PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Terms and Endearment (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment-38/)
-   -   Who will survive this and be here in 6 months ? (https://www.pprune.org/terms-endearment/630488-who-will-survive-here-6-months.html)

Mascot PPL 15th Mar 2020 19:36

etudiant

good point....

covec 15th Mar 2020 20:03

Bit rich of Virgin & BA running to HMG for cash when the same screamed so loudly re Flybe getting cash.

b1lanc 15th Mar 2020 20:04


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10715127)
to get back to the topic :

That is about what I was afraid of , never expected it would be so fast though ..:(. it says lay off s will last " until conditions for commercial aviation improved." but reading this thread so far , if may take months .

Governor of my state was just on and said the last 6 confirmed cases were a combination of domestic travel and close personal contact. Have to believe domestic travel is going to be on the table at some point.

Busbert 15th Mar 2020 20:26


Originally Posted by covec (Post 10715223)
Bit rich of Virgin & BA running to HMG for cash when the same screamed so loudly re Flybe getting cash.

I don’t thing Virgin Atlantic had any issue with Flybe getting cash.
The airlines are looking for a line of credit, not free money. The cash flow crunch isn’t being helped by credit card companies playing silly buggers.

covec 15th Mar 2020 21:16


Originally Posted by Busbert (Post 10715240)
I don’t thing Virgin Atlantic had any issue with Flybe getting cash.
The airlines are looking for a line of credit, not free money. The cash flow crunch isn’t being helped by credit card companies playing silly buggers.

Sorry: meant Branson's lack of doing anything re Flybe - I believe that he & Delta had a stake there.

Was Flybe looking for a line of credit too though I wonder?

The credit card companies will certainly be getting pestered by customers with cx flights though.

Andy D 15th Mar 2020 21:41


Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116 (Post 10713900)
Great article !!

medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

But the article's author is a 'growth hacker' who has no relevant knowledge when it comes to disease and health so I'd be careful what you read into that

His bio "2 MSc in Engineering. Stanford MBA. Ex-Consultant. Creator of viral applications with >20M users. Currently leading a billion-dollar business @ Course Hero"

mickjoebill 15th Mar 2020 22:00


Originally Posted by ATC Watcher (Post 10712220)
As bad news arrive everyday , almost every hour now and the endemic peak still weeks or months away , who is strong enough to overcome the storm and how our industry will look like 6 moths from now?
Not only crews and airlines but our whole industry .
For instance with Boeing share price around 150 USD ,today a drop of 70% in a few months, can the commercial division survive ?

A representative of an Australian airlines body just stated that they expect the Corona effect will be 40% worse than GFC.

mjb



qwertyuiop 15th Mar 2020 23:41

Which airline will still be here in 6 months? Simple answer, non of them. At least not in any recognisable form. How can BA/Virgin/Easy etc survive when the cash flow dries up. There has to be mass redundancies. It will be a blood bath by the end of the month. As somebody who has spent his life enjoying a career in aviation it is most distressing.

HeathrowAirport 15th Mar 2020 23:55

I guess I wouldn't be far wrong to say that the only BA flight to exist will be SIN-SYD come end of March.

Zeffy 16th Mar 2020 01:34

Seattle Times
 
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...sh-production/


As coronavirus causes 9/11-type collapse in demand for jets, Boeing may slash production
March 15, 2020 at 4:52 pm Updated March 15, 2020 at 5:08 pm

By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter

The dramatic worldwide collapse in air travel accelerated this weekend as the U.S. expanded its ban on passengers from Europe and other governments enacted their own barriers to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Airline CEOs are comparing the drop in traffic to the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001 — when Boeing reduced production from 527 jets in 2001 to just 281 jets two years later. In less than three years following the attacks, Boeing cut 27,000 jobs in Washington state.

Like then, Boeing now faces a stark near-term decision on whether it must slash jet production. That could again spell substantial local layoffs, which until now — even with its 737 MAX production already halted — Boeing has avoided.

