The Trump Administration and a Group of Major Airlines Have Agreed On a $25 Billion Bailout (nytimes.com) 148
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration has reached an agreement in principle with major airline companies over a $25 billion bailout to prop up the struggling industry. From the report: The terms of the agreement were not disclosed on Tuesday. The Treasury Department said that Alaska Airlines, Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, United Airlines, SkyWest Airlines and Southwest Airlines will be participating in the payroll support program, which was created as part of the economic stabilization package that Congress passed last month. The administration has been haggling with the airlines over the terms of the bailout, with Mr. Mnuchin pushing the airlines to agree to repay 30 percent of the money over a period of five years. The Treasury Department also has been seeking warrants to purchase stock in the companies that take money. Airlines have complained that Treasury was effectively turning the grants into loans by requiring repayment.
Last week, the Treasury Department said that it would not require airlines that receive up to $100 million in bailout money to give the government equity stakes or other compensation. The government had received over 200 applications from American airlines seeking payroll support and Treasury said that the majority of those were asking for less than $10 million. Airlines for America, an industry lobbying group, said that as of April 9, American airline carriers had idled 2,200 aircraft and that passenger volume was down 95 percent from a year ago. The industry expects global passenger revenues to fall by $252 billion this year.
Last week, the Treasury Department said that it would not require airlines that receive up to $100 million in bailout money to give the government equity stakes or other compensation. The government had received over 200 applications from American airlines seeking payroll support and Treasury said that the majority of those were asking for less than $10 million. Airlines for America, an industry lobbying group, said that as of April 9, American airline carriers had idled 2,200 aircraft and that passenger volume was down 95 percent from a year ago. The industry expects global passenger revenues to fall by $252 billion this year.
Taxpayers always lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, who am I kidding. Of course they won't.
Not sure what the hell you are talking about (Score:2)
And maybe some day, if the shoe is ever on the other foot, and the Dems are in control when something like this "needs" to be done, the Republicans will remember this day.
When have Republicans EVER blocked a big business stimulus?
Give us just one example.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe some day, if the shoe is ever on the other foot, and the Dems are in control when something like this "needs" to be done, the Republicans will remember this day.
When have Republicans EVER blocked a big business stimulus?
Give us just one example.
Well, I was talking about the Republicans droning on endlessly – partisan rhetoric – about just how bad it is that those evil Dems are spending, taxing and spending, etc., etc.
Re: Not sure what the hell you are talking about (Score:2)
Do you not remember Republicans talking about government motors bailout?
At least Democrats get an equity stake in the company which forces the company to pay it back. Trump just hands out money to the rich.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Do you not remember Republicans talking about government motors bailout?"
As much as I hate the entire concept of "bailouts", there is a huge difference between bailing out a failing auto company, and acting for a whole bunch of companies, during a state of a national emergency, who are failing due to government action (travel bans, stay-at-home-orders, etc).
>"Trump just hands out money to the rich."
Yeah, right, because all those countless thousands of people who will lose their livelihood when all a
Re: Not sure what the hell you are talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have much sympathy for airlines that spent 97% of their profits on stock buybacks and now require a bailout after a single quarter of rough earnings.
Re: (Score:2)
Few nations like to do the full gov "forces" part on the private sector.
Most nations do not go full Cuba, East Germany, Soviet Union, Venezuela and expect to control the private sector.
Re: (Score:2)
Just spending more without increasing revenues doesn't seem to bother them at all, though. Not sure how they can claim the label of "the fiscally responsible party" though. Just kidding, of course they lie constantly and their base is too ignorant to realize it.
Re: (Score:2)
about just how bad it is that those evil Dems are spending, taxing and spending, etc., etc.
It's changed. Now it's "reduce taxes, increase spending" by both sides. Any politician who does differently gets voted out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's changed. Now it's "reduce taxes, increase spending" by both sides. Any politician who does differently gets voted out of office."
Bingo.
https://www.goodreads.com/quot... [goodreads.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, that's the inherent flaw of a democracy...
