Well, I admit airline industry accountancy is not my province. Of course, even without subsidies, it's one of the most heavily regulated industries there is, so the Feds can bully airlines into doing almost anything.
But perhaps not into committing suicide.
Let's put your question the other way around: is there currently an airline in the US that can survive a 50% -- or even 20% -- drop in demand?
Can the government provide enough subsidies to make up for that? Even if it can, what would it be subsidizing? Passenger volume still drops. We'd be paying for either idle capacity, or a Potemkin airline industry that shuffles half-empty planes around the country just to maintain its subsidies.
Granted, just because it's stupid and makes no sense doesn't mean the current regime wouldn't try it. But I'm mildly optimistic that even the airline industry would grow a spine when faced with that sort of hit.
More generally: the bigger and more destructive the government's intervention, the more enemies it makes, and that's a good thing.
Excellent point on federal subsidy for airlines. However, there is essentially no industry that carries people in the U.S. that makes money. My colleagues often say, "carrying people is not profitable," at least in the States. I have not looked at Europe or Asia, where the reliance--and frankly, quality--of public transit, particularly via train, is so much higher.
is there currently an airline in the US that can survive without federal subsidy, support, and bail out?
because i fear that all the federales need to to bring them to heel is to threaten to stop propping them up.
Well, I admit airline industry accountancy is not my province. Of course, even without subsidies, it's one of the most heavily regulated industries there is, so the Feds can bully airlines into doing almost anything.
But perhaps not into committing suicide.
Let's put your question the other way around: is there currently an airline in the US that can survive a 50% -- or even 20% -- drop in demand?
Can the government provide enough subsidies to make up for that? Even if it can, what would it be subsidizing? Passenger volume still drops. We'd be paying for either idle capacity, or a Potemkin airline industry that shuffles half-empty planes around the country just to maintain its subsidies.
Granted, just because it's stupid and makes no sense doesn't mean the current regime wouldn't try it. But I'm mildly optimistic that even the airline industry would grow a spine when faced with that sort of hit.
More generally: the bigger and more destructive the government's intervention, the more enemies it makes, and that's a good thing.
Excellent point on federal subsidy for airlines. However, there is essentially no industry that carries people in the U.S. that makes money. My colleagues often say, "carrying people is not profitable," at least in the States. I have not looked at Europe or Asia, where the reliance--and frankly, quality--of public transit, particularly via train, is so much higher.