usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

Last week Aloha shut down, and today, ATA stops.  I said this a while ago, and pretty much was told by some on here that this was not the answer.  But we really need to re-regulate and consolidate the airlines.  And what I really hate is they all blame oil.  Which is such bullshit anyway.  If you had a strong busines model and tried to cut down on as much waste as possible, you would be able to survive.

"Once the nation's 10th-largest air carrier, ATA entered bankruptcy for the second time in just over three years. The company had more than 2,200 employees, and "virtually all" were told that their jobs were gone"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_ … bankruptcy

Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-03 12:36:36)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

Seems it ain't just the US.
"Troubled Alitalia edges toward bankruptcy"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23933924/
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7047|London, England
For us not in the Airline racket, what exactly is going on? Is it really just short minded business practices?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7187

Mek-Izzle wrote:

For us not in the Airline racket, what exactly is going on? Is it really just short minded business practices?
Yeppers.  As you can see, most have been through multiple bankruptcies.   It is what we call the government car wash.  It really does all come down to failed business plans and stubborn old white dudes tbh.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6976|CH/BR - in UK

Hmm... Air Swiss is doing great - reaping profits like never before.

-konfusion
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6955|Global Command
So, does this mean you may start feeling the same economic crunch all us mere mortals feel?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

Mek-Izzle wrote:

For us not in the Airline racket, what exactly is going on? Is it really just short minded business practices?
It is the legacy carriers that can not change with the changing times. THe good old boy system where Joe BLow gets his buddy hired into a cushy job that he is not qualified for or deserves. Record paydays and benifits for executives that have seen record losses for their departments. Golden parachutes. CEO's that come in for a year or so, take what they can get then leave with a "retirement" package worth millions of dollars, not really giving a shit if the airline succeeds or not. All pretty sad really, these legacy carriers, 1 of which I am laid-off from is really living history of aviation.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina
I don't think regulation is the answer here.  Reagan basically saved the airline industry through deregulation in the 80s.  To go back in the regulation direction seems suicidal.

Let the market clear things, and NO FUCKING BAILOUTS.  Bear Stearns was bad enough, but subsidizing the failures of airline management is no better.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think regulation is the answer here.  Reagan basically saved the airline industry through deregulation in the 80s.  To go back in the regulation direction seems suicidal.

Let the market clear things, and NO FUCKING BAILOUTS.  Bear Stearns was bad enough, but subsidizing the failures of airline management is no better.
Ironically enough it was the legacy carriers that were begging to be de-regulated, they underestimated passenger loyalty and the ability for start up carriers to emerge.

Re-regulation is the answer, in an increasingly shrinking world, US carriers can not compete with European govt. subsidized airlines.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think regulation is the answer here.  Reagan basically saved the airline industry through deregulation in the 80s.  To go back in the regulation direction seems suicidal.

Let the market clear things, and NO FUCKING BAILOUTS.  Bear Stearns was bad enough, but subsidizing the failures of airline management is no better.
Ironically enough it was the legacy carriers that were begging to be de-regulated, they underestimated passenger loyalty and the ability for start up carriers to emerge.

Re-regulation is the answer, in an increasingly shrinking world, US carriers can not compete with European govt. subsidized airlines.
lol. Trying to start that old falsehood up again. Hahahaha.
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7070
ATA gave me my ride to kuwait.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think regulation is the answer here.  Reagan basically saved the airline industry through deregulation in the 80s.  To go back in the regulation direction seems suicidal.

Let the market clear things, and NO FUCKING BAILOUTS.  Bear Stearns was bad enough, but subsidizing the failures of airline management is no better.
Ironically enough it was the legacy carriers that were begging to be de-regulated, they underestimated passenger loyalty and the ability for start up carriers to emerge.

Re-regulation is the answer, in an increasingly shrinking world, US carriers can not compete with European govt. subsidized airlines.
I know what you mean here, but honestly, if it comes down to competing with government subsidized companies, I'd rather have foreign companies funded by foreign tax dollars to service us.  It may kill American jobs, but it also saves us tax money.  I'd rather Europeans and foreign citizens funding our services than have to do the payment ourselves.

Besides, we can take the tax money we would otherwise be using on subsidies and put it into the education system so that the people who lose their jobs can learn new trades to find better jobs.  Investment in education is ultimately the best route, but it takes a lot of foresight and would be difficult to sell to the public.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think regulation is the answer here.  Reagan basically saved the airline industry through deregulation in the 80s.  To go back in the regulation direction seems suicidal.

Let the market clear things, and NO FUCKING BAILOUTS.  Bear Stearns was bad enough, but subsidizing the failures of airline management is no better.
Ironically enough it was the legacy carriers that were begging to be de-regulated, they underestimated passenger loyalty and the ability for start up carriers to emerge.

Re-regulation is the answer, in an increasingly shrinking world, US carriers can not compete with European govt. subsidized airlines.
lol. Trying to start that old falsehood up again. Hahahaha.
Which one, I start so many falsehoods??
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:


Ironically enough it was the legacy carriers that were begging to be de-regulated, they underestimated passenger loyalty and the ability for start up carriers to emerge.

