Will we stop commercial flying?

Luigi

Well-Known Member
Truthfully, I think an end to commercial flying for a couple of weeks would be a good thing. San Fran is under shelter in place. NYC is next, Chicago is talking about it, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same order in Seattle.

Dr. Fausti from the NIH said he didn’t believe we could overreact at this point.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
I'd honestly be surprised if we're still flying by this weekend. Finished a 4 day last night and Seatac was a ghost town at 7:30pm. Felt odd flying a trip when the world is basically on lock down and trying to be 'normal'.

Beginning to think a 3 week stand down is in order but don't have the slightest idea of the financial toll other than simply being big. Probably being negotiated as part of the bailout package is my guess.
A stand down 3 weeks ago might have helped some. A stand down 6 or 8 weeks ago would have helped more. At this point, I fear shutting everything down is going to kill more people than C-19 ever will.

Again C-19 is now "out there". There IS NO HIDING. It's endemic now, and will hereafter be part of the human herd and the human experience.

Hiding for a spell, or no hiding... everyone now will be exposed.

The only thing that hiding in place does is -MAYBE- dampen the wave of folks hitting our woefully inadequate for-profit health care infrastructure ALL AT THE SAME TIME. (And it might, just might, be illuminating at this juncture, to stop and consider the nature of for-profit health care... By freaking definition, it will NEVER HAVE EXCESS/SURGE capacity. Excess capacity - a central tenet of community health care preparedness - is anathema to for-profit endeavors.)

But at the end of the day, and at the end of the COplague, the COplague WILL infect you. You will either get sick and get better, or get sick and not get better.

Either option - getting sick and getting better; or getting sick and not getting better - sure seems like it would be much enhanced and much less traumatic WITH an income than without an income.

A huge percentage of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. A huge percentage of those folks have massive debt. What happens to these people when they are isolated and denied any income? I grant you, many of the poor are morbidly obese, so they're not likely to starve to death. But depression and desperation combined with isolation are rarely conditions that result in happy endings. And if the poor do survive ... stripped of everything?? What then happens to these folks??

Killing or maiming people through economic means in order to attempt -futilely- to avoid killing them by biological means ... ??? Seems like folly to me.

Never make your cure worse than your disease ... unless you can make gobs of money selling your cure.
 
Last edited:

Max Power

Well-Known Member
I'm wondering when the airlines will just have to call it because every state is going to have restaurant closures and major lockdowns soon. Crews are going to start calling out sick when a trip means you can't leave your hotel room and the only food option is Uber Eats (if the town you're overnighting in even has that).
The last part especially. I’m not a “food bringer”, never have been because I enjoy eating out on overnights. Now I’m worried this next trip that I’ll be left without food. I know the overnights, so there’s lots of options. If they’re open...
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
A stand down 3 weeks ago might have helped some. A stand down 6 or 8 weeks ago would have helped more. At this point, I fear shutting everything down is going to kill more people than C-19 ever will.

Again C-19 is now "out there". There IS NO HIDING. It's endemic now, and will hereafter be part of the human herd and the human experience.

Hiding for a spell, or no hiding... everyone now will be exposed.

The only thing that hiding in place does is -MAYBE- dampen the wave of folks hitting our woefully inadequate health care infrastructure ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

But at the end of the day, and at the end of the COplague, the COplague WILL infect you. You will either get sick and get better, or get sick and not get better.

Either option - getting sick and getting better; or getting sick and not getting better - sure seems like it would be much enhanced and much less traumatic WITH an income than without an income.

A huge percentage of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck. A huge percentage of those folks have massive debt. What happens to these people when they are isolated and denied any income? I grant you, many of the poor are morbidly obese, so they're not likely to starve to death. But depression, and desperation combined with isolation are not conditions that typically result in happy endings. And if the poor survive ... stripped of everything?? What then happens to these folks??

Killing or maiming people through economic means in order to attempt -futilely- to avoid killing them by biological means ... ??? Seems like folly to me.

Never make your cure worse than your disease ... unless you can make gobs of money selling your cure.
This isn't actually correct.

Pausing for 14 days would allow it to burn out in families and hospitals. The spread can be mitigated. If we do nothing, literally millions may die. We need a "pause" and a bailout for those who will suffer the most. I'll be fine, but my bartender and ramper friends will not. Pay them first.