Boeing is the largest private employer in Washington state, with about 72,000 employees here. Most of those work on Commercial Airplanes and all those jobs are at risk of at least temporary suspension. Any cuts to that workforce would reverberate sharply throughout the local economy, and its impacts likewise would be felt on Boeing’s global supply chain.

With the Renton narrowbody jet plant already shut down since January because of the extended grounding of the 737 MAX, any cut to or suspension of production in Everett too would mean Boeing’s parts plants in Auburn and Frederickson have virtually no assembly lines to feed, and so they would also likely have to cut or stop work.

The outbreak of coronavirus within Boeing employee ranks — six confirmed cases at the Everett plant and one at the local headquarters in Longacres, with two possible cases from Auburn — may supply another reason for a full-scale temporary halt to production.

A top Boeing executive — speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation — said Sunday that contingency planning at the highest levels of the company is still focused on avoiding layoffs so as to enable the business to recover quickly once the virus emergency passes.

He said Boeing’s leadership is unlikely to announce a firm plan until later in the week, but that for now “the conversation here is leaning even more toward doing everything we can to protect employees.”

“We’ll need them to be back in the saddle quickly when this thing passes over,” he said, adding that “nothing is firm at this time.”


Airline meltdown

Underlying Boeing’s dilemma is the wrenching drama playing out among U.S. and global airlines.

On Friday, Delta Air Lines said it would cut capacity by 40 percent in the next few months, park up to 300 aircraft and defer new jet deliveries. Delta’s CEO Ed Bastian said it was the largest capacity reduction in Delta’s history, including after the 9/11 attacks.

On Saturday, American Airlines announced it will cut 75% of its international flights through May 6 and cut domestic flights by 30% by May. American will ground 135 out of its fleet of 149 widebody jets.

The impact from coronavirus abroad is even worse: To ensure “the survival of British Airways,” that airline’s CEO Alex Cruz told employees Friday that jobs will be cut “perhaps for a short period, perhaps longer-term.”

Low-cost carrier Norwegian, a big 737 MAX and 787 customer, has laid off half its 11,000 employees, and the CEO told the Norwegian government it has “weeks not months” to avert bankruptcy.

According to Swiss airline intelligence provider ch-aviation, Korean Air has grounded about 100 of its 145 passenger jets and airline President Woo Kee-hong told employees in an internal memo that “If the situation continues for a longer period, we may reach the threshold where we cannot guarantee the company’s survival.”

On Sunday, SAS of Scandinavia temporarily laid off 90% of all employees and suspended almost all flights.

And only passengers willing to be quarantined for two weeks upon arrival can fly Air New Zealand or Qantas of Australia into those two countries.

U.S. airlines and the broader aerospace players including Boeing and its suppliers are in urgent talks with the Trump administration, asking for public financial support to keep the industry alive and protect an estimated total of about 2 million direct and indirect aviation-related jobs in the U.S.

Not only are the airlines facing a sharp, immediate plummet in demand, their finances will be wrecked for the near future.

“Airlines will be focused on survival, not taking new jets,” said Teal Group aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia in an interview Sunday.

For Boeing, the urgent question is whether any airlines want or need the big jets it’s building right now.

Because of the MAX crisis, the assembly lines for that narrowbody jet in Renton are silent. Now production of the larger widebody jets in Everett and in North Charleston, South Carolina, may have to follow.

In the first two months of the year, the impact of coronavirus already began to appear as Boeing delivered only 30 airplanes total from those two final assembly sites, 25% below the nominal widebody jet production rates.

In Everett, a new 787 Dreamliner has taken its first flights and is ready to be delivered to American. Another 787 is ready for delivery to the flag carrier of Israel, El Al, which as of Sunday has suspended almost all its flights.

While it may be too late to defer those two planes, the airlines have nowhere they can fly them. For many of the planes coming behind them and now under assembly, deferred delivery seems certain.

