Are airlines worth having?

[Xan]

I read somewhere a long time ago (it may have been here?) that over the history of flight (at least in the US), airlines had not turned a profit, apart from bailouts.

When travel becomes suddenly unpopular, they need a bailout.

Does it make sense to keep doing this? Doesn't it mean that the true cost of air travel is being paid by taxpayers rather than passengers, and so the correct value decisions aren't being made?

Could be I have my facts wrong, of course.

[Smith1776]

Yes, that particular tidbit about the airlines in aggregate not making any profit since the Wright brothers can be attributed to a Warren Buffett speech made a number of years ago.

Curiously, he has since bought airline stock since then, as I'm sure you know.

I personally think there may indeed be some bargains in that area. I am researching tonight on some potential cheap stocks to buy. Anything particularly hit hard by the virus, like the airlines, is top of my list to investigate.

[Smith1776]

https://youtu.be/2a9Lx9J8uSs

This is the speech. Start at the 17 minute mark and you will hear it.

It's a stale statistic but nonetheless noteworthy.

[pmward]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

[Kriegsspiel]

I read somewhere a long time ago (it may have been here?) that over the history of flight (at least in the US), airlines had not turned a profit, apart from bailouts.

When travel becomes suddenly unpopular, they need a bailout.

Does it make sense to keep doing this? Doesn't it mean that the true cost of air travel is being paid by taxpayers rather than passengers, and so the correct value decisions aren't being made?

Could be I have my facts wrong, of course.

I'm sure the fact that they make our military aircraft plays a role.

[Xan]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

[yankees60]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

[pmward]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

I imagine, just like with the banks in 2008, the government will push some of the bigger airlines to acquire some of the smaller airlines that are at risk. But, given that this is a pretty unprecedented event doesn't mean they should let the industry burn.

[Xan]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

[yankees60]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

How much have the combined Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost us? I'll just guess $5 trillion so far. Both elective wars. Neither country attacked us. That $5 trillion has just been dded to the deficit. A deficit which creates interest that needs to be paid. Those are costs that are going to have to eventually be paid by future generations, which then can crowd out present more productive spending for those generations.

In those two wars, the country did not put everything it had into either. Yes, it put a lot of $$$$ into each but it was those who elected to serve in the military who paid any of the costs paid by human suffering.

Vinny

[Xan]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

How much have the combined Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost us? I'll just guess $5 trillion so far. Both elective wars. Neither country attacked us. That $5 trillion has just been dded to the deficit. A deficit which creates interest that needs to be paid. Those are costs that are going to have to eventually be paid by future generations, which then can crowd out present more productive spending for those generations.

In those two wars, the country did not put everything it had into either. Yes, it put a lot of $$$$ into each but it was those who elected to serve in the military who paid any of the costs paid by human suffering.

Vinny

Without getting into the merits of those wars, which is beside the point, it wasn't $5 trillion (which I don't think is right, but it doesn't matter) "just added to the deficit". The money was borrowed into existence and paid out to servicemen, contractors, etc. In other words, every dollar that was added to the debt was a dollar that was added to circulation of Americans.

What the wars actually cost us are the efforts that went into fighting them which could have been directed somewhere else. It really doesn't have anything to do with money.

[yankees60]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

How much have the combined Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost us? I'll just guess $5 trillion so far. Both elective wars. Neither country attacked us. That $5 trillion has just been dded to the deficit. A deficit which creates interest that needs to be paid. Those are costs that are going to have to eventually be paid by future generations, which then can crowd out present more productive spending for those generations.

In those two wars, the country did not put everything it had into either. Yes, it put a lot of $$$$ into each but it was those who elected to serve in the military who paid any of the costs paid by human suffering.

Vinny

Without getting into the merits of those wars, which is beside the point, it wasn't $5 trillion (which I don't think is right, but it doesn't matter) "just added to the deficit". The money was borrowed into existence and paid out to servicemen, contractors, etc. In other words, every dollar that was added to the debt was a dollar that was added to circulation of Americans.

What the wars actually cost us are the efforts that went into fighting them which could have been directed somewhere else. It really doesn't have anything to do with money.

But isn't that the make work argument that says it would be good for the economy to increase the deficit by having paying one set of Americans to just digs holes and then pay an equal set of Americans to fill in those holes? I'd assume that the net result of the hole digging / refilling in itself was of no value? Therefore you do have to get into the merits of the wars. And, when you are actively engaged in a war, the ongoing costs of the war should be part of your budget. Not a supplemental that is off budget.