The economy is going to implode either way. Might as well save as many people as possible.
 

NovemberEcho

Dergs favorite member
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
This isn't actually correct.

Pausing for 14 days would allow it to burn out in families and hospitals. The spread can be mitigated. If we do nothing, literally millions may die. We need a "pause" and a bailout for those who will suffer the most. I'll be fine, but my bartender and ramper friends will not. Pay them first.

The economy is going to implode either way. Might as well save as many people as possible.
Which part is incorrect? I'm pretty sure I stated that damping the wave is important. And I'm pretty sure I explained how that might have been achieved some weeks ago. At this point though, the wave is already at the beach.

p.s. if you do a search, I'm pretty sure you'll find a post from me of some weeks ago asking the community if the mighty mighty airlines had any freaking plan in place or any freaking structured communication mechanism with health officials.
 
Last edited:

trafficinsight

Well-Known Member
I don’t know if this real or not but it’s pretty damn funny

Hopefully he ends up just like the hand sanitizer guy.
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Which part is incorrect? I'm pretty sure I stated that damping the wave is important. At this point though, the wave is already at the beach.
That the economic disaster is worse than preventative measures, even extreme ones.

That's probably not accurate, weirdly recessions tend to decrease mortality. Furthermore, the Brits are now saying that 2.2 mil could die in America if we don't start solving this ASAP. If we don't get this thing tackled the economy will still crash and things will take far longer to get back to normal and we'll have an additional 2.2 mil dead, not to mention all the people left with lifelong consequences from this disease.

We need to pump the breaks and take care of the people most harmed economically by this crisis.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
As a prophylactic caveat to the potentially confused... this is an OPINION piece.
_______________________________________________________________________
Opinion

Don’t Feel Sorry for the Airlines
Before providing them any assistance, we must demand that they change how they treat their customers and employees.


By Tim Wu
Mr. Wu is the author of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”
  • March 16, 2020


John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Thursday, the day after President Trump announced that the United States would restrict travel from Europe.Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

For American Airlines, the nation’s largest airline, the mid to late 2010s were what the Bible calls “years of plenty.”
In 2014, having reduced competition through mergers and raised billions of dollars in new baggage-fee revenue, American began reaching stunning levels of financial success. In 2015, it posted a $7.6 billion profit — compared, for example, to profits of about $500 million in 2007 and less than $250 million in 2006. It would continue to earn billions in profit annually for the rest of the decade. “I don’t think we’re ever going to lose money again,” the company’s chief executive, Doug Parker, said in 2017.
There are plenty of things American could have done with all that money. It could have stored up its cash reserves for a future crisis, knowing that airlines regularly cycle through booms and busts. It might have tried to decisively settle its continuing contract disputes with pilots, flight attendants and mechanics. It might have invested heavily in better service quality to try to repair its longstanding reputation as the worst of the major carriers.
Instead, American blew most of its cash on a stock buyback spree. From 2014 to 2020, in an attempt to increase its earnings per share, American spent more than $15 billion buying back its own stock. It managed, despite the risk of the proverbial rainy day, to shrink its cash reserves. At the same time it was blowing cash on buybacks, American also began to borrow heavily to finance the purchase of new planes and the retrofitting of old planes to pack in more seats. As early as 2017 analysts warned of a risk of default should the economy deteriorate, but American kept borrowing. It has now accumulated a debt of nearly $30 billion, nearly five times the company’s current market value.

At no time during its years of plenty did American improve how it treats its customers. Change fees went up to $200 for domestic flights and to $750 for international. Its widely despised baggage fees were hiked to $30 and $40 for first and second bags. These higher fees yielded billions of dollars, yet did not help the airline improve its on-time arrivals, reduce tarmac delays or prevent involuntary bumping. Instead, American’s main “innovations” were the removal of screens from its planes, the reduction of bathroom and seat sizes and the introduction of a “basic economy” class that initially included a ban on carry-on luggage.

In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, which is wreaking havoc on the airline industry, American Airlines has not yet asked for a bailout — at least not in so many words. Yet after a recent meeting with airline leadership, Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, said that “certain sectors of the economy, airlines coming to mind” might require assistance. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Wednesday that the airlines, including American, would be “on the top of the list” for federal loan relief.

