Why are we wasting millions of dollars of tax payer money trying to save a business that even after this is all over will be changed forever.
thehill.com
By even the most optimistic calculation, demand for air travel could take as much as two or three years to rebound, so what would a payroll extension package of a few months really accomplish? Upon close examination, nothing more than keeping airlines overstaffed for another few months. It is for this reason that a second round of payroll money to airlines should not be granted.
There are compelling arguments for why we need to protect airlines, such as the previously mentioned economic impact figures. I agree that U.S. airlines must be assisted. But paying for airlines to maintain an overstaffed workforce makes no sense.
In the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, airlines could see a drop in demand for travel coming. First it appeared that the affected areas would be isolated to Asia. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci stated in mid-February that the risk of the virus coming to America was “minuscule.”
No one saw the storm coming until it was too late, and the industry that was hammered the most was the global travel industry, which includes the world’s more than 800 commercial airlines. As of 2018, the travel industry accounted for $8.3 trillion of the world’s GDP and a staggering 313 million jobs — representing one in ten workers on the planet at the time.
The travel industry is an important component of the domestic and global economy. When the industry saw an unprecedented drop of more than 90 percent, the adverse economic impact was the driving force for preparing a stimulus package to assist U.S. airlines as never before.
Now they want more.
As we approach the October 1 deadline, airline executives are predicting an unprecedented wave of employee furloughs, and the collective number of airline employees affected could exceed 100,000. Unions representing airline employees are calling for a second round of aid to help delay these layoffs for another three to six months. But doing so would be a waste of taxpayer money.
By even the most optimistic calculation, demand for air travel could take as much as two or three years to rebound, so what would a payroll extension package of a few months really accomplish? Upon close examination, nothing more than keeping airlines overstaffed for another few months. It is for this reason that a second round of payroll money to airlines should not be granted.
There are compelling arguments for why we need to protect airlines, such as the previously mentioned economic impact figures. I agree that U.S. airlines must be assisted. But paying for airlines to maintain an overstaffed workforce makes no sense.
I understand the training needs for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and others who cannot simply take an extended leave of absence and then immediately return to the flight line. There is (thankfully) a set of specific steps that must first be taken before these highly trained professionals can return to work. But to use this as justification for billions of dollars in payroll support begins to sound more like it’s being done in the interests of unions trying to protect their workers than out of concern for airlines during this operational challenge.
Sadly, the idea of a second round of federal aid to the airlines would necessitate further rounds of aid. There are better ways we can spend taxpayer money during these challenging times. Here’s hoping common sense will prevail by telling the airlines “no” to a second round of stimulus cash.
Why a second airline bailout would be a mistake
I agree that U.S. airlines must be assisted. But paying for airlines to maintain an overstaffed workforce makes no sense.
thehill.com
By even the most optimistic calculation, demand for air travel could take as much as two or three years to rebound, so what would a payroll extension package of a few months really accomplish? Upon close examination, nothing more than keeping airlines overstaffed for another few months. It is for this reason that a second round of payroll money to airlines should not be granted.
There are compelling arguments for why we need to protect airlines, such as the previously mentioned economic impact figures. I agree that U.S. airlines must be assisted. But paying for airlines to maintain an overstaffed workforce makes no sense.
In the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, airlines could see a drop in demand for travel coming. First it appeared that the affected areas would be isolated to Asia. Even Dr. Anthony Fauci stated in mid-February that the risk of the virus coming to America was “minuscule.”
No one saw the storm coming until it was too late, and the industry that was hammered the most was the global travel industry, which includes the world’s more than 800 commercial airlines. As of 2018, the travel industry accounted for $8.3 trillion of the world’s GDP and a staggering 313 million jobs — representing one in ten workers on the planet at the time.
The travel industry is an important component of the domestic and global economy. When the industry saw an unprecedented drop of more than 90 percent, the adverse economic impact was the driving force for preparing a stimulus package to assist U.S. airlines as never before.
Now they want more.
As we approach the October 1 deadline, airline executives are predicting an unprecedented wave of employee furloughs, and the collective number of airline employees affected could exceed 100,000. Unions representing airline employees are calling for a second round of aid to help delay these layoffs for another three to six months. But doing so would be a waste of taxpayer money.
By even the most optimistic calculation, demand for air travel could take as much as two or three years to rebound, so what would a payroll extension package of a few months really accomplish? Upon close examination, nothing more than keeping airlines overstaffed for another few months. It is for this reason that a second round of payroll money to airlines should not be granted.
There are compelling arguments for why we need to protect airlines, such as the previously mentioned economic impact figures. I agree that U.S. airlines must be assisted. But paying for airlines to maintain an overstaffed workforce makes no sense.
I understand the training needs for pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and others who cannot simply take an extended leave of absence and then immediately return to the flight line. There is (thankfully) a set of specific steps that must first be taken before these highly trained professionals can return to work. But to use this as justification for billions of dollars in payroll support begins to sound more like it’s being done in the interests of unions trying to protect their workers than out of concern for airlines during this operational challenge.
Sadly, the idea of a second round of federal aid to the airlines would necessitate further rounds of aid. There are better ways we can spend taxpayer money during these challenging times. Here’s hoping common sense will prevail by telling the airlines “no” to a second round of stimulus cash.
