Obvious

When in Rome...

jankyboy: When in Rome...

Burn like it did?

where's the "Not this shiat again" guy when you need him?

What the fark is another couple of Trillion dollars?

What an aviation bust might look like

Again? I think the airlines are a perfect example of why bailouts DON'T work.

No, Subby. This is an aviation bailout:

Honest Bender: Again? I think the airlines are a perfect example of why bailouts DON'T work.

Hey, everyone deserves a 5th chance.

BAIL 'EM OUT. SO MANY PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED BY AIRLINE COMPANIES. hahaha. when will we realize this shiat is unstoppable?

Good news America: This is the Airline's 5th bailout under the Bush administration. This one is free!

thesubliminalman: What an aviation bust might look like

Or...

I was on two flights this week where the airline was asking people to give up their seats because they overbooked. If you can't make a profit when you're selling more seats than you can provide, there's a problem with your business model.

John_Rat_Safari: thesubliminalman: What an aviation bust might look like

Or...

Round trip tickets please!

We no longer have any say in our government. We're being ruled.

For what it's worth (probably not much), there were articles last week claiming that Boeing and Airbus were going to bailout the airlines.

IATA: Boeing, Airbus readying airline bailout packages

How about no?

Take whatever money they were going to put into an airline bailout and put it into Amtrak and local light rail. If Boeing is looking for new business tell them to start building rail cars.

paygun: We no longer have any say in our government. We're being ruled.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

Bush's return to piloting fighter jets was not entirely without incident, but he vows to fly again and again, as many times as it takes to finally land one, and insists history will show he made the right decisions.

This is about an aerospace bust more than anything. Most US Airlines are expected to break-even or make a small profit in 2009 since they've already started cutting capacity and fuel costs will be much lower.

TeddyRooseveltsMustache: jankyboy: When in Rome...

Burn like it it like I did?

Is anyone farking surprised?
Farms next?
Trains next?

Anyone want to place an over-under for amount of time until the next bailout?

Well, you know what they say.

A trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon your flat ass broke.

Airlines forced to find new ways to earn money:

How long will this increase the time until market reaches equilibrium?

Oh, goodie!
I can't wait until Boeing begins to ask for a bailout cuz the airlines are canceling orders.
Then we can start blaming the Machinist union!

Farkers, Note:
GIS for "Bust", with safe search off = "Lord, I love your gifts to humanity."

michaeld5: Oh, goodie!
I can't wait until Boeing begins to ask for a bailout cuz the airlines are canceling orders.
Then we can start blaming the Machinist union!

Why stop there. We can blame the TSA as well.

Mistah Scrotie: paygun: We no longer have any say in our government. We're being ruled.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

It means that a majority of taxpayers were against bailouts for the banks, yet they happened anyway. It means that the majority of taxpayers were against the bailout for the Big 3, yet they happened anyway. It means that once the airlines start rattling their tin cups and crying poor, we the taxpayers probably don't stand a chance. The track record of past results isn't looking good.

Even though the Congressional scumbags got an avalanche of letters and emails against both of the previous bailouts, they postured tough about "financial management" before giving in because the taxpayers were "too stupid to know what was good for them." The federal government is too stupid and greedy to spend OUR MONEY wisely, but we have no option to not give it to them.

It means that even more money is going to disappear with no accountability whatsoever, no one will know where it went, and will do nothing to halt the decline of the industry it is "intended" to save because the industries will do nothing to save themselves or change their business practices.

I'm sure the lobbyists for the airlines are already cozying up to the usual Congressional suspects, sweet-talking them over steak dinners about the problems of "honest hard-working VOTERS in their states."

Is that clear enough for you?

I blame wide-body jets for the decline in the quality of air travel. Why? Because I can't get a damned window seat anymore. And if I can't look out the window, then I don't want to fly on your damned airplane.

The 727 was 4 seats wide, so half of the seat were window seats. The 737 was 6 seats wide, so a third of the seats were window seats. The 747 was 10 seats wide, so a fifth of the seats were window seats. Nice trendline, eh?

But I won't blame Boeing; they're just reducing the aggregate cost per passenger. I blame the airlines, since they actually have control of how individual passengers are seated. For decades, these idiots have been charging the same for a window seat as for a center seat, when I (and everyone else like me) would have been glad to pay a premium to get a window. You all deserve to go bankrupt for that.

Bohemian: Take whatever money they were going to put into an airline bailout and put it into Amtrak and local light rail. If Boeing is looking for new business tell them to start building rail cars.

Without airlines, a trip from New York to Los Angeles would take 3 1/2 days. Something tells me that'd be bad for the economy.

It means that a majority of taxpayers were against bailouts for the banks, yet they happened anyway. It means that the majority of taxpayers were against the bailout for the Big 3, yet they happened anyway. It means that once the airlines start rattling their tin cups and crying poor, we the taxpayers probably don't stand a chance. The track record of past results isn't looking good.

Even though the Congressional scumbags got an avalanche of letters and emails against both of the previous bailouts, they postured tough about "financial management" before giving in because the taxpayers were "too stupid to know what was good for them." The federal government is too stupid and greedy to spend OUR MONEY wisely, but we have no option to not give it to them.

It means that even more money is going to disappear with no accountability whatsoever, no one will know where it went, and will do nothing to halt the decline of the industry it is "intended" to save because the industries will do nothing to save themselves or change their business practices.