Among the aircraft under assembly in the Everett factory and almost ready to roll out are another 787 for American and a 777 passenger jet for United. In North Charleston, there are two more 787-10s under assembly for United.


Economic impact worse than 9/11?

When novel coronavirus first appeared, the aviation world compared it to the SARS outbreak in 2003 and hoped for a similar outcome: a three-month slump in demand and a rapid recovery afterward. But as Bastian noted, this is a reckoning more comparable to the hit from 9/11.

And since no one knows if this slump will last three months, six months or a year, when Southwest CEO Gary Kelly last week made the comparison to 9/11, he told employees that the economic slump this time “may be worse.”

Adam Pilarski, veteran analyst with consulting firm Avitas, said Boeing’s position today may indeed be tougher because in the past year the MAX crisis has been straining its financial resources.

Like the airlines, Pilarksi said Boeing “will have to think survival.”

After 9/11, with that mindset, Boeing reacted immediately to a similarly rapid fall-off in demand.

Exactly one week after the terrorist attacks that used Boeing jets to kill almost 3,000 Americans, the Boeing Commercial Airplanes division announced drastic production cuts and plans to lay off between 20,000 and 30,000 workers by the end of 2002.

Then-CEO Phil Condit explained these “tough business decisions” as necessary to “enhance the company’s ability to maintain its solid financial position, strong liquidity and premier debt ratings.”

“These are critical factors in times of business uncertainty and financial stress,” Condit said.

In an interview in 2016, the CEO of Commercial Airplanes at the time of the attacks, Alan Mulally, recalled the decision he had to make as “devastating.”

“The effect on our business was dramatic,” Mulally recalled. “You have to move decisively to match your production resources with the demand. If not, you start burning through so much cash you put the company at risk.”

That’s the threat Boeing again faces now, compounded by the lack of revenue from the 737 MAX and the money it must spend to return that jet to service.

Boeing has the experience of 9/11 and of SARS and other lesser external shocks behind it. So its leadership can be reasonably confident that the long-term trend of growing global air travel will inevitably resume eventually. The problem is how to survive the short-term impact, without knowing exactly how short-term it may be.

When Boeing halted production of the MAX in January, it made the decision not to lay workers off because it anticipated restarting the assembly line around April and getting clearance to fly the MAX by the summer. Management said it wants to retain the skilled workforce during the intervening months to be able to resume production as planned.

As the coronavirus’ economic threat escalates daily around the world, company leaders have to act soon to either slow or stop production. Their decision will likely depend on the response from the government to industry’s appeals.

The question is: Will Boeing be able to maintain jobs to preserve talent for the future recovery? Or will management revert to the thinking of Condit and Mulally in 2001?

Aboulafia said that while slowing or suspending production seems inevitable, “laying off people is probably the wrong call.”

Still, he’s worried that Boeing’s “crack cocaine addiction to shareholder returns” going back almost two decades will produce a different answer that puts protecting the stock price and the current cash position ahead of the workforce and the future.

Pilarski of Avitas suggested Boeing could negotiate a temporary suspension that at least lets employees retain their medical and pension benefits.

The top Boeing executive said that “as I stand here today, mass layoffs is an unlikely outcome.”

“The situation is incredibly fluid,” he then cautioned. “There are too many unknowns and no guaranteed outcome.”

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or [email protected]; on Twitter: @dominicgates.
​​​​​​​

mickjoebill 16th Mar 2020 01:46


Originally Posted by flyingkicks (Post 10712397)
As long as your taking vitamins and you got a good immune system, you are fine. All I pray for is the elder and people with immuno-deficiency illnesses. Covid-19 will sure be lethal to them.

Australian Dr Swan said this morning the situation is PROFOUND and that healthy 40 year olds, without any other condition, died.

Those that didn’t die can have scarred lungs for life.




givemewings 16th Mar 2020 03:58


Originally Posted by mickjoebill (Post 10715500)
Australian Dr Swan said this morning the situation is PROFOUND and that healthy 40 year olds, without any other condition, died.