The voters all want lower taxes and more/better services, but a large proportion don't understand that the world isn't perfect and compromises are necessary, and this large proportion is enough to win any vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do run a business. I don't want the airlines to fail.
What I want is an end to the stupid fucking Republican partisan rhetoric when the Dems want to do something that the Republicans actually do all the time.
But I guess that doesn't fit your narrative though.
Re:Not sure what the hell you are talking about (Score:4, Interesting)
Ten years ago when the economic stimulus was being lampooned as fiscally negligent and "mortgaging our childrens' futures" by the GOP? Where they fought tooth and nail politicizing the budget like never before. Then Trump ran budget deficits even worse than the Obama years and magically they don't comment on those deficit numbers anymore and apparently the kids are all okay...
Re: (Score:2)
When have Republicans EVER blocked a big business stimulus?
Give us just one example.
Republicans voted against EESA, TARP, and the GM bailout.
Re: (Score:2)
...or, we could get cheap, belligerent and nationalistic, then start making ridiculous threats...
Come to think of it, that is pretty much how the Spanish Flue > Great Depression > Smoot Hawley > Wold War 2 cycle played out
I for one would rather learn from the past than repeat it
Re: (Score:3)
That settles it. A wall needs to be built around Nebraska! Those shifty corn farmers with their perverse foreign ways need to be stopped!
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say give them the money under the condition that we get to regulate them again. No more fees for checking backs and other inconvenience features. When we deregulated them they spent a lot of the extra profit into buying back stock and nickle-and-diming the customers, and we should not reward them for this behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
fees for checking backs? when did they start charging for security pat downs?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Airfare: 408.06USD
Per Person Total: 499.46USD
eTicket Total: 499.46USD
U.S. Transportation Tax: 30.60
U.S. Flight Segment Tax: 8.20
-> U.S. Customs User Fee: 5.77
-> U.S. Immigration User Fee: 7.00
-> U.S. APHIS User Fee: 3.96
-> September 11th Security Fee: 5.60
-> Canadian Security Charge: 9.70
-> Canada Airport Improvement Fee: 15.30
-> Canada Goods and Services Tax: 0.77
-> U.S. Passenger Facility Charge: 4.50
Re: (Score:2)
I meant bags. But they're probably going to charge extra for suits that don't break your back too.
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:5, Insightful)
There's this tendency for people to think that if an airline ticket costs $200, an extra bag $50, and a meal $20, and we forced them to include these in the regular ticket price you'd get all three for $200. You wouldn't. A ticket inclusive of those things would cost $270. Those who pay for those extras today would be paying the same, while those who didn't need them would be paying more. But hey the extra bag and meal are included "for free" so it's better, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I recently paid roughly $600 for a trip to an east coast state, and another $900 ticket to a different east coast state. The first was cheaper as the company had deals with that airline. Both were cattle class, two hops, no meals.
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not how airline pricing works.
For a start the ticket price usually depends on how full the flight is. The more demand the higher the price. And everyone pays a different price depending on when and how they booked. Stuff like extra bags are high margin items designed to subsidise cheap seats because most people look at the seat price when searching for flights.
Consider that if the the price was based on the cost of transporting a bag they would weigh it and calculate the price on the spot. They would weigh you as well. Stuff like choosing a seat is pure profit, it costs then exactly nothing.
Regulation can work here. For example requiring airlines not to deliberately split up groups and families unless they pay to select seats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the least of it. You should demand a controlling stake, fix them and only sell when you make a profit.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You should demand a controlling stake, fix them and only sell when you make a profit."
And that makes a huge assumption that government *can* fix them and *can* manage them better than they can themselves in a free market. And that is not a correct assumption.
Re: (Score:2)
The government wouldn't be running day-to-day operations, just have a controlling vote to veto any BS.
Re: (Score:2)
What is this, the fourth of fifth time that the airlines have been bailed out since deregulation? Plus of course they stuck the taxpayers with their employee pension liabilities. Must be nice to own congresscritters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"When we deregulated them they spent a lot of the extra profit into buying back stock and nickle-and-diming the customers, and we should not reward them for this behavior."
