Airline Fleet/Management in a crisis
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well.
Absolutely not OUR problem! They are cruising under foreign flag, paying (if at all) taxes to other countries!
Panama can bail them out, or Antigua for example.
F... them!
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
edyvw,
That might be their only option at this point.
Five years from now the government will still be helping the major airlines stay solvent.
Folks leaving the industry might have to make a career change if they lack the seniority to stay.
The problem is not just an airline. This is not result of bad management (well AA maybe). These companies entered crisis healthy and reason is beyond them. Going to Ch.11 undermines what government is trying to do. Why not then Ch.11 with everything else? Why not GM, Ford? Why not hospitals? Why not people?
When things get settle down, when traffic goes back to some healthy routine, then Ch.11 could be an option to struggling airline.
I agree, five years from now, yeah, that might be an option, but now?
I see where you going with this and you have a good point.
Chapter 11 is intended to allow a business to survive that might thrive but for its excess liabilities.
No airline today is in a position to thrive with this relief since there aren't enough liabilities to unload to make one profitable at current traffic levels.
You could give them minimum wage pilots and cabin crew along with free fuel and aircraft leases and they'd still be bleeding cash albeit less.
Just not enough current income to support even the greatly downsized operations we're now seeing.
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well.
Absolutely not OUR problem! They are cruising under foreign flag, paying (if at all) taxes to other countries!
Panama can bail them out, or Antigua for example.
F... them!
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
[/quote]
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well. [/quote]
Absolutely not OUR problem! They are cruising under foreign flag, paying (if at all) taxes to other countries!
Panama can bail them out, or Antigua for example.
F... them!
[/quote]
We have projects going all over the world and fly people to these places. I'm waiting for routes and hotels to open up now. Thinking of doing this with a ship would take lots more people that are not affordable.
It's a conundrum. For example, if all the airlines folded then what would take over as transportation to other parts of the world? Would anyone take a chance to start a new airline?
I don't think we are at that point but it is a interesting thought. Perhaps there would be a return of transoceanic liners? The cruise industry is hurting as well. [/quote]
Absolutely not OUR problem! They are cruising under foreign flag, paying (if at all) taxes to other countries!
Panama can bail them out, or Antigua for example.
F... them!
[/quote]
We have projects going all over the world and fly people to these places. I'm waiting for routes and hotels to open up now. Thinking of doing this with a ship would take lots more people that are not affordable.
Yep. Cruise Lines are not necessary, let them all fail. Panama can bail them out.
Uncle Sam will definitely save the airlines which is a good idea and investment.
Off Topic:
GE Aviation announces 13,000 layoffs with more to come as their entire commercial business is in shambles. Nobody is escaping this black swan without a major impact.
737Max was the first blow and now this....
Uncle Sam will definitely save the airlines which is a good idea and investment.
Off Topic:
GE Aviation announces 13,000 layoffs with more to come as their entire commercial business is in shambles. Nobody is escaping this black swan without a major impact.
737Max was the first blow and now this....
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Reckon cruise ships have fallen off more than a few bucket lists …
Looks like United is the first to announce future layoffs. The totals look like 30% of management and administrative staff, effective in October. Notification will be given in July. They're trying to reduce hours for airport customer service agents and baggage handlers, but they are represented employees and their union is threatening legal action. The reality is that this is just the start, and as one does, so will the others. Doug Parker has already mentioned that while avoiding furloughing employees is the primary goal, "restructuring" of management staff is required.
It would be naive to assume airlines wouldn't have a reduction in staffing, but of course, announcements like this put me and my team on edge. We've already had one member of my team take the early retirement, and another take a 6 month leave, but we are management employees so I'm sure more is to come. All we can do is be smart with our personal finances and hope for the best.
It would be naive to assume airlines wouldn't have a reduction in staffing, but of course, announcements like this put me and my team on edge. We've already had one member of my team take the early retirement, and another take a 6 month leave, but we are management employees so I'm sure more is to come. All we can do is be smart with our personal finances and hope for the best.
Originally Posted by honeeagle
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
They are indeed ugly. These newer floating boxes look looks chicken coops stacked.
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
They are indeed ugly. These newer floating boxes look looks chicken coops stacked.
Originally Posted by honeeagle
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
Yeah, a modern megaship is pretty ugly with the apartment house superstructure although no less visually pleasing than a container ship or a tanker. Modern commercial vessels are functional in design if not pretty. There are some pretty cruise ships, but they're usually small and often old.