Those that didn’t die can have scarred lungs for life.

That tallies with what Ive elsewhere from healthcare professionals, nurses etc... they are saying that the type of pneumonia caused by this (was it interstitial?) can be life altering and leave debilitating damage.

Now remember that healthy lung function is essential to pass a medical for all aircrew.

ATC Watcher 16th Mar 2020 06:53


Now remember that healthy lung function is essential to pass a medical for all aircrew.
Not only aircrews, ATC has class 3 medicals that include this as well, if this permanent damage is verified we risk of losing lots of professionals when this over ..
I am however wary of that statement as the number of recovered cases is quite high by now and surely a post case study of those cases is being made and a result such as this one would be more mediatized ..

Mascot PPL 16th Mar 2020 08:27

UAE visas suspended with Emirates continuing to use Dubai for connecting PAX
 
https://simpleflying.com/emirates-wont-suspend-flights/

Seems a sensible approach? Staged through dubai last weds PER DXB DXB GLA. Both flights about 80% full but terminals very quiet as you'd expect most Pax going straight to next gate.


SpannerInTheWerks 16th Mar 2020 09:23

66.44 milllion in the UK

1:25 = 2.65 million

Death rate 3.4% (apparently), so 90,000 dead

No need to panic as you say



Hangar_9 16th Mar 2020 09:33


Originally Posted by SpannerInTheWerks (Post 10715747)
66.44 milllion in the UK

1:25 = 2.65 million

Death rate 3.4% (apparently), so 90,000 dead

No need to panic as you say

Ahhhh yes...... EVERY person in the UK will catch Coronavirus. To quantify your panic can you quote the source for 3.4% and incidence rate?

cats_five 16th Mar 2020 09:58


Originally Posted by Hangar_9 (Post 10715757)
Ahhhh yes...... EVERY person in the UK will catch Coronavirus. To quantify your panic can you quote the source for 3.4% and incidence rate?

That's not his assumption. It's that one in 25 will get it, and as he has stated the population is 66.25‬ million.

Both the incidence rate & death rate are hard to be sure of, it would be useful if the source for the one in 25, and 3.4% figures.

Paul852 16th Mar 2020 10:10

The key thing to remember is that in the next 90 days approximately 200,000 people would die in the UK regardless of Covid-19, and there will be a pretty good correlation between those 200,000 and those who will die of/with Covid-19. It's not at all clear to me that the net growth in deaths will be particularly dramatic.

Fortissimo 16th Mar 2020 10:40


Originally Posted by Paul852 (Post 10715802)
The key thing to remember is that in the next 90 days approximately 200,000 people would die in the UK regardless of Covid-19, and there will be a pretty good correlation between those 200,000 and those who will die of/with Covid-19. It's not at all clear to me that the net growth in deaths will be particularly dramatic.

You are making the assumption that the people who would have died anyway (normal death rate) will dilute the numbers of deaths purely attributable to Covid-19. Some, perhaps. Many of those already deceased had underlying health conditions but that increased their susceptibility to Covid-19 effects being terminal - you can't assume they would have died anyway. What is very clear is that there is a pandemic infection doing the rounds that kills up to 3% of those infected, and we still do not know exactly what proportion of the population is likely to become infected. As for dramatic net growth or otherwise in deaths, there is pretty good evidence from the Bergamo (Italy) local newspaper, where the obituary notices have gone from the normal 1.5 pages to 10 per day. I call that dramatic.

For all of us, it is worth re-reading Dr tbd's excellent post #109 - he is only a consultant anaesthetist so might know what he is talking about? Time to start taking this seriously.

Paul852 16th Mar 2020 11:05

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.