When we deregulated them, the prices of flights, INCLUDING those fees, PLUMMETED and consumers won, big time.
https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No more fees for checking bags and other inconvenience features.
I travel light. Why should I be forced to subsidize you?
Re: (Score:2)
You already are subsidizing other people. The fact that you don't carry a 10kg backpack as carry-on means someone else can do so for free and stow it overhead.
But then equally they are subsidizing you when you select the vegan meal option on that long haul to Shanghai, or when you decide to watch a movie while they are taking a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice when people come to an agreement on how to spend other people's money.
As opposed to what governments usually do?
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice when people come to an agreement on how to spend other people's money.
It is nice. The alternative is having companies rely on donations. I'm sure you'll be the first to not donate than the complain about high unemployment and lack of competition in the airline industry when you can't afford to fly anywhere as a result of a large portion of the industry going under.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
wrong.
this is called monetizing the debt. this basically changes the water level of the ocean. this means over time stuff costs more - from food to rent to gas to transit to medical to pharma to energy to labor - this is highly regressive.
when money is created people with money maintain the value of their "assets" and holdings (the hedge fund types) and by monetizing the debt you get every single person in the country to take out a loan they owe to themselves and shower this newly created money on those who
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:5, Interesting)
No need to eat the rich, just go back to pre-Reagan tax levels of 80% for every dollar earned over, say 3 million per year
That practice (actually higher under Eisenhower, a Republican) nearly paid off the cost of recovering from the Great Depression and managed to FOSTER a growing middle class, instead of the destruction of the middle class which occurred after Reagan implemented 'trickle down'
Re: (Score:2)
No need to eat the rich, just go back to pre-Reagan tax levels of 80% for every dollar earned over, say 3 million per year
That practice (actually higher under Eisenhower, a Republican) nearly paid off the cost of recovering from the Great Depression and managed to FOSTER a growing middle class, instead of the destruction of the middle class which occurred after Reagan implemented 'trickle down'
That only worked because we bombed Japan and half of Europe down to the ground, and we were the only industrial power left. Raising taxes to 80% will only turn us into France, where over half the country was protesting government handouts weren't enough.
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:5, Interesting)
By and large, the post-war boom was sustained (with some notable dips) into the 1970s. That's about a quarter century of growth. In that time, Japan and West Germany both grew from immediate post-war cratering (literally and metaphorically). The US seemed quite capable of remaining competitive in the 1950s and 1960s. If there's anything that might weakly correlate to general economic weakening, it would be the normalizing of relations with China and OPEC flexing its muscle. The former created a significant competitor to US and Western industry, and the latter fucked up energy prices.
What I see coming out of the pandemic in a number of developed nations are going to be programs to repatriate industrial and manufacturing capacity. In that Trump is probably a bit ahead of the curve, though I still think Trumpenomics grossly underestimates the importance of trade. At the same, looking at how several industrial nations suddenly found themselves with insufficient capacity for medical supplies (ventilators and PPE, not to mention overreliance on China for drug supplies).
But there will have to be tax increases, either openly, or via the various more secretive means governments sometimes use. It's critical to keep the wheels of economies greased, to create bridging programs so people don't end up on the street or starve to death, but it's going to see the debts of most, if not all major industrial powers, both sovereign and private, swell to levels not seen since the Second World War. Economic activity will not restart fast enough, nor will it be big enough, to clear the debts off of major nations' balance sheets. Trickle down economics and austerity are dead.
Also see major pushes in the United States for actual and significant health care reforms. Blame whomever you like, but the fact remains that the US health care system(s) have proven woefully inadequate. So yes, all you tin foil hat hard Libertarian types, your dream of a government big enough to sit in your living room are as far off as Alpha Centauri. The "State" is going to get bigger, and play a far greater direct role in the economy, for better and for worse. If this is a war-time economy (which may be overstated to some degree), then look to how nations at war direct their economies, rather than relying on laissez-faire economics to solve all the problems.