I'm sure the lobbyists for the airlines are already cozying up to the usual Congressional suspects, sweet-talking them over steak dinners about the problems of "honest hard-working VOTERS in their states."

Is that clear enough for you?

You still have say in government. People keep voting these guys back in.

Wrong_Intentions: No, Subby. This is an aviation bailout:

BUUUUUUZZZZ! BUZ! GET BACK HERE!

thenateman:
Without airlines, a trip from New York to Los Angeles would take 3 1/2 days. Something tells me that'd be bad for the economy.

I'm genuinely curious about this... in what ways would it hurt the economy, excluding tourism?

/Keeping in mind that if major airlines go under, its not like planes will simply cease to exist. It will just cost more to fly.

paygun: We no longer have any say in our government. We're being ruled.

This.

thenateman: Bohemian: Take whatever money they were going to put into an airline bailout and put it into Amtrak and local light rail. If Boeing is looking for new business tell them to start building rail cars.

Without airlines, a trip from New York to Los Angeles would take 3 1/2 days. Something tells me that'd be bad for the economy.

Yeah, because no other global airline on the planet would want to enter the market and take over the routes. No, the only airlines on the planet are American ones, and if they don't fly the route, no one else will.

Alonjar: I'm genuinely curious about this... in what ways would it hurt the economy, excluding tourism?

/Keeping in mind that if major airlines go under, its not like planes will simply cease to exist. It will just cost more to fly.

If your company has offices in L.A. and New York, you couldn't afford to charter a plane every time you have a face-to-face meeting.

thenateman: Alonjar: I'm genuinely curious about this... in what ways would it hurt the economy, excluding tourism?

/Keeping in mind that if major airlines go under, its not like planes will simply cease to exist. It will just cost more to fly.

If your company has offices in L.A. and New York, you couldn't afford to charter a plane every time you have a face-to-face meeting.

If only there was some better way to communicate over long distances, say telegraph or something.

My finances aren't doing too well right now. Can my student debt be the next bailout?

Here's how to solve this without a bailout:

Turn the entire TSA into Soylent Green, and people will want to fly again.

mecaenas: Yeah, because no other global airline on the planet would want to enter the market and take over the routes. No, the only airlines on the planet are American ones, and if they don't fly the route, no one else will.

I'm only making the point that trains aren't a substitute for airplanes.

Bohemian: How about no?

Take whatever money they were going to put into an airline bailout and put it into Amtrak and local light rail. If Boeing is looking for new business tell them to start building rail cars.

Yeah, because the last time we did that, it worked so well...

Boeing built trolleys in the 70's, all but 2 cities dropped their orders as the test bunny, the MBTA, found the things didn't work at all. After the lawsuits were all settled, Muni and the MBTA ended up with a bunch of not always functional, maintenance intensive, and failure prone cars.

Rohr was contracted to build a variant of the French RTG for Amtrak. The end result was a 1/2 dozen or so units, that by the late 80's was down to one unit running on one line in NY state, and was ultimately scrapped after the 4th or 5th rebuild. Rohr's other stunning success of the 70's was the DC Metro cars, which were flexible enough that the doors wouldn't close with a full load of passenger in the car. They did do the BART cars though, and those were decent...

Grumman built buses in the 70's and 80's, virtually all of them were scrapped or retired early because of frame issues.

Bombardier's been trying to build functional rail cars for the last 30 years, and the best they've come up with is those coffin cars that Metrolink, etc use. The Acelas were grossly overweight nd unreliable, the LIRR's new stuff is grossly overweight, rides like crap, and derails easily. They were passed over by the NYCTA for the last subway order or two, instead that contract went to Kawasaki and Alstom.

Besides, putting money into Amtrak's a lost cause - the GAO's got plenty of reports of how Amtrak basically can't manage a project of any size. Not to mention, they have no coherent plan for passenger rail in the US, they've not made any attempt to move away from the slow-once-a-day-train-at-2am-that's-6-hours-late model of 'service'. Despite their bumbling the NEC for 25 years now, it's been rather sucessful, but Amtrak won't try to duplicate the success of faster-than-driving trains anywhere else...

Congress is the new subject of the Milgram-Bush Experiment.

Bush: "Please push the 700B lever..."
Nation: "OWWWWWWW!!! Oh please god no!!"
Congress: "Are you sure we should be doing this?"
Bush: "Please continue. Push the $14B lever..."
Congress: "I don't know, I'm getting these angry letters..."
Bush: "Just continue. Your country needs you."
Nation: "AARRRGGGH fark you and the horse you rode in on!!"
Bush: "Now onto the airlines..."

again?

dustmite: Honest Bender: Again? I think the airlines are a perfect example of why bailouts DON'T work.

Hey, everyone deserves a 5th chance.

i don't want to lose my frequent flyer miles!

If there's another airline bailout how many will that make? 20? 30? It seems the airlines need to be bailed out about every 5 years. Losers.

Was it only last summer that the airlines were blaming their woes on the high cost of oil?

Airlines are stupid...just stupid.... I live in Lexington, KY had to drive an hour west to Louisville so that they could fly me north east 29mins to Cincinnati before flying me 2 hours southwest to Arkansas. Flying out of Lex was uber expensive and driving the hour to Cincy would have been even more....why? Who the hell knows...