wrote:Can I just remind everyone that during TARP in 2008, the Government/taxpayers made money? The Government can always take an ownership stake in each airline and when things improve sell them. This isn’t some deeply conflicting moral case. It is a temporary situation and the goal is to minimize the disruptiveness. The Government is not giving free money away.
Mightyflyer86 wrote:VS11 wrote:Can I just remind everyone that during TARP in 2008, the Government/taxpayers made money? The Government can always take an ownership stake in each airline and when things improve sell them. This isn’t some deeply conflicting moral case. It is a temporary situation and the goal is to minimize the disruptiveness. The Government is not giving free money away.
Can you substantiate your claim?
EA CO AS wrote:32andBelow wrote:Squeezix wrote:
And how many hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because of this attitude?
They can work at the airlines that fill the gap. Air travel won’t just end on these routes.
Air travel just won't end, but the economy as we know it will. Airlines don't just rise from the ground overnight; you'd be talking about months of ramp-up for a new entrant to start scheduled operations, and even then, just limited ones. Now imagine trying to replace all the current lift out there, while everything tourism-based - hotels, theme parks, car rentals, cruise lines - go under. What starts with about 700K people unemployed now balloons into 2 million or more. And from that point, we're not in a recession, but a global depression.
Sorry, but no amount of cash set aside from earnings would have insulated against an event of this magnitude.
VS11 wrote:Mightyflyer86 wrote:VS11 wrote:Can I just remind everyone that during TARP in 2008, the Government/taxpayers made money? The Government can always take an ownership stake in each airline and when things improve sell them. This isn’t some deeply conflicting moral case. It is a temporary situation and the goal is to minimize the disruptiveness. The Government is not giving free money away.
Can you substantiate your claim?
U.S. ends TARP with $15.3 billion profit
https://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/c ... louts-end/