And don't shoot the messenger here. I think there are going to be mistakes on epic levels, and money funneled to organizations and cartels that will piss off everyone, but this is making 2008-09 look like a minor speed bump.
Re: (Score:2)
We have been here before with SARS and the 2008 banking crash and many other disasters. We rarely learn from them, rarely bother to stockpile or put measures in place to prevent the same thing happening again.
It doesn't make economic sense to bring back low margin manufacturing like PPE or ventilators. There will always be cheaper ones on the market that hospitals will buy unless forced to pay more for the domestic ones. And we don't need it anyway, we can stockpile.
What we need are emergency medical system
Re: (Score:2)
Effective tax rates weren't actually that high. The tax code was much more complicated with way more deductions and tax shelters back then.
The reality is that we're at a record high level of tax revenue, even if you adjust for inflation and for population growth. Federal tax revenue only really dips during recessions, then recovers to even higher levels.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that we're at a record high level of tax revenue
That is true.
But while taxes today are still progressive, they are not as progressive as they were in the 1950s.
That is a problem if you think the tax code should be used as an instrument of social justice.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those deductions resulted in businesses putting their money back into their business, including wages, instead of giving their money to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump tax cuts didn't lead to a massive shortfall that so many were predicting.
Well, the Trump admin predicted that it would "Not only[] pay for itself but it will pay down debt." This didn't happen, and the OMB said that they would cost 2.3 trillion dollars over 10 years--which I suppose some would consider massive.
Revenues fell by 2.7 percent â" or $83 billion â" from 2017. Contrast that with the last time economic growth approached 3 percent, back in 2015. The economy grew by 2.9 percent after adjusting for inflation that year â" and tax revenues grew by 7 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
I agree that "trickle down economics" isn't a real economic theory, but it has been Republican policy since Regan.
David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them . . . "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
GHWB coined the term back in '79. The Laffer curve does not apply to
Re: (Score:2)
Trump tax cuts didn't lead to a massive shortfall that so many were predicting.
Well, the Trump admin predicted that it would "Not only[] pay for itself but it will pay down debt." This didn't happen, and the OMB said that they would cost 2.3 trillion dollars over 10 years--which I suppose some would consider massive.
Revenues fell by 2.7 percent — or $83 billion — from 2017. Contrast that with the last time economic growth approached 3 percent, back in 2015. The economy grew by 2.9 percent after adjusting for inflation that year — and tax revenues grew by 7 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
I agree that "trickle down economics" isn't a real economic theory, but it has been Republican policy since Regan.
David Stockman, who as Ronald Reagan's budget director championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, later became critical of them . . . "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_down_economics
The Laffer curve does not apply to any tax rates used in the past 40 y
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I had a mod point for you, but this story is already behind the news curve. Latest is Trump trying to nuke the WHO.
Gawd, oh gawd. Please make it stop. I can't stand any more GOT stupidity.
However, on your actual topic of progressive, I don't really care about personal income taxes any more. That game has been played out. What I want to see is a progressive profits tax linked to market share. Smaller companies means REAL freedom and more competition. Also smaller companies help justify smaller governm
Re: Taxpayers always lose (Score:3)
How was the beautiful Easter with packed churches?
Trump was way worse than the WHO and this latest move is clearly an attempt to shift the blame. He's a hypocrite and he's weak, and the mess in New York is his fault, not the WHO's.
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe taxpayers will have to pay it off, or maybe it be inflated away.
That's the same damn thing! Whether you take everyone's money through taxes, or through inflation, it's the same damn thing (there will not be accompanying wage inflation if the past 20 years is any guide).
Re:Taxpayers always lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether you take everyone's money through taxes, or through inflation, it's the same damn thing
Nope. Taxes and inflation fall on different people.
Taxes fall hardest on high wage earners and much more lightly on investors and the poor.
Inflation hits hardest on people with cash assets (bank accounts and bonds) or on fixed income such as pension. It hurts renters more than homeowners.
Of course, the government has MASSIVELY expanded the money supply since 2008 with near-zero inflation, so the two are less connected than many here are assuming.