A proper cruise ship is very nice to travel in.
Nice watching the scenery go by while sipping wine on the balcony. Nice sitting on the balcony in the morning with breakfast and watching for the flying fish you inevitably see along with the offshore birds that hunt them. Very nice to have dinner sitting at the windows in the stern or to either side while having a leisurely dinner and spotting the lights of other ships at every point of the compass you can see.
After all of this I do wonder when will ever do this again.
Incidentally, the reason that the major cruise lines are headquartered in the US but incorporated elsewhere is the Jones Act, just as with virtually any oceangoing freight or tanker line. This is also the reason that all of their ships save one NCL example that plies the waters around Hawaii are flagged with countries of convenience.
These are still corporations whose shares are listed on US exchanges and which employ many of our fellow citizens along with huge herds of developing world expats on contract who leave their families and come to these ships to make a better future for their families and themselves.
Effective US tax rates for any corporation with costly capital assets are no more than nugatory, so avoiding US taxes isn't a reason. Avoiding US construction costs (almost all of the ships are built in the EU) and US nationals crewing requirements are the actual reasons for avoiding US incorporation.
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
Yeah, a modern megaship is pretty ugly with the apartment house superstructure although no less visually pleasing than a container ship or a tanker. Modern commercial vessels are functional in design if not pretty. There are some pretty cruise ships, but they're usually small and often old.
A proper cruise ship is very nice to travel in.
Nice watching the scenery go by while sipping wine on the balcony. Nice sitting on the balcony in the morning with breakfast and watching for the flying fish you inevitably see along with the offshore birds that hunt them. Very nice to have dinner sitting at the windows in the stern or to either side while having a leisurely dinner and spotting the lights of other ships at every point of the compass you can see.
After all of this I do wonder when will ever do this again.
Incidentally, the reason that the major cruise lines are headquartered in the US but incorporated elsewhere is the Jones Act, just as with virtually any oceangoing freight or tanker line. This is also the reason that all of their ships save one NCL example that plies the waters around Hawaii are flagged with countries of convenience.
These are still corporations whose shares are listed on US exchanges and which employ many of our fellow citizens along with huge herds of developing world expats on contract who leave their families and come to these ships to make a better future for their families and themselves.
Effective US tax rates for any corporation with costly capital assets are no more than nugatory, so avoiding US taxes isn't a reason. Avoiding US construction costs (almost all of the ships are built in the EU) and US nationals crewing requirements are the actual reasons for avoiding US incorporation.
The ocean liners of the queens /normandie type, that did the north atlantic route are completely different vessel 3x the speed built to handle all weathers.
beauty
cruise 'ships' are floating hotels layed down on its side ,tax dodges every one.
crewed from the worlds most impoverished countries ,with miserable conditions below the waterline, flagged where nobody cares or watches.
beauty
cruise 'ships' are floating hotels layed down on its side ,tax dodges every one.
crewed from the worlds most impoverished countries ,with miserable conditions below the waterline, flagged where nobody cares or watches.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
On the anniversary of the Hindenburg … surprises me that's not coming up !
The conundrum is this: to what degree do we want foreign governments to choose our airlines for us?
No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.
So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.
The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.
Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?
If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?
It doesn't to me...
No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.
So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.
The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.
Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?
If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?
It doesn't to me...
Originally Posted by honeeagle
The ocean liners of the queens /normandie type, that did the north atlantic route are completely different vessel 3x the speed built to handle all weathers.
beauty
cruise 'ships' are floating hotels layed down on its side ,tax dodges every one.
crewed from the worlds most impoverished countries ,with miserable conditions below the waterline, flagged where nobody cares or watches.
3X the speed? Not hardly.
handle all weathers? A North Atlantic crossing in winter is a North Atlantic crossing in winter. Rough and uncomfortable on any ship and these modern cruise ship hulls have proven very capable of handling rough conditions.
Ships have always used cheap labor for the nasty jobs requiring a warm body without expertise. In the days of sail, warm bodies were recruited or impressed to man the riggings. They learned quickly or they fell and died. At least the ship's crewmen of today don't have to die learning their trade.
The ocean liners of the queens /normandie type, that did the north atlantic route are completely different vessel 3x the speed built to handle all weathers.
beauty
cruise 'ships' are floating hotels layed down on its side ,tax dodges every one.
crewed from the worlds most impoverished countries ,with miserable conditions below the waterline, flagged where nobody cares or watches.