As the government considers what we, the public, should do for the airlines, we should ask, Just what have they done for us?
The United States economy needs an airline industry to function. The industry is in that sense not a “normal” industry, but rather what was once called a common carrier or a public utility: a critical infrastructure on which the rest of the economy relies. The major airlines know that unlike a local restaurant, they will never be allowed, collectively, to fail completely. In practice, the public has subsidized the industry by providing de facto insurance against hard times in the form of bailouts or merger approvals. And now here we go again.

We cannot permit American and other airlines to use federal assistance, whether labeled a bailout or not, to weather the coronavirus crisis and then return to business as usual. Before providing any loan relief, tax breaks or cash transfers, we must demand that the airlines change how they treat their customers and employees and make basic changes in industry ownership structure.
Beginning with passengers, change fees should be capped at $50 and baggage fees tied to some ratio of costs. The change fees don’t just irritate; they are also a drag on the broader economy, making the transport system less flexible and discouraging what would otherwise be efficient changes to travel plans. We should also put an end to the airlines’ pursuit of smaller and smaller seats, which are not only uncomfortable and even physically harmful, but also foster in-flight rage and make the job of flight attendants nigh unbearable. Finally, we have allowed too much common ownership, permitting large shareholders to take a stake in each of the major airlines, creating incentives to collude instead of compete.
The airlines will argue that their ownership structure, cramped seats, high fees and other forms of customer suffering are necessary to keep prices lower. But after the last decade’s mergers, no one should take that argument seriously. As any economist will tell you, in a market with reduced competition, and common ownership, there is limited pressure to reduce prices. Instead, as we’ve seen, the major airlines charge what they can get away with and spend the profit on stock buybacks and other self-serving enterprises.
The question of what the public should demand from an airline bailout raises questions that transcend the business of flying. The next several weeks will leave behind many economic victims, including nearly every provider of in-person services. Many small retailers, restaurants and other businesses, like caterers or fitness instructors, face grim prospects. Yet it is the economy’s big players, like banks and airlines, that are the best at asking for (and getting) government assistance.
During the last economic crisis, we largely let individuals suffer while helping out the big guys, leaving behind deep resentments that still fester. This time around we should start from the bottom instead of the top.
Tim Wu (@superwuster) is a law professor at Columbia, a contributing opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on
Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
That the economic disaster is worse than preventative measures, even extreme ones.

That's probably not accurate, weirdly recessions tend to decrease mortality. Furthermore, the Brits are now saying that 2.2 mil could die in America if we don't start solving this ASAP. If we don't get this thing tackled the economy will still crash and things will take far longer to get back to normal and we'll have an additional 2.2 mil dead, not to mention all the people left with lifelong consequences from this disease.

We need to pump the breaks and take care of the people most harmed economically by this crisis.

I don't necessarily disagree with the generalized "recessions make folks more thrifty and less stupid" theory...

However, while quantitatively this is already a recession... Qualitatively, this is something very very different. It's kinda sorta tantamount to the 1929 crash.... only probably faster and worse... Overnight: today, last week, Friday... depending on the random vagaries of your geography and health department, you are out of income and can't go anywhere, and maybe, just maybe, your family is dying before your eyes.

Yeah, I don't think that qualifies as a "recession"... it's something very different.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Technically it’s not a quarantine unless it comes from the Quarantine region in France.

Otherwise it’s just “sparkling isolation”.
Love you!!!

John Oliver is looking for you.


___________ - break- ________________-

Dear Richman-

Congratulations!

You are officially invited to our Secret Quarantine Sanctuary Facility.
We here at SQSF, we value brilliant humor and the therapeutic effect is has on the suffering.

-The Admission Board
 
Last edited:

nibake

Powder hound
As a prophylactic caveat to the potentially confused... this is an OPINION piece.
_______________________________________________________________________
Opinion

Don’t Feel Sorry for the Airlines
Before providing them any assistance, we must demand that they change how they treat their customers and employees.


