Keith, Zeus: If enough travelers feel the same as you, they'll pay the ticket prices necessary to keep a carrier in business with a certain level of in-flight service and/or destination options. Unfotunately nationalism and patriotism don't factor into most people's choice of air carrier. Service level plus price will either satisfy demand or go bancrupt. <BR><BR>Southwest and others will fill in any gap caused by a failing larger competitor, it's not our govt's (read: all of us taxpayers) responsibility to keep them afloat. <BR><BR>

I am not interested in profiting from war, as someone suggested, but I do think the current situation has a downward spiril effect. Bookings (demand)is down so flights are cut back; people who ARE flying are having a lot of hassle due to their booked flights being cancelled/changed. This doesn't promote an atmosphere of being eager to travel MORE. Same with prices - I thought if demand was low, prices would be lowered to encourage people to travel, but if they remain high, people who are already reluctant will be even more so. I dont' have the answers, of course, but even the tighter security, while makin it safer, also makes traveling a longer proposition and more of a hassle. People are likely to say - it's getting to difficult so I'll just stay home...

Airlines carry freight as well as passengers, and the freight can include such critical things as organ transplants, etc. that can't be transported any other way. They also keep remote areas in touch with the major civilization centres - not all of us live in densely populated areas. <BR>I don't necessarily subscribe to a blank cheque policy of bailing out airlines, but the above factors do need to be taken into consideration.<BR><BR>Major airlines also provide service into major airports which are more expensive to use. However, if all airlines started to reroute into the lower cost airports used by the 'no-frills' carriers, those lower cost airports would be default become major airports themselves, and increase fees accordingly.

I am, or rather was an airline employee who was laid off because of all of this, I was also laid off after 9/11. I think it is about time prices came back up. The airline have to pay for the security that the gov't should be paying for. Some tickets were so low it didn't even cover the cost of the fues, pilots, fa's etc... it just doesn't make any sense.

I want my grocer to be profitable, that is why I am willing to pay a mark up of 300% for a jar of jam or stick of butter???? I want the government to pay off the National Debt, that is why I am willing to pay huge amounts of taxes?? Some of you on this forum are DAFT if you feel sorry for the airlines. BOO HOO, sweetie. You are as dim as Amanda de Catanay.

I don't feel sorry for the airlines, I think that managment at a lot of these companies has gotten them where they are right now. I do feel sorry for the low level employees who are losing their jobs, they have no say in how the company operates and are the ones who are most affected by it. Felissa

I've been reading quite a bit on the topic of airline failures and requests for government bailouts. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but it seems as if most who might qualify are against the idea. Here are links to some articles that explain why far better than I could:<BR><BR>http://www.zyworld.com/brancatelli/bf2003/branc030603.htm<BR><BR>http://www.zyworld.com/brancatelli/branc.htm (re Delta)<BR><BR>http://www.zyworld.com/brancatelli/b...ranc031303.htm (re Continental)<BR><BR>I know I've seen others in multiple sources, which I can't find at the moment....<BR>

If your local grocer is unprofitable, then he will close his doors. You then have to travel further to get your groceries which increases your costs. Competition is lessened and the remaining grocer is able to raise his prices which you are forced to pay. So you may end up paying 300% anyway. Same principle applies to the airlines. And I agree with the post that they are being saddled with the costs of security that the government should bear.

The first article I linked to specifically adresses pretty much all the arguments the airlines are making quite succintly. And states, in part: <BR><BR>&quot;They will again be demanding our tax dollars.... All this while they pay themselves millions in salary, live in $18,000-a-month condos on the company expense account and do virtually nothing to heal themselves and their broken companies.&quot;<BR><BR>It's nothing new, but the &quot;little&quot; employees and the taxpayers are being asked to make all the sacrifices, while the corporate honchos continue to make literally millions annually.

Hi Vicky. <BR><BR>If rates don't come down anytime soon and you still have your heart set on Scotland and the Tattoo, you could always go to Nova Scotia instead! I kid you not; they have a fabulous world-class international Military Tattoo that is highly acclaimed! Also, the scenary is beautiful with lots of Scottish heritage and traditions. The US dollar is still very strong in Canada (1 USD = 1.47 CAD).<BR><BR>Check this out:<BR>http://www.destination-ns.com/common/property.asp?DirectoryID=880<BR><BR>Anyway, just a suggestion in case you can't afford to fly and really want to see a great Tattoo!!!

Ke1th, just another geezer for the corporate dole. Planning voting Tory in the next election, darling?

Thanks for those links, Lesli. I just read the first one and I sure wish that Brancatelli would tell us what he REALLY thinks. :)

Thin.... I know Dorothy about as well as you do and as such lean about as left as you can get. Not so far left however to believe that corporations are in and of themselves evil. As I live in the USA, the only Tori I know is Ms. Spelling.

All airlines should get a bailout at the expense of industries that are trying to stay in business. Tax Payers should be happy and fortunate to give up our money to an industry which can no longer turn a profit. I support all companies which no longer make profits in a free market economy. Rah Rah for the airline execs and the congressmen who love them.