3X the speed? Not hardly.
handle all weathers? A North Atlantic crossing in winter is a North Atlantic crossing in winter. Rough and uncomfortable on any ship and these modern cruise ship hulls have proven very capable of handling rough conditions.
Ships have always used cheap labor for the nasty jobs requiring a warm body without expertise. In the days of sail, warm bodies were recruited or impressed to man the riggings. They learned quickly or they fell and died. At least the ship's crewmen of today don't have to die learning their trade.
Originally Posted by Astro14
The conundrum is this: to what degree do we want foreign governments to choose our airlines for us?
No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.
So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.
The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.
Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?
If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?
It doesn't to me...
Agree.
If anyone here disagrees with you on this, I'd certainly be interested to hear their argument.
The conundrum is this: to what degree do we want foreign governments to choose our airlines for us?
No airline can survive this revenue climate without government help.
So, the airlines that get that help may (not certainly, but may) survive.
The airlines that don't get that help will certainly fail and cease to exist. It takes decades to start and grow an airline into anything more than a niche. And that requires a great deal of financial leverage, even used airplanes aren't cheap.
Since foreign governments own and support their airlines, would we be best served by letting those carriers take over our air travel industry?
If they won by government action, and not by safety record, or service, or efficiency, would that make sense?
It doesn't to me...
Agree.
If anyone here disagrees with you on this, I'd certainly be interested to hear their argument.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by honeeagle
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
Yeah, a modern megaship is pretty ugly with the apartment house superstructure although no less visually pleasing than a container ship or a tanker. Modern commercial vessels are functional in design if not pretty. There are some pretty cruise ships, but they're usually small and often old.
A proper cruise ship is very nice to travel in.
Nice watching the scenery go by while sipping wine on the balcony. Nice sitting on the balcony in the morning with breakfast and watching for the flying fish you inevitably see along with the offshore birds that hunt them. Very nice to have dinner sitting at the windows in the stern or to either side while having a leisurely dinner and spotting the lights of other ships at every point of the compass you can see.
After all of this I do wonder when will ever do this again.
Incidentally, the reason that the major cruise lines are headquartered in the US but incorporated elsewhere is the Jones Act, just as with virtually any oceangoing freight or tanker line. This is also the reason that all of their ships save one NCL example that plies the waters around Hawaii are flagged with countries of convenience.
These are still corporations whose shares are listed on US exchanges and which employ many of our fellow citizens along with huge herds of developing world expats on contract who leave their families and come to these ships to make a better future for their families and themselves.
Effective US tax rates for any corporation with costly capital assets are no more than nugatory, so avoiding US taxes isn't a reason. Avoiding US construction costs (almost all of the ships are built in the EU) and US nationals crewing requirements are the actual reasons for avoiding US incorporation.
My neighbor former state trooper who owns a restaurant now still did not get his small business loan.
So again, Panama can bail them out.
Originally Posted by honeeagle
to a boat/ ship lover they are the ugliest vessels ever created, a blight to the eye and having more and more difficulty getting permission to some ports. the sooner they are scrap the better.
Yeah, a modern megaship is pretty ugly with the apartment house superstructure although no less visually pleasing than a container ship or a tanker. Modern commercial vessels are functional in design if not pretty. There are some pretty cruise ships, but they're usually small and often old.
A proper cruise ship is very nice to travel in.
Nice watching the scenery go by while sipping wine on the balcony. Nice sitting on the balcony in the morning with breakfast and watching for the flying fish you inevitably see along with the offshore birds that hunt them. Very nice to have dinner sitting at the windows in the stern or to either side while having a leisurely dinner and spotting the lights of other ships at every point of the compass you can see.
After all of this I do wonder when will ever do this again.
Incidentally, the reason that the major cruise lines are headquartered in the US but incorporated elsewhere is the Jones Act, just as with virtually any oceangoing freight or tanker line. This is also the reason that all of their ships save one NCL example that plies the waters around Hawaii are flagged with countries of convenience.
These are still corporations whose shares are listed on US exchanges and which employ many of our fellow citizens along with huge herds of developing world expats on contract who leave their families and come to these ships to make a better future for their families and themselves.
Effective US tax rates for any corporation with costly capital assets are no more than nugatory, so avoiding US taxes isn't a reason. Avoiding US construction costs (almost all of the ships are built in the EU) and US nationals crewing requirements are the actual reasons for avoiding US incorporation.
My neighbor former state trooper who owns a restaurant now still did not get his small business loan.
So again, Panama can bail them out.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked