xxx

SO.....before the bodies of the WTC victims have even been recovered, the airlines execs are lined up for a government bailout of their industry. They need taxpayer cash to save the future of aviation in this country...or so they claim. <BR> <BR>Aren't these the same airlines that discouraged any sort of government regulation or intervention during their record-profit years of the 1990s? Aren't these the same airlines which ignored years of consumer complaints about seat size, delayed schedules, air rage, carry-on bag limits, etc, etc... and advised the government that they would investigate and "police" themselves? Aren't these the same airlines that ignored security concerns and hired the cheapest, most unskilled labor possible to serve as "security" in the airports while their profits soared? <BR> <BR>Yes, these same airlines are now lined up in D.C. with their hands extended for a bailout. NOW they WANT government involvement. Oh yes, they would also like very much to be relieved of any and all liability claims from relatives of the hijacking victims. And Congress is bending over to funnel taxpayer funds to them with no conditions whatsoever. <BR> <BR>And as a cherry on top of their sundaes, the airlines get to lay off tens of thousands of workers as this cash is handed over. Seems as if a few execs will be receiving VERY large bonuses this year! <BR> <BR>I say, the airlines are vultures, not victims. What do YOU, the taxpayers of America, say? <BR>

s.fowler

In one word ... well 3 -- a lot of BOTH. There are things that they have done that will exacerbate their situation now -- and ALL the airlines were lax about security -- the choice of those 2 airlines wasn't the airlines' fault -- they just met the terrorists' criteria.

Old Fashioned

I say give them the $5 billion with the following condition: <BR> <BR>*** The airlines would be liable to provide $2.5 billion in free tickets over the next 10 years to travelling federal government employees. Might as well get something for our tax dollars. <BR> <BR>OF

noname

I say that it's time to make the airlines accountable for all the consumer complaints that they have ignored for so long. There should be some strings attached to this money. they can have a bailout, but in return, seat pitch and size must meet certain requirements; overbooking, mysterious ticket pricing policies and overscheduling must be a thing of the past; and last but not least, security must be staffed and administered by professional law enforcement personnel. <BR> <BR>In our dreams, huh?

yyy

1) Vultures <BR>2) yes -- only in our dreams but <BR>3) copy, cut, edit and send these comments to your Congressman

Susan

I guess I don't understand how they got into financial trouble in the first place. Travel and tourism seem to be a booming business, one of American's most cited "hobbies." I don't know anyone who chose not to go on a vacation because they would have to fly and receive airplane food or have no leg room. These things have been part and parcel of travel forever. So, why the financial crisis (before September 11)? <BR> <BR>I think we can chalk it up to plain bad business practice. Apparently the two airlines who are not hurting so badly are Southwest and Alaska. Their business strategy has been to cater to a limited part of the market (regional travel or shuttle service) and they seem to have a handle on their sector of the market. But the big US airlines have tried to do it all -- regional, shuttle, international, transcontinental -- and I believe it's impossible to do all of it and succeed. There needs to be some major restructuring. <BR> <BR>On the point of government regulation, I've been hearing how *dependent* we are on the airline industry now. Our manufacturing and commerce relies on the commercial (?!) airlines to get their parts, etc. If that is the case then I believe our best interests are at stake and the government should have their hand in the game.

Capo

I can't claim to know what the financial position was of the airlines prior to September 11th. Apparently some of them were already in financial trouble although, from what specifically, I don't know. <BR> <BR>However, they had no control over the fact that their planes were grounded for however many days it was, and that likely created a real cash flow problem. Also, people <I>seem</I> to staying away from flying in droves right now. An industry analyst (or spokesman) was on TV last night and said that the recent load factor has been 3%, a figure so amazing low I find it hard to believe, but that's what he claimed. <BR> <BR>Travel writer Peter Greenberg, who was on Politically Incorrect last night, said something very interesting. He said there is currently a tax -- and I'm pretty sure he said it was 10% of each ticket -- that is supposed to be used for security (although he didn't specify how), but he claimed that, instead of being used for security, it's just going into the general fund and being used for other federal spending. I'm very curious about Greenberg's remark; can anyone confirm this, rebut this, or add anything to it?

huh?

So the airline industry is responsible for security on their flights, they failed to do their job, 5,000 people were killed and now we should reward them?

Cindy

I know someone who flew a few days ago. He said there were 5 passengers on the plane. <BR> <BR>Yes, load factors must be hideously low. Did everyone who had a ticket ask for a refund or something? Don't people have to fly for meetings, weddings, funerals?

beinformed

Perhaps you would be better to read the Reuters column on what bin Laden did before he crashed our planes. He bought airline stock and sold it the day before knowing he could clean up in the stock market and destroy an American industry at the same time.