Re-regulation is the answer, in an increasingly shrinking world, US carriers can not compete with European govt. subsidized airlines.
lol. Trying to start that old falsehood up again. Hahahaha.
Which one, I start so many falsehoods??
The EU subsidies, which happen to have been illegal since market liberalisation.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


lol. Trying to start that old falsehood up again. Hahahaha.
Which one, I start so many falsehoods??
The EU subsidies, which happen to have been illegal since market liberalisation.
Cam, your own Air Lingus is STILL 25% owned by your govt. when just 2 years ago it was 85% owned by your govt.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:


Which one, I start so many falsehoods??
The EU subsidies, which happen to have been illegal since market liberalisation.
Cam, your own Air Lingus is STILL 25% owned by your govt. when just 2 years ago it was 85% owned by your govt.
It can't subsidise it though. All it does is get it's stakeholders share of profit. It cannot funnel money into the company due to the fact that it is illegal. It can only generate more money by selling shares to the public or becoming more efficient. Bail outs are 100% illegal now. Part Ownership != Subsidisation.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


The EU subsidies, which happen to have been illegal since market liberalisation.
Cam, your own Air Lingus is STILL 25% owned by your govt. when just 2 years ago it was 85% owned by your govt.
It can't subsidise it though. All it does is get it's stakeholders share of profit. It cannot funnel money into the company due to the fact that it is illegal. It can only generate more money by selling shares to the public or becoming more efficient. Bail outs are 100% illegal now. Part Ownership != Subsidisation.
Cam your govt. has stake in your airline, say what you want but Ireland WILL NOT let Air Linus flounder
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

lowing wrote:

Cam your govt. has stake in your airline, say what you want but Ireland WILL NOT let Air Linus flounder
If it did it would be fined every penny of what it gave them and more by the EU, which the Irish taxpayer would never stand for. It's illegal.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-03 16:24:24)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The EU subsidies, which happen to have been illegal since market liberalisation.
Cam, your own Air Lingus is STILL 25% owned by your govt. when just 2 years ago it was 85% owned by your govt.
It can't subsidise it though. All it does is get it's stakeholders share of profit. It cannot funnel money into the company due to the fact that it is illegal. It can only generate more money by selling shares to the public or becoming more efficient. Bail outs are 100% illegal now. Part Ownership != Subsidisation.
I think lowing has a good point here...  If Air Lingus started collapsing, wouldn't it become the government's best interest to subsidize it?  Whenever such things are tied to the government, there is a natural tendency for tax money to flow towards it.

If they can't fund it directly, then they'd just make a lot of tax breaks, right?

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-03 16:26:40)

CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981
Enjoy your read of EU competition law guys. Bear in mind in the context of what follows that Ireland is the second richest nation per capita in the EU...

Article 87 (ex Article 92) 

1. Save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.

2. The following shall be compatible with the common market:

(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers, provided that such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the products concerned;

(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences;

(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany, insofar as such aid is required in order to compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that division.

3. The following may be considered to be compatible with the common market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious under-employment;

(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State;

(c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest;

(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest;

(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission.

Article 88 (ex Article 93)   

1. The Commission shall, in cooperation with Member States, keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It shall propose to the latter any appropriate measures required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the common market.

2. If, after giving notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments, the Commission finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, or that such aid is being misused, it shall decide that the State concerned shall abolish or alter such aid within a period of time to be determined by the Commission.

If the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Articles 226 and 227, refer the matter to the Court of Justice direct.

On application by a Member State, the Council may, acting unanimously, decide that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be compatible with the common market, in derogation from the provisions of Article 87 or from the regulations provided for in Article 89, if such a decision is justified by exceptional circumstances. If, as regards the aid in question, the Commission has already initiated the procedure provided for in the first subparagraph of this paragraph, the fact that the State concerned has made its application to the Council shall have the effect of suspending that procedure until the Council has made its attitude known.

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude known within three months of the said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case.

3. The Commission shall be informed, in sufficient time to enable it to submit its comments, of any plans to grant or alter aid. If it considers that any such plan is not compatible with the common market having regard to Article 87, it shall without delay initiate the procedure provided for in paragraph 2. The Member State concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effect until this procedure has resulted in a final decision.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina
From the way I just read that, it looks like there are a lot of loopholes.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

Turquoise wrote:

From the way I just read that, it looks like there are a lot of loopholes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/4261316.stm
http://www.eturbonews.com/461/new-eu-pr … ek-airline

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-04-03 16:47:07)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6831|North Carolina
Maybe they're more vigilant with airlines.  AMD still gets heavy subsidies from Germany.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6981

Turquoise wrote:

Maybe they're more vigilant with airlines.  AMD still gets heavy subsidies from Germany.
Prob cos it's located in the old soviet part maybe.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7077|USA
Cam all the legalese in the world will not take away from the fact that most of Europes big countries have NATIONAL carriers of which  govts. have a stake in. The Us does not have a national carrier an is not a stockholder in any of them. Your govts. have a vested interest in the success of its carriers, and I sure will carry some benifits

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard