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?

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")

Staggered.
Hopefully no deeper

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

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

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??)

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.

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.

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.)

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

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!

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.

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.

Re: Bailouts
 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

​​​​​​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.

Rumour has it that TFL is headed down the tubes.