Who will survive this and be here in 6 months ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Returning to the question of the OP.....
Airlines appealing for governments to provide financial support. Should it be given? The following article makes the case why they shouldn't. I am reminded of the early days of the railways in the UK. A major bubble which burst after thousands of miles had been built and on which the investors lost their money - but the lines and trains remained and were snapped up by the next generation of investors without the burden of the debts.
https://capx.co/airlines-are-on-thei...one-direction/
.......Whatever happens in the next few weeks, in the long term we can expect the world to keep getting richer, meaning travel is going to continue to grow. It is, in the jargon of economists, a superior or luxury good. As incomes rise, more of the rising income is spent on the item. Wibbles about the 2% of CO2 emissions that aviation accounts for is pretty unlikely to change that.
Nor will the current providers going bust change things either. These are, at the heart of it, merely organisations. The actual assets aren’t going to be destroyed, and there will still be the same number of pilots to operate the things. Similarly, there will be about the same number of planes – barring Boeing having problems again with a new model. Airports already exist and they’re not going to evaporate as with tinned goods off the shelves. Essentially, all of the kit, equipment and infrastructure will still exist, even if the industry has gone through a period of profound turmoil.
That will certainly be difficult for staff who lose their jobs, and the owners whose companies have gone up in smoke. Still, with spare planes, crews and runways plus that still existing desire to go see the world, new companies are sure to spring up to fill the gaps left by the companies that have gone under. Say’s Law, that supply creates demand, isn’t really wholly true. But the inverse, that demand calls forth supply of something technically possible, is. Especially when the landscape is littered with the supplies necessary to make it possible.
However many airlines go bust in this difficult time it’s simply not going to change, in any medium or long term sense, the general ability to fly off somewhere. Simply because it’s observably true that people like doing it, it’s known how to do it, therefore it will be done by those eager to profit.
The worse it becomes for extant – and soon not to be extant – airlines the easier it will be in the near future for a new one to be set up by any would-be entrepreneur with a bit of get up and go. After all, whatever the fallout of this dreadful period, Covid-19 is surely not going to kill off the greed of capitalists?
Airlines appealing for governments to provide financial support. Should it be given? The following article makes the case why they shouldn't. I am reminded of the early days of the railways in the UK. A major bubble which burst after thousands of miles had been built and on which the investors lost their money - but the lines and trains remained and were snapped up by the next generation of investors without the burden of the debts.
https://capx.co/airlines-are-on-thei...one-direction/
.......Whatever happens in the next few weeks, in the long term we can expect the world to keep getting richer, meaning travel is going to continue to grow. It is, in the jargon of economists, a superior or luxury good. As incomes rise, more of the rising income is spent on the item. Wibbles about the 2% of CO2 emissions that aviation accounts for is pretty unlikely to change that.
Nor will the current providers going bust change things either. These are, at the heart of it, merely organisations. The actual assets aren’t going to be destroyed, and there will still be the same number of pilots to operate the things. Similarly, there will be about the same number of planes – barring Boeing having problems again with a new model. Airports already exist and they’re not going to evaporate as with tinned goods off the shelves. Essentially, all of the kit, equipment and infrastructure will still exist, even if the industry has gone through a period of profound turmoil.
That will certainly be difficult for staff who lose their jobs, and the owners whose companies have gone up in smoke. Still, with spare planes, crews and runways plus that still existing desire to go see the world, new companies are sure to spring up to fill the gaps left by the companies that have gone under. Say’s Law, that supply creates demand, isn’t really wholly true. But the inverse, that demand calls forth supply of something technically possible, is. Especially when the landscape is littered with the supplies necessary to make it possible.
However many airlines go bust in this difficult time it’s simply not going to change, in any medium or long term sense, the general ability to fly off somewhere. Simply because it’s observably true that people like doing it, it’s known how to do it, therefore it will be done by those eager to profit.
The worse it becomes for extant – and soon not to be extant – airlines the easier it will be in the near future for a new one to be set up by any would-be entrepreneur with a bit of get up and go. After all, whatever the fallout of this dreadful period, Covid-19 is surely not going to kill off the greed of capitalists?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out of a bag
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me much more sensible, and certainly much less damaging to the quality of life of the majority of the population, to focus on isolating those susceptible groups to a level where their infection rates are within what the NHS can handle. With the advantage that the younger population will be exposed to the virus, develop resistance, and then be in a better position to assist those who succumb more seriously.