Wars are just a different way of conducting politics.


Vinny

[barrett]

Is it just me or did the call for an airline bailout happen awfully quickly? It feels like they really want to be at the front of the line.

And any thoughts about cruise lines being bailed out? I heard mention of that yesterday in Trump's new conference. For the life of me I can't grasp how that industry would be an essential one.

[yankees60]

Is it just me or did the call for an airline bailout happen awfully quickly? It feels like they really want to be at the front of the line.

And any thoughts about cruise lines being bailed out? I heard mention of that yesterday in Trump's new conference. For the life of me I can't grasp how that industry would be an essential one.

It could possibly be essential for one particular person's interest!

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

How much have the combined Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost us? I'll just guess $5 trillion so far. Both elective wars. Neither country attacked us. That $5 trillion has just been dded to the deficit. A deficit which creates interest that needs to be paid. Those are costs that are going to have to eventually be paid by future generations, which then can crowd out present more productive spending for those generations.

In those two wars, the country did not put everything it had into either. Yes, it put a lot of $$$$ into each but it was those who elected to serve in the military who paid any of the costs paid by human suffering.

Vinny

Without getting into the merits of those wars, which is beside the point, it wasn't $5 trillion (which I don't think is right, but it doesn't matter) "just added to the deficit". The money was borrowed into existence and paid out to servicemen, contractors, etc. In other words, every dollar that was added to the debt was a dollar that was added to circulation of Americans.

What the wars actually cost us are the efforts that went into fighting them which could have been directed somewhere else. It really doesn't have anything to do with money.

But isn't that the make work argument that says it would be good for the economy to increase the deficit by having paying one set of Americans to just digs holes and then pay an equal set of Americans to fill in those holes? I'd assume that the net result of the hole digging / refilling in itself was of no value? Therefore you do have to get into the merits of the wars. And, when you are actively engaged in a war, the ongoing costs of the war should be part of your budget. Not a supplemental that is off budget.

Wars are just a different way of conducting politics.

Vinny

Yes, exactly right.

[yankees60]

Yeah airlines had actually been doing well in recent years. But they did not do well in the early years. This was kind of a natural disaster that couldn't be planned for in advance.

Well, just because it couldn't be planned for doesn't mean that the industry should be bailed out. If it's so susceptible to unplanned events that doesn't mean its survival should be guaranteed, necessarily.

Is this anywhere similar to wars being financed off budget as opposed to have some kind of sinking fund to finance wars as they arise. Instead, they are always being put on the credit card?

Vinny

I don't think it makes sense to "save up" for a war. War is "paid for" by the country putting everything it has into the war instead of into things they'd rather do instead. It isn't really financial at all.

If the government had a fund somewhere with $X in it, how would that make a lick of difference in terms of whether we were able to fight or not?

How much have the combined Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost us? I'll just guess $5 trillion so far. Both elective wars. Neither country attacked us. That $5 trillion has just been dded to the deficit. A deficit which creates interest that needs to be paid. Those are costs that are going to have to eventually be paid by future generations, which then can crowd out present more productive spending for those generations.

In those two wars, the country did not put everything it had into either. Yes, it put a lot of $$$$ into each but it was those who elected to serve in the military who paid any of the costs paid by human suffering.

Vinny

Without getting into the merits of those wars, which is beside the point, it wasn't $5 trillion (which I don't think is right, but it doesn't matter) "just added to the deficit". The money was borrowed into existence and paid out to servicemen, contractors, etc. In other words, every dollar that was added to the debt was a dollar that was added to circulation of Americans.

What the wars actually cost us are the efforts that went into fighting them which could have been directed somewhere else. It really doesn't have anything to do with money.

But isn't that the make work argument that says it would be good for the economy to increase the deficit by having paying one set of Americans to just digs holes and then pay an equal set of Americans to fill in those holes? I'd assume that the net result of the hole digging / refilling in itself was of no value? Therefore you do have to get into the merits of the wars. And, when you are actively engaged in a war, the ongoing costs of the war should be part of your budget. Not a supplemental that is off budget.

Wars are just a different way of conducting politics.

Vinny

Yes, exactly right.

And, I say, WHENVER you and I agree on something then it HAS to be right!