Re: Taxpayers always lose (Score:2)
Inflation means your savings depreciate, your money is worth less. Taxes are like money someone spends for you, it goes somewhere in the economy.
Two totally different things because at the end of the day your taxes paid for something... at least, and your loss to inflation went somewhere... somewhere your money isn't.
Stock buybacks (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the fable of the ant and the grasshopper? The airlines has spent all their income in stock buybacks, and left with practically nothing for the bad times. I understand there was a push to lower prices, but that was balanced with lowering service, and adding fees for everything onboard (except for peanuts).
Now they are coming to taxpayers for weather the rough times. They know there is an implicit contract to bail them out every time (similar to Amtrak, public utilities, and every other *essential* company). This way they can reap all the benefits when the times are good, but will then not be responsible when they don't save.
Please, let this be last. I understand we need them to survive, but they should also be held responsible for their past behavior.
Re:Stock buybacks (Score:4, Insightful)
good luck with that, even if the Dems hold out for oversight, the president will ignore it, presumably to line the pockets of his friends
Re: Stock buybacks (Score:2)
Oh yes, all these troubles are since 3 years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, sell back some of the stock they bought.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I keep saying.
If they spent all those years of profit buying stock, then it stands to reason that they have a nice cache of assets they can liquidate to weather the storm. Buying stock is a risk. Only invest what you can afford to lose. Looks to me like they over extended themselves trying to maximize profit at the top and now it's biting them in the ass.
If I had made the same mistake, I would be forced to sell my assets at a loss to cover my responsibilities. This happens all the damn time, an
Re: (Score:2)
and left with practically nothing for the bad times.
What bad times? These aren't bad times. It's not a low season, a couple of destinations aren't black listed, a few of their planes aren't grounded, and the price of fuel hasn't gone up a bit beyond affordability. For this industry it's the outright apocalypse. No sane company has every had in their contingency plans that the government would come and eliminate 99% of their revenue for a full quarter.
Criticising any company for not preparing for what is an outright existential crisis as a result of their own
Re: (Score:2)
No sane company has every had in their contingency plans that the government would come and eliminate 99% of their revenue for a full quarter.
fwiw Apple is prepared for exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines has spent all their income in stock buybacks, and left with practically nothing for the bad times.
Well, if they saved it and had a giant cash balance on the balance sheet – waiting for a day that might never come – and the share holders would be screaming about that.
Or they could have paid bigger dividends. But that doesn't make share value go up like stock buybacks for the 1%er CxOs and the institutional investors that just want the share value to go up and don't give a shit about long term viability of the company.
Or they could have lowered the cost of tickets or paid their employees
Do airlines really deserve this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not really sure the airlines deserve this bailout.
Yes this is unprecedented hard times they face. But they've also spent years with a ton of very customer un-friendly changes. For all that we, the taxpayers are supposed to reward them with a bailout handed out by people who mostly fly on private jets?
I would say instead, we should improve bankruptcy laws and let chips fall where they may. Instead yet again government is not letting nature take its course as it were, to cull weak companies...
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe we go back to government regulation where ticket prices are not manipulated to pump up sales and the airlines are forced to keep enough cash on hand
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines just need to sell back all the stock they bought back. It really is as easy as that. But they know the government is their bitch, bought and paid for, so why would they?
Re:Do airlines really deserve this? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they can't raise the needed funds through stock or debt offerings, just let them go bankrupt. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company ceases to operate, after all, just that the stock and bondholders learn a lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
Bankruptcy doesn't mean the company ceases to operate...
They aren't really operating now -- flying is down 95+%. Their employees are getting paid though. You think a bankruptcy judge would OK long-term payouts to employees for not working? With what money?
You think the US would be better off paying unemployment benefits than keeping the airlines around to start back up?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really sure that they deserved the previous three or four bailouts, either.
Re: (Score:2)
But they've also spent years with a ton of very customer un-friendly changes.