By Tim Wu
Mr. Wu is the author of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”
  • March 16, 2020


John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Thursday, the day after President Trump announced that the United States would restrict travel from Europe.Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times

For American Airlines, the nation’s largest airline, the mid to late 2010s were what the Bible calls “years of plenty.”
In 2014, having reduced competition through mergers and raised billions of dollars in new baggage-fee revenue, American began reaching stunning levels of financial success. In 2015, it posted a $7.6 billion profit — compared, for example, to profits of about $500 million in 2007 and less than $250 million in 2006. It would continue to earn billions in profit annually for the rest of the decade. “I don’t think we’re ever going to lose money again,” the company’s chief executive, Doug Parker, said in 2017.
There are plenty of things American could have done with all that money. It could have stored up its cash reserves for a future crisis, knowing that airlines regularly cycle through booms and busts. It might have tried to decisively settle its continuing contract disputes with pilots, flight attendants and mechanics. It might have invested heavily in better service quality to try to repair its longstanding reputation as the worst of the major carriers.
Instead, American blew most of its cash on a stock buyback spree. From 2014 to 2020, in an attempt to increase its earnings per share, American spent more than $15 billion buying back its own stock. It managed, despite the risk of the proverbial rainy day, to shrink its cash reserves. At the same time it was blowing cash on buybacks, American also began to borrow heavily to finance the purchase of new planes and the retrofitting of old planes to pack in more seats. As early as 2017 analysts warned of a risk of default should the economy deteriorate, but American kept borrowing. It has now accumulated a debt of nearly $30 billion, nearly five times the company’s current market value.

At no time during its years of plenty did American improve how it treats its customers. Change fees went up to $200 for domestic flights and to $750 for international. Its widely despised baggage fees were hiked to $30 and $40 for first and second bags. These higher fees yielded billions of dollars, yet did not help the airline improve its on-time arrivals, reduce tarmac delays or prevent involuntary bumping. Instead, American’s main “innovations” were the removal of screens from its planes, the reduction of bathroom and seat sizes and the introduction of a “basic economy” class that initially included a ban on carry-on luggage.

In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, which is wreaking havoc on the airline industry, American Airlines has not yet asked for a bailout — at least not in so many words. Yet after a recent meeting with airline leadership, Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, said that “certain sectors of the economy, airlines coming to mind” might require assistance. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Wednesday that the airlines, including American, would be “on the top of the list” for federal loan relief.

As the government considers what we, the public, should do for the airlines, we should ask, Just what have they done for us?
The United States economy needs an airline industry to function. The industry is in that sense not a “normal” industry, but rather what was once called a common carrier or a public utility: a critical infrastructure on which the rest of the economy relies. The major airlines know that unlike a local restaurant, they will never be allowed, collectively, to fail completely. In practice, the public has subsidized the industry by providing de facto insurance against hard times in the form of bailouts or merger approvals. And now here we go again.

We cannot permit American and other airlines to use federal assistance, whether labeled a bailout or not, to weather the coronavirus crisis and then return to business as usual. Before providing any loan relief, tax breaks or cash transfers, we must demand that the airlines change how they treat their customers and employees and make basic changes in industry ownership structure.
Beginning with passengers, change fees should be capped at $50 and baggage fees tied to some ratio of costs. The change fees don’t just irritate; they are also a drag on the broader economy, making the transport system less flexible and discouraging what would otherwise be efficient changes to travel plans. We should also put an end to the airlines’ pursuit of smaller and smaller seats, which are not only uncomfortable and even physically harmful, but also foster in-flight rage and make the job of flight attendants nigh unbearable. Finally, we have allowed too much common ownership, permitting large shareholders to take a stake in each of the major airlines, creating incentives to collude instead of compete.
The airlines will argue that their ownership structure, cramped seats, high fees and other forms of customer suffering are necessary to keep prices lower. But after the last decade’s mergers, no one should take that argument seriously. As any economist will tell you, in a market with reduced competition, and common ownership, there is limited pressure to reduce prices. Instead, as we’ve seen, the major airlines charge what they can get away with and spend the profit on stock buybacks and other self-serving enterprises.
The question of what the public should demand from an airline bailout raises questions that transcend the business of flying. The next several weeks will leave behind many economic victims, including nearly every provider of in-person services. Many small retailers, restaurants and other businesses, like caterers or fitness instructors, face grim prospects. Yet it is the economy’s big players, like banks and airlines, that are the best at asking for (and getting) government assistance.
During the last economic crisis, we largely let individuals suffer while helping out the big guys, leaving behind deep resentments that still fester. This time around we should start from the bottom instead of the top.
Tim Wu (@superwuster) is a law professor at Columbia, a contributing opinion writer and the author, most recently, of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on
Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
I hate the fact that both of the following are true: A. Many airlines might cease to exist without bailouts and B. Greed played a big role in putting them there.

Bail them out? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Top