We shouldn't bail out airline companies

Watch
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Yes, it is terrible that many people are losing their jobs. But we need an honest conversation about this. Many airline companies were doomed to fail long before this crisis. It is simply unsustainable to keep bailing out airline after airline, bail out after bail out. People are flying less due to the negative effects, we know flying is terrible for the environment. If anything good comes out of this crisis, it will be a welcome reduction in CO2 emissions and NO2. Instead, we should use the money as relief for the poorest and most vulnerable, whilst also using it to try and find some kind of sustainable, more secure employment for former airline employees. It's harsh, but the airline industry has had more than enough bailouts, it is incredulous to see Branson asking for £7.5bn for his stupid company when our NHS and nation is in crisis. People and planet before profit.
1
reply
izziwills2002
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
i agree in an idealistic sense, but because of the state of the trains especially in the North, most people have no choice but to use planes.
until trains are sorted out planes will continue to be reimbursed
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by izziwills2002)
i agree in an idealistic sense, but because of the state of the trains especially in the North, most people have no choice but to use planes.
until trains are sorted out planes will continue to be reimbursed
Who really uses planes to travel from a northern city to a southern one though? Cars are good enough. Trains in the north do need to be sorted out (everywhere, people in the north make out like trains in the south are amazing but they're not a whole lot better)
0
reply
MidgetFever
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Sometimes private airline companies are contracted to fly out resources to the poorest and most vulnerable people, how would they do such a thing without the funding?

Not to mention during this 'crisis' a lot of people needed the transport to get home to their families.
Last edited by MidgetFever; 1 year ago
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by MidgetFever)
Sometimes private airline companies are contracted to fly out resources to the poorest and most vulnerable people, how would they do such a thing without the funding?
Just have one nationalised airline. The government already have the means to do this with their own fleets of planes.

If these airlines are destined to fail, let them. This may seem very laissez faire for me, a socialist, but I honestly believe its just a waste of money at this point which could be spent elsewhere. They are not nationalised industries, they are private companies, and therefore they should raise money for themselves. If they cannot do this, they will fail. They know full well the aviation industry is a very risky industry with most airlines eventually failing.
0
reply
Shimo
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
If the gov't bail out airlines then the they should bail out small businesses too (I do believe they're giving lots of money to them though)
0
reply
username402722
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
There are some air routes that should be protected to some degree, such as the remoter parts of northern Scotland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Protecting these routes does not mean necessarily bailing out a specific airline.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by MidgetFever)
Sometimes private airline companies are contracted to fly out resources to the poorest and most vulnerable people, how would they do such a thing without the funding?

Not to mention during this 'crisis' a lot of people needed the transport to get home to their families.
Why are you putting crisis like that, as if I am over-exaggerating? This is very much a crisis. Political, economic, health and social.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by barnetlad)
There are some air routes that should be protected to some degree, such as the remoter parts of northern Scotland, Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Protecting these routes does not mean necessarily bailing out a specific airline.
Agreed.
0
reply
izziwills2002
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Who really uses planes to travel from a northern city to a southern one though? Cars are good enough. Trains in the north do need to be sorted out (everywhere, people in the north make out like trains in the south are amazing but they're not a whole lot better)
lol they don’t use them just for southern cities, and when I say North I could be meaning as far up as Newcastle going down to Southampton. Like someone above said, even going to areas of Scotland is only really traversable by plane
Cars often end up being inconvenient for a lot of workers, hence why they’re not driving one - if it was cheaper, of course they would drive!
honestly although I agree with you, under a Conservative government especially in which they prioritise this sort of stuff, nothings going to happen soon.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
Imagine our government running an airline
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by StriderHort)
Imagine our government running an airline
You mean like it did with BEA, BOAC and British Airways between 1939 and 1987?
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Yes, it is terrible that many people are losing their jobs. But we need an honest conversation about this. Many airline companies were doomed to fail long before this crisis.
Says who?
It is simply unsustainable to keep bailing out airline after airline, bail out after bail out.
Who are these countless airlines you mention?
People are flying less due to the negative effects, we know flying is terrible for the environment.
Not really, some of the 'woke' loons might be but average bob is going to continue flying because there is no other way to travel.
If anything good comes out of this crisis, it will be a welcome reduction in CO2 emissions and NO2.
Yeah because airplanes are like totally the main contributor :rolleyes:
[/quote]
1
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by nulli tertius)
You mean like it did with BEA, BOAC and British Airways between 1939 and 1987?
Sorry I mean OUR Government, The one now, not the concept of a national carrier.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#15
[/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE]

(Original post by Napp)
Says who?

Who are these countless airlines you mention?

Not really, some of the 'woke' loons might be but average bob is going to continue flying because there is no other way to travel.

Yeah because airplanes are like totally the main contributor :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Monarch was bailed out, then failed.
Flybe was bailed out, will now certainly fail.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by StriderHort)
Sorry I mean OUR Government, The one now, not the concept of a national carrier.
I think you have overlooked the little known British South American Airways a nationalised airline that the present Government could certainly have run.

British South American Airways lasted for only three and a half years, from January, 1946, to July, 1949. But during that brief period, 74 passengers and 22 employees died, a death rate of one fatality for every 385 passengers flown. Ten of the 36 aircraft were destroyed in crashes, and many more were damaged, repaired and put back into service. "I've got a better safety record than Bomber Command," claimed [the managing director].
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
[/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE]
Monarch was bailed out, then failed.
Flybe was bailed out, will now certainly fail.[/QUOTE]
2 airlines is hardly a lot, and since when was Flybe bailed out by the government?
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#18
[/QUOTE]
Monarch was bailed out, then failed.
Flybe was bailed out, will now certainly fail.[/QUOTE]
2 airlines is hardly a lot, and since when was Flybe bailed out by the government?[/QUOTE]

Given government loan, basically a bailout
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Yes, it is terrible that many people are losing their jobs. But we need an honest conversation about this. Many airline companies were doomed to fail long before this crisis. It is simply unsustainable to keep bailing out airline after airline, bail out after bail out. People are flying less due to the negative effects, we know flying is terrible for the environment. If anything good comes out of this crisis, it will be a welcome reduction in CO2 emissions and NO2. Instead, we should use the money as relief for the poorest and most vulnerable, whilst also using it to try and find some kind of sustainable, more secure employment for former airline employees. It's harsh, but the airline industry has had more than enough bailouts, it is incredulous to see Branson asking for £7.5bn for his stupid company when our NHS and nation is in crisis. People and planet before profit.
Which current UK based airlines were doomed at the start of the year?
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
Given government loan, basically a bailout[/QUOTE]

Flybe wasnt given a Government loan.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (104)
27.51%
England (127)
33.6%
Belgium (30)
7.94%
Germany (40)
10.58%
Spain (8)
2.12%
Italy (33)
8.73%
Netherlands (13)
3.44%
Other (Tell us who) (23)
6.08%

Watched Threads

View All