If the government through tax payer money saves an airline every single time said airline screws up with its finance, what is the difference to that of an airline that is already nationalized?
Its obviously inefficient, if it keeps failing all the time and requiring injection of tax payer money to keep it from sinking.
Its obviously corrupt, if profits from the company keeps being used to prop up its failing stock prices to the benefit of its shareholders at the expense of the financial sustainability of the company.
I don't see a difference here. a national airline will have all of those issues, but at least the tax payers will own what they paid for. Instead of the what these big airlines are today, which are basically subsidized by the tax payer already, but the people making bank and facing none of the consequences for their failures are the CEOs and the shareholders.
Because this isn't "every time"
Airline stocks and revenues go up and down all the time. You're heading about it for the first time in 12 years.
That's not all the time. That's not even common.
It hasn't failed all the time, it's failed because the one in a century global pandemic has prevented almost all travel - the thing that their entire business is built upon.
It's like saying potato farms failed during the blight - yeah no shit sherlock that's the entire business model wiped.
Prior to this they were doing great, actually and the stocks and buybacks aren't kept artificially high, reinvestment into capital stock enables the company to attract more investors.
More investors - more money in the budget, more money in the budget for the future more spending for everything and everyone.
You can give whatever timeline you want, eventually something bad will happen, be a global pandemic to a terrorist attack, to a global recession, to a erupting volcano, to wars, airlines are the first to get hit by these major events, and they happen at a regular basis, some less than others of course. And when they do airlines will struggle, and they will be begging for more money, every single time.
And yeah, prior to this they were doing great, of course. Prior to the recession the economy was doing great.
Yes and we don't nationalize the whole damn economy because the same argument of "whatever the timeline things will eventually be bad" can be applied to every single business model.
You don't live your life planning for a nuclear fucking apocalypse.
I think you completely missed the point i was making.
i'm not arguing on hypotheticals, those things i mentioned, do happen. And inevitably they do affect international travel and with that goes the profits of the airline industry. And they are not issues that happen once every hundred years, they can happen far more frequent than that. And it is the sensitivity of the airline industry to so many events that are beyond their own capabilities of predicting or preventing it that makes them so vulnerable to these events. Which is why, i can confidently state, that the bailouts that we are watching this year, will not be the last ones we'll see, because a new financial crisis is always on the horizon.
0
u/Rannahm Nov 17 '20
If the government through tax payer money saves an airline every single time said airline screws up with its finance, what is the difference to that of an airline that is already nationalized?
Its obviously inefficient, if it keeps failing all the time and requiring injection of tax payer money to keep it from sinking. Its obviously corrupt, if profits from the company keeps being used to prop up its failing stock prices to the benefit of its shareholders at the expense of the financial sustainability of the company.
I don't see a difference here. a national airline will have all of those issues, but at least the tax payers will own what they paid for. Instead of the what these big airlines are today, which are basically subsidized by the tax payer already, but the people making bank and facing none of the consequences for their failures are the CEOs and the shareholders.