Capo

Yes, it's my understanding that the airline industry is responsible for security. However, it's also my understanding that FAA regulations have permitted things such as knives up to 4" in length and, presumably, box cutters as well. If that's the case, and those were the only weapons the terrorists had, then I'm somewhat puzzled as to how the airlines failed to do their job. The "fault", if you're looking for one, would seem to lie with a policy that allowed carryon items like those above, a policy that, in hindsight now, seems to be an extremely poor one. <BR> <BR>Now, could any airline have gone "above and beyond" FAA regulations at any time, confiscating <I>any</I> items they found questionable? Perhaps, I don't know. However, I could almost bet that, if any airline had been confiscating items that are now being banned, they would have lost business to competitors.

Capo

Here's an article relevant to "beinformed's" post: <BR> <BR>International Probe on Suspected Bin Laden Financial Trades <BR> <BR>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34650,00.html <BR> <BR>The relevant section is under the heading "Put Options." <BR> <BR>To: beinformed, out of curiousity, do you have any confirmation that these are more than rumors at this point? Thanks.

Pete

Have any of you noticed that gas prices have risen dramatically over the last 18 months? Have air fares risen at the same rate? No. If Airline A had raised its fares at the same rate that expenses had risen while none of the others followed suit, they'd have been out of business in days, <BR> <BR>As far as the airlines providing gate security, that's the airport authorities (usually city or county governments) that run that. Get your facts straight. God, you freakin' people on here just love to blame somebody! Next you'll be blaming the builders of the WTC for making it too big.

Turkey Tombo

Pete, it's pretty obvious most of the posters here have no life other than sitting in front of their computer all day. I hope I'm not a pompous pain in the ass when I reach retirement age. You folks oughtta take up basket-weaving or something. Leave the computers to professionals.

Capo

Our opinions about blame here, one way or another, don't really have much of an effect, IMO anyway. What will have an effect -- a far greater effect -- will be any potential lawsuits filed against the airlines, or any other parties, by the families of victims. I believe I've heard that the government is requesting that lawyers refrain from filing lawsuits for the time being, but I wonder how many might be filed in the future, and who will be sued.

Capo

Now, this is one thing that does <I>seem </I> to be a real misstep. <BR> <BR>'Watch List' Didn't Get to Airline: Security: Federal authorities were suspicious of two hijackers, but warning wasn't shared. <BR> <BR>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ <BR> <BR>la-000075548sep20.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual <BR> <BR>(Note: URL split in order to, hopefully, avoid screwing up this frame.)

Lawyer

Actually, Capo, the government is requesting that lawyers not sue. That is the ABA, and I believe it is in keeping with an ethics rule (?) that prohibits attorneys from soliciting crash victims for 45 days after a crash. <BR> <BR>Who will be sued? Well, off the top of my head: the airlines, the security companies, and the management of the WTC have big targets on their backs. If any hotels or other businesses failed to issue evacuation orders immediately after the first impact, they'll be sued to. The designers of the building might be on the hook if someone makes the argument it was designed with an insufficient number of emergency stairwells, etc. <BR> <BR>I didn't say any of this has merit. Remember, anyone can sue anyone.

Capo

Thanks, Lawyer...I appreciate the clarification vis-a-vis the government and the ABA. <BR> <BR>Regarding your final sentence in your second paragraph, here's an intesting article entitled "Debate begins on rebuilding towers" <BR> <BR>http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen...ild/index.html <BR> <BR>Eric Darton's comments about evacuation of the WTC are very interesting.

Jim Rosenberg

The airlines clearly are victims, along with many others. To blame them for the September 11 disaster, even in part, is to blame victims. Keep in mind that the damage to the industry is not isolated to those with aircraft that were involved. Do I agree with everything the airlines have done over the past number of years? No. But this much is clear to me: either we will help the airlines financially now (and protect the industry from being swallowed by the trial lawyers) or we will have no airline industry as we know it; we will allow long-term or permanent damage. Anyone who cares about reasonably accessible and affordable air travel in the future should be applauding efforts in Washington to keep the airline industry from being dismantled by this disaster. I certainly am. As for layoffs, that is to be anticipated with the dropoff in demand and some would have been occurring even without the debacle.

Lawyer Too

I really think that the chance of any lawsuit recoveries is very remote. There are big issues of forseeability and criminal intervetion. Not to mention "acts of war" and other issues. <BR>Of couse as Lawyer said anyone can sue and of cource we have juries but I wouldn't count on anybody collecting anything. <BR>Any other legal opinions? <BR> <BR>