4 ms·
And yet, it is not the point that management/owners could not have foreseen this, and so do not deserve to have the company go under. Even if the company goes
by lordnacho 7y ