The Case against Bailing Out the Airline Industry

Véronique de Rugy, Gary Leff
{"title":"The Case against Bailing Out the Airline Industry","authors":"Véronique de Rugy, Gary Leff","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3571441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Even if one is sympathetic to the idea of helping industries in times of crisis, the critical question to ask is, Are there more effective ways to resolve a company’s financial problems than a taxpayer-funded bailout?<br><br>While the airline industry is always fast to request a bailout, such a bailout is rarely appropriate. As far as bailouts go, it is preferable to extend loans to firms than outright grants. Nevertheless, before the government considers any sort of bailout for the airlines, airlines should always first go through the bankruptcy process.<br><br>As the United States has seen in the past, airline bankruptcy does not present any significant contagion risk to the economy. Airlines have often flown through bankruptcy successfully—American, Delta, and United have all done it—and airlines that each has merged with have done it as well, in some cases more than once, without jeopardizing airline operation or safety. And any help for workers should address the needs they face independently of which industry they work for.<br><br>A hasty legislative package, pushed through in an emergency when the industry is weak and voters are panicked, should be kept as limited as possible. The risk is that operational reforms imposed under these circumstances will make the industry worse off once the crisis passes.","PeriodicalId":315647,"journal":{"name":"TransportRN: Transportation & Pandemics (Topic)","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TransportRN: Transportation & Pandemics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3571441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Even if one is sympathetic to the idea of helping industries in times of crisis, the critical question to ask is, Are there more effective ways to resolve a company’s financial problems than a taxpayer-funded bailout?

While the airline industry is always fast to request a bailout, such a bailout is rarely appropriate. As far as bailouts go, it is preferable to extend loans to firms than outright grants. Nevertheless, before the government considers any sort of bailout for the airlines, airlines should always first go through the bankruptcy process.

As the United States has seen in the past, airline bankruptcy does not present any significant contagion risk to the economy. Airlines have often flown through bankruptcy successfully—American, Delta, and United have all done it—and airlines that each has merged with have done it as well, in some cases more than once, without jeopardizing airline operation or safety. And any help for workers should address the needs they face independently of which industry they work for.

A hasty legislative package, pushed through in an emergency when the industry is weak and voters are panicked, should be kept as limited as possible. The risk is that operational reforms imposed under these circumstances will make the industry worse off once the crisis passes.
反对拯救航空业的案例
即使有人赞同在危机时期帮助企业的想法,关键问题是,是否有比纳税人出资的救助更有效的方法来解决企业的财务问题?虽然航空业总是迅速请求救助,但这样的救助很少是合适的。就救助而言,向企业提供贷款比直接拨款更可取。然而,在政府考虑对航空公司进行任何形式的救助之前,航空公司总是应该先走破产程序。正如美国过去所看到的那样,航空公司破产不会给经济带来任何重大的传染风险。航空公司经常成功地度过破产——美国航空公司、达美航空公司和联合航空公司都做到了这一点——被合并的航空公司也都做到了,在某些情况下不止一次,而且没有危及航空公司的运营或安全。对工人的任何帮助都应该解决他们所面临的需求,而不管他们在哪个行业工作。在行业疲软、选民恐慌的紧急情况下仓促通过的一揽子立法,应该尽可能地保持在有限范围内。风险在于,在这种情况下实施的运营改革,一旦危机过去,将使该行业变得更糟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信