ORAC 16th Mar 2020 11:58

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?

there she blows 16th Mar 2020 12:31

Virgin.
8 weeks unpaid leave for all.
parking all but 7 aircraft.
keep strong all

Barcli 16th Mar 2020 12:42


Originally Posted by there she blows (Post 10715978)
Virgin.
8 weeks unpaid leave for all.
parking all but 7 aircraft.
keep strong all

Just heard the same - not sure if its staggered 8 weeks or 8 weeks starting from now ( for those " selected")

there she blows 16th Mar 2020 12:46

Staggered.
Hopefully no deeper

Flying Wild 16th Mar 2020 12:59


Originally Posted by Barcli (Post 10715987)
Just heard the same - not sure if its staggered 8 weeks or 8 weeks starting from now ( for those " selected")

8 weeks over 6 months. Better than having to visit the job centre.

infrequentflyer789 16th Mar 2020 13:09


Originally Posted by Paul852 (Post 10715868)
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 might be, but in fact there are way too many unknowns to be sure which approach is best. This is the why when the government says its approach is guided by science opponents pop up and say "can't be - this scientist over here says they're doing it wrong". Reality is there is nowhere near a scientific consensus on anything other than "we don't know" (if they're being honest).

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

glofish 16th Mar 2020 13:19


Originally Posted by Paul852 (Post 10715868)
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.

That is my point as well, although you'll get a ****storm the moment you propagate that in public. I remember in my youth, in a very civilised European country, when some other kid contracted the measles, chicken pox or even mumps, our parents with the schools consent organised parties. Most kids contracted and surmounted the disease, developed immunity and their immune system grew a little stronger. There were the odd victims, certainly, and when it concerned your family you would most probably criticise this procedure. But for the overall society and the economy it was the sensible thing to do. Today we do not accept even one random victim, as old or frail it might be, as we call ourselves civilised, but we accept the collateral damage of huge lockdowns. Whatever victims of these lockdown measures could appear, other than the COV-19, we will probably not put them in context, we accept those however for the assumed "good of the society". (Or was it for the reelection??)

ILS27LEFT 16th Mar 2020 13:31


Originally Posted by ILS27LEFT (Post 10713165)
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.

I was genuinely hoping to be over-pessimistic on 13 Mar night...Governments will have to move quickly to avoid chaos. It is getting clearer by the day. We cannot have too many people without an income in such a short period of time. Travel Companies will run out of cash, but also many other businesses will seriously struggle (TFL, restaurants, hotels, cinemas, gyms and many more). It is going to be a mess unfortunately.

qwertyuiop 16th Mar 2020 13:42

TFL are a company that needs to go bust then reform without any of the ridiculous union rules. Hopefully it will drag the mayor down with it.

dogsridewith 16th Mar 2020 13:45

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.)


Airbubba 16th Mar 2020 13:58


Originally Posted by dogsridewith (Post 10716078)
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.

Here's an alleged cure in a Reuters report from South Asia. I haven't tried it myself.

https://gulfnews.com/photos/news/spe....1584180650468

woptb 16th Mar 2020 13:59

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!

Longtimer 16th Mar 2020 14:32

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c1a5076d3e.jpg
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.

clipstone1 16th Mar 2020 15:10

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.

BlankBox 16th Mar 2020 15:38

Re: Bailouts
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/o...&region=Footer

...interesting viewpoint...BUT...will anybody listen?

Smooth Airperator 16th Mar 2020 16:06

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.

Vendee 16th Mar 2020 16:06

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.

procede 16th Mar 2020 16:40

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.

Clandestino 16th Mar 2020 16:41


Originally Posted by Loose rivets (Post 10714289)
It's perhaps comforting we're seeing a united, international, fight against this adversity. In itself, an oddly science fiction scenario.

​​​​​​Seemingly written by the likes of Douglas Adams, Tery Pratchett and Robert Sheckley.

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.

DaveReidUK 16th Mar 2020 16:52


Originally Posted by qwertyuiop (Post 10716070)
TFL are a company that needs to go bust then reform without any of the ridiculous union rules. Hopefully it will drag the mayor down with it.

Rumour has it that TFL is headed down the tubes.


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.