To me critical infrastructure and network are opposites in LH's case.
LH is 10% critical infrastructure, 90% expendable.
90% expendable because their global network is replicated by and in competition with many airlines in other countries that can fill the same demand that LH addresses. So there is nothing critical about it from the world's point of view nor Germany's point of view.
10% are those routes that only they serve and have a meaningful impact on the economy.
This argument completely ignores that the cause of this crisis has had an adverse affect in virtually every country in the world. So these other "many airlines that can fill LH demand" will also be receiving state aid or be declared bankrupt.
Anyone know what conditions the German government placed on them before they can get access to this aid? In my opinion they should be forced to either sell or shutdown the unprofitable branches (SN, EW and OS) as their underperformance also affects Lufthansa mainline. With the mess in Austria, this is the perfect opportunity for Lufthansa to get out of it all. Especially now when FR is gearing up for yet another fight.
I already responded to you in the other thread, but LH will fight tooth and nail to keep OS and the Austrian market because even if they no longer care about OS it would be stupid for them to allow FR to significantly expand in a neighboring German speaking market. Austria has heavy strategic value to LH, perhaps more than it does for FR so they will not be getting out anytime soon. Anyways as you pointed out the other countries will be providing money for their respective airlines so no need to shut anything down.
I'm not based in Germany but I'm going to give you my example.
I'm entitled to zero subsidies because I crisis-proofed my business by diversifying into very divergent sectors and removing all debt despite having to watch as competitors recklessly splashed money into marketing and expanding more than I could with my conservative strategy.
Now they are technically insolvent but they are entitled to subsidies and they can get money to stay home while I'm working with 20% less revenues.
That's insane and this illustrates how competition is distorted and these very subsidies are promoting a reckless business management over responsible business management.
Reckless companies that have prioritised expansion and running competitors out of business over crisis-proofing their own business, should not be rewarded but severely punished.
I am genuinely sorry if your business has fallen on hard times. Without knowing what your business or industry is, I am also confused, however, as to why your competitors would be entitled to aid that you are also not entitled to if you request it?
I also think we need to be realistic. This is a recession that will be more severe than anything we've seen in modern times. To suggest that airlines that were making money should have been prepared for months of negative
bookings and a travel downturn that may wipe out demand for years is not fair in my opinion. To the airlines that are better positioned to whether this storm, that is great as they will not need these subsidies (which by the way will need to be repaid, most likely with concessions attached and interest) but we are in a situation where very healthy companies are faced with extremely bleak outlook. With all due respect, you mentioned 20% less revenue - there are airlines expecting 90+% revenue loss coupled with high fixed costs. How long can your crisis-proofed company stay afloat with virtually no income and only expenses?
AZ is a great example of an airline that was oppressed for many years because of existing competitive frameworks within the EU.
They were bankrupt and got lifelines of hundreds of millions per year while keeping a low profile and sticking to essential services, keeping people employed, not running competitors out of business.
This happened while competitor LH Group bombarded the Italian market with hundreds of flights per day, I'm thinking 500 flights per day if you count all subsidiaries with the intent of ousjing competitors out of business.
It is actually funny that you're attempting to use AZ as an example of anything. You seriously think LH group is flying 500 flights a day to Italy? LOL! AZ, based in Italy, flies less than 600 flights a day.
Just thinking out loud. LH has operating expenses and financial expenses in the order of 35 billion a year, that's about 3 billion a month. Now with most of its operations shut down and most of their staff on temporary unemployment or in other form of temporary leave, what's their residual monthly cash burn? Also, given the current shape of the air transport market, what would be the objective lease rate of an aircraft? If their residual cash outlay is higher than say 500 million a month, I would think that someone is too greedy out there, either the staff or the leasing companies or the banks. This would need to be worked on. One could then question what would be the use of 10 billion euros. Are they meant to feed some greedy people? Something doesn't add up.
I don't think it's difficult to imagine that the cash burn would be high. Airlines have high fixed costs that do not change because the operations are shut down. Jetblue is burning $10m USD a day and DL is burning $50m USD a day.