Second payroll stimulus for airlines
#31
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 991
Likes: 9
We're all going to be paying the bill either way. It would probably be better to keep most of our salaries and our health insurance for another six months than deplete our savings. Compared to the unfathomable amounts spent over the past few months, airline payroll support is a drop in the bucket.
#33
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
I tend to agree. But if enough voters with a vested interest (ie us) write in to show we care a little, that might influence future legislation and policies which affect our industry and jobs. Organized labor gets the attention of the left, because we can also be organized to vote and they know it.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 257
From: A320 FO
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Scenario 1:
A loser who doesn't pay attention in school and does not have the brains or ability to excel at anything goes out into the world and realizes that no one will pay them a dollar for a day's work because they fail to provide anything of value to society. Knowing full well they can't pay their own bills or anyone else's, they have children. They then ask the government (John Q. Taxpayer, that is) for a handout.
Scenario 2:
The government overreacts to a minor illness similar to the flu and shuts down the economy, putting 30+ million capable people out of work practically overnight, destroying entire industries in the process, all to save an infinitesimal number of people (0.03% to be precise) who would have died anyway from a variety of co-morbidities if they had caught the common cold.
I would argue Scenario 1 warrants no assistance but scenario 2 does, by virtue of the fact that we all want to work and are fully capable of working, yet the government's inept and irrational policies restrict us from doing so. They created the problem, so they're responsible for cleaning it up.
The best government is small government, and certainly a government that has little direct control over our lives, and the sooner people realize that the better off we'll all be.
A loser who doesn't pay attention in school and does not have the brains or ability to excel at anything goes out into the world and realizes that no one will pay them a dollar for a day's work because they fail to provide anything of value to society. Knowing full well they can't pay their own bills or anyone else's, they have children. They then ask the government (John Q. Taxpayer, that is) for a handout.
Scenario 2:
The government overreacts to a minor illness similar to the flu and shuts down the economy, putting 30+ million capable people out of work practically overnight, destroying entire industries in the process, all to save an infinitesimal number of people (0.03% to be precise) who would have died anyway from a variety of co-morbidities if they had caught the common cold.
I would argue Scenario 1 warrants no assistance but scenario 2 does, by virtue of the fact that we all want to work and are fully capable of working, yet the government's inept and irrational policies restrict us from doing so. They created the problem, so they're responsible for cleaning it up.
The best government is small government, and certainly a government that has little direct control over our lives, and the sooner people realize that the better off we'll all be.
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2020
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
So the transit system where I live has been bailed out multiple times and will needs it again. I am totally cool with it as I understand some folks need that transportation to get to and from work. This is like the schools debate to me. I could a pay a little more now to improve the schools in my area or I can pay more when the inevitable consequences of not funding them come home to roost, in the form of increased welfare, healthcare, and criminal justice spending.
#37
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
The only such system that's comparable to airlines as national infrastructure is AMTRACK... and those trains use red ink instead of diesel for fuel.
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 257
From: A320 FO
Hamburg to Munich is about 5 hours by train. New York to Chicago is about 50% farther but that train is 23 hours instead of 8. Of course that's because it's mandated to stop in every town with a population over 50 and probably because the track speed is 35 mph half the time.
For all the whining about airline bailouts, Amtrak has been on the dole since Nixon was president.
#39
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,127
Likes: 796
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Not that I like competition but I wonder if more elements of the passenger rail network had reasonable service times if it could be more viable. It works in the northeast because the transit times are reasonable.
Hamburg to Munich is about 5 hours by train. New York to Chicago is about 50% farther but that train is 23 hours instead of 8. Of course that's because it's mandated to stop in every town with a population over 50 and probably because the track speed is 35 mph half the time.
For all the whining about airline bailouts, Amtrak has been on the dole since Nixon was president.
Hamburg to Munich is about 5 hours by train. New York to Chicago is about 50% farther but that train is 23 hours instead of 8. Of course that's because it's mandated to stop in every town with a population over 50 and probably because the track speed is 35 mph half the time.
For all the whining about airline bailouts, Amtrak has been on the dole since Nixon was president.
Travel time can be improved by speed, but that requires new infrastructure which is hard for several reasons...
1) Vast distances mean vast expense. That could be overcome with enough money, but it would be a LOT of money.
2) Fast trains need fairly straight rail lines. Either they'd have to drill through some big mountain ranges ($$$$$) or go the long way around. The latter would increase cost and travel time.
3) NIMBY. Existing rail lines have right-of-way going back as far two centuries. New lines would need new right-of-way. The locals won't like it one bit, especially the one's who will lose their homes. This nation doesn't have the political guts to force the imminent domain issue on that large of a scale, for a dubious benefit in the first place. If limited to existing right-of-ways in populated areas, fast trains would have to slow down to handle the curves (and possibly noise).
So even if you overcome all of that, a 200mph train that could in theory do a transcon in 11 hours is probably going to have to go the long way around some terrain and urban areas, and slow down for others. Not even counting planned stops along the way, your're easily pushing 20 hours NY-LA.
Airplane infrastructure at least already exists, with established right of ways (and the air is free with zero mx costs).
Also... there's the security issue. A 200+ mph train has a lot of 1/2MV^2. How do you keep it safe? With the plane you screen everything that gets on board and then once you leave the gate nothing can really touch you. For a train, you'd have to secure every inch of a high-speed rail. And if you didn't, the bad guys would see it to it soon enough. $$$$$$
#40
Also, don’t forget Amtrak is charged with stopping at every farm field, doing milk can runs. Back before deregulation, Ozark did those runs from Memphis to Minneapolis. Five intermediate stops. Took all day to get there with a DC-9. Often only picked up or dropped off two or three passengers at each intermediate stop.
Plus, most places they run on freight tracks. They are second priority. A “Z“ express freight can put an Amtrak on a siding, waiting for the express freight to pass.
Plus, most places they run on freight tracks. They are second priority. A “Z“ express freight can put an Amtrak on a siding, waiting for the express freight to pass.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