Just for starters:
* we don't know if this pandemic will come in several waves like Spanish flu or if it will go away after one wave like SARS (if we can get R<1)
* we don't know how long resistance lasts following exposure, some say it may be months (based on monkey experiments with SARS I think), some suggest only weeks (reported re-infections)
* we don't know who is vulnerable or why - e.g. currently a lot of scientific argument as to whether hypertension is the risk factor or if the risk is the drugs commonly used to treat it, or if it's a total red herring
* we don't know the long term effects of exposure, many (most?) recovered SARS patients have chronic lung problems and lipid metabolism changes, many years later, for COVID19 we don't know yet, but early survivors are known not to have recovered full lung function, yet, maybe they will in future, or maybe not
* we know that some corona viruses in animals lie dormant after first exposure and recovery and then go on to kill years later, no one knows what this one will do years from now
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
88% of the deaths in Italy have been aged 70+, 96% have been aged 60+. Presumably the vast majority of the 4% younger had chronic conditions.
It seems to me much more sensible, and certainly much less damaging to the quality of life of the majority of the population, to focus on isolating those susceptible groups to a level where their infection rates are within what the NHS can handle. With the advantage that the younger population will be exposed to the virus, develop resistance, and then be in a better position to assist those who succumb more seriously.
It seems to me much more sensible, and certainly much less damaging to the quality of life of the majority of the population, to focus on isolating those susceptible groups to a level where their infection rates are within what the NHS can handle. With the advantage that the younger population will be exposed to the virus, develop resistance, and then be in a better position to assist those who succumb more seriously.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The North of Italy has got one of the best NHS systems in the world (it is the opposite in the South), this is in addition to having one of the highest number of intensive care beds vs 100K of population compared to the rest of the world. This is a serious and very worrying sign of what COVID-19 can do in any other country. The biggest problem now is the impact that COVID-19 will have on any travel related business as global travel will soon be completely banned as we have never seen it before. Airlines, Hotels, Travel Companies, Events Companies, etc will have zero cash flow imminently as transactions have collapsed by a magnitude that has never been seen before. Millions of jobs will be lost as other industries will collapse due to the absence of travel, e.g. airline manufacturers will also temporarily close down, whilst national airlines will have to be nationalized again,all other airlines will disappear. If governments will not step in quickly to support the millions of people losing their jobs then we will also see civil unrest and riots. This prediction seems probably unreal now however it is the first time in my life that I genuinely believe this could be the 3rd WW we have all been waiting for. This time is really scary. Good luck to all of us. The economic collapse is as scary as the massive loss of lives that COVID-19 will cause. Covid-19-->Health emergency/Pandemic-->Banned Global travel-->Travel related businesses collapsing--->Civil unrest. This prediction is not pure pessimism. Governments will have to inject lots of cash to save travel related businesses. Central banks can just produce unlimited e-Money and transfer to Companies, let's hope they will start asap to avoid chaos. So who will survive in 6 months? Only those helped by the Governments, all the others will disappear.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a couple reports of arthritis drugs (Rheumatoid Arthritis?) being tried (with some success?) for treating Covid-19 cases. But drug names or types were not stated. Methotrexate? Leflunomide? The "Biologics?" If these drugs' sort of general immune system suppression function is working against Covid-19, that would suggest the "Cytokine Storm" explanation of this Coronovirus' lethality?
(Apologies for all the ?'s and lack of search on this.)
(Apologies for all the ?'s and lack of search on this.)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/spe....1584180650468
I was working for a freight outfit & we did a lot of work for a large brown outfit. The growth in work with freighters was exponential,lots of cancelled pax flights lots of lost underfloor capacity. The growth in transatlantic freight operations was exponential!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Flight Global, those who will remain are diminishing, at least for now. RE the use of passenger aircraft for cargo, back in the day on the 747, we were told that a half belly load of cargo would more than pay for the operation of the flight, anything over that would return a profit with the revenues from any SLC being gravy.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Luton
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest risk for the airline employees (current and former) is potential loss of pensions that have been accrued over many years. Sure a whole bunch of new airlines, probably with almost the same names, will start up to fill gaps of any that do disappear (all paying less money and with worse t&cs than those which have gone) but that will still leave employees with huge holes in their legacy pension schemes.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Coast to Coast...
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why pick on airlines? This is the reality of unabated capitalism. These very people lobby governments to not bring about any change which might improve the lives of customers or employees so they can line their own pockets. Just look at the American political system, how without big money you cannot even run for leadership.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only speak for my country but I don't see why big business, its directors and shareholders can fatten themselves in the good times and then expect Joe Public to give them money when things turn sour.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not worry. If we, the taxpayers, do save them, this will be in a way which essentially will make the stock worthless (i.e. nationalisation). The shareholders will thus be the first who will be screwed over.
As for the original question, probably not me. I have always been aware that my birthplace makes my position very vulnerable, but I have never envisaged my career collapsing in such a spectacular manner.