Have they? In what way? Automating checkins and reducing ticket prices? Removing mandatory checked baggage and reducing ticket prices? Making seats smaller while reducing ticket prices?
I find it hard to think that airlines are in any way customer "unfriendly" considering all their changes and policies now allow me to fly across the continent for less than the cost of cheap restaurant.
For all that we, the taxpayers are supposed to reward them with a bailout handed out by people who mostly fly on private jets?
I don't understand why you think how politicians fly is even remotely relevant to their policy. If anything it's an indicatio
Re: (Score:2)
But they've also spent years with a ton of very customer un-friendly changes.
Have they? In what way?
- Sending armed men to come drag a ticketed passenger off a flight
- Stuffing dogs in overhead bins to suffocate
- Pulling back from the gate a few feet and then announcing an hours-long delay to fix a maintenance issue
- Overbooking flights on purpose
- Surly flight attendants, dirty planes, tiny seats, etc.
They would treat passengers a lot better if they hadn't been allowed to merge into mega-carriers.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's address those in order:
- Sending armed men to come drag a ticketed passenger off a flight
That was one case from one crappy airline. Why do you think it reflects an industry? Can you point examples where the industry does this as an anti customer policy?
- Stuffing dogs in overhead bins to suffocate
Never heard of this. I've only ever seen animals in the animal hold (where they fucking belong), or in the cabin (where they don't). So can you point to an example of where the industry does this as an anti-consumer policy?
- Pulling back from the gate a few feet and then announcing an hours-long delay to fix a maintenance issue
Welcome to the world of low cost travel. When you get financially punished for not doing this th
Re: (Score:2)
But they've also spent years with a ton of very customer un-friendly changes.
Have they? In what way?
When I first started flying (early Seventies) passengers could change a reservation freely until shortly before flight time. Because tickets were on paper in those days, you could routinely give away or resell a reservation you couldn't use. Airlines complained about the no-show rate of about 8% that resulted from these freedoms. This was their excuse for making the whole world non-refundable.
Today reservations have to be cast in iron months ahead of time and are non-transferable was well as non-refundable.
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, I'd be inclined to do this the way we did GM. Let the stockholders take a bath -- that's their role, to assume risk in hope of reward. Set up new businesses that buy the assets, operations, and trade names of the old ones, and use the proceeds to pay off the creditors. Most of the public has no idea that GM is a different corporate entity than before 2009.
The thing is, this time it's not just one ginormous business, it's a whole bunch of them. I doubt we can contain the financial impact of *al
What about humanity? (Score:2)
I would say instead, we should improve bankruptcy laws and let chips fall where they may. Instead yet again government is not letting nature take its course as it were, to cull weak companies...
They have hundreds of thousands of people working for them. I don't see how a bankruptcy judge lets those workers keep collecting a paycheck until the virus issue is solved.
Humanity is always worth considering.
If they are let go we'll all be paying for their unemployment anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate Free Enterprise? :-|
Re: (Score:2)
So that has to keep the cargo aircraft working 24/7.
Advanced nations are still producing food, advanced products that are in demand globally.
Keep the cargo aircraft working 24/7.
That needs all the per nation support for cargo aircraft. Very different aircraft with different parts to have ready.
Parts, workers, skilled experts to approve work done. Gov experts to look over parts and work long term.
Proprietary parts, skilled workers.
Natio
Not very much (Score:2)
pilots (Score:3)
reason payroll costs are "so low" is because pilots are paid by hour of flight time. since a lot of planes won't be flying, a lot of pilots will be essentially furloughed making a minimum salary rather than their usual $400-$500k/year. this is going to have a knock-on effect of either some or all of the following: pilot demand, relaxing of pilot requirements, increased automation of new planes.
if you are looking for a career in 10+ years, then now might be a good time to find an aviation school for cheap
Re: (Score:2)
Being a pilot is not nearly as rewarding as you seem to think
Sure, there was a time when an AF heavy pilot could step into a commercial aviation job and be very well off, but since then private pilot schools have been sticking lots of butts into pilot seats on smaller regional airlines where they are paid very little and forced to perform long hours of work.
The pattern of lower wages and overwork are being forced onto the larger commercial pilots now, and the airlines will more than likely demand some prote
Re:pilots (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: pilots (Score:2)
For major, legacy airlines, that "minimum salary" is still close to, if not over, 6 figures. For not working. Because they have contracts that guarantee it. But only your senior captains are making 400-500k. Most make in the solid 100-200k range.
Re: (Score:3)
like the automation in the 737 MAX?
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't they save for a rainy day? (Score:3)
Why do they have iPhones? [boredpanda.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying they should keep a half trillion dollars on their balance sheet -- just sitting there doing nothing -- just in case a once-in-100-years pandemic event happens?
Did you think it through? People who actually think these things all the way through disagree with this.
There will be a vaccine in a year and everything will be back to normal in 2-3 years. You think the US will be better off with Boeing crippled 3 years from now? Or are we better off with a healthy Boeing that can resume production?
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing was failing before this crisis. They had used up all their funds to buy up shares which left them with no buffer to handle the consequences of their general mismanagement. They were hoping for the government to save them from going broke.
I think Boeing is best allowed to fail so it can be cut up into separate companies . Now we're just going to pump billions into a failed company.
These are your ruling class (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about safety nets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strict regulation isn't the problem. The problem is regulatory capture. Nobody working for a government regulatory agency at any level should ever be allowed to take any pay-off from any of the folks they were regulating. Even after they change jobs or retire.
It's only 25 billion (Score:3, Insightful)
Wall Street's bottomless well at the Fed will produce a thousand times that
To hell with them (Score:2)
Let them go under. Walmart and Amazon are hiring.
I'm seeing a pattern here... (Score:3)
2000: FU passengers
2001: "Oh no! We need help! 9/11 broke us!"
2002: Ahhh. Thanks. So...
2003: FU passengers
2004-2007: And you.. FU stormtrooper! FU stormtrooper!!
2008: "Oh no! We need help! Everyone's broke!!"
2009: Oh thank you thank you...Hmmm...
2010: Hey fatty - smaller seats. Wanna bring luggage? Pay up. Sorry
2011-2019: FU, FU... BTW, would you mind standing so we can squeeze more of you into our wallets... er, planes?? No? Oh, sorry... FU, FU...
Today: "Oh no! A virus has put us in a pickle. So what if we helped spread via our own planes - Please help!! ... Wait... we have to pay it back? WHY??"
And 2021... FU, FU, FU stormtrooper...
Wait, what happened to the free market? (Score:3)
Did it die from coronavirus also?
They get 25B, passengers gets shit on (Score:3)
They get 25 billion while a passenger whose FLIGHT WAS CANCELLED by the AIRLINES will not get any refund for a non-refundable ticket(*). No, instead "we'll hold on to your money for you" for up to 2 years. Um, a lot can happen in two years and this whole virus issue may not fully blow over in that time. Fucking assholes. We're not even talking about all the other things (charging for just about every thing possible) the airlines have been doing.
(*) Yeah I get the logical disconnect with refunding a non-refundable ticket, but the airlines are NOT holding up their end of the bargin!!! I can see if _I_ want to cancel and get rejected, however the underlying assumption is _THEY_ will provide a plane to fly on, which is NOT happening now... THEY are not holding up their end of the bargin, so I should be able to cancel.
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is a dirty word in America ...
But it is perfectly fine, when the beneficiaries are large corporations, and it is not called socialism ...
Beat me to it. Here are two more reasons [tumblr.com] this socialism is considered fantastic by some [9cache.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Random citizens dont have the needed skills to do cargo aircraft support work over the years AC.
They can learn over the years but that needs existing cargo aircraft exports for the learning part AC.
Few nations like to fail like that and see the loss of decades of engineering ability to give cash to random "'tax payers" AC.
The cargo aircraft need skilled workers
So the cargo is in the c
Re: (Score:2)
Have to put more and more tax payers money into a national airline again?
Lots of very different nations did that in past decades. Did not get the federal governments the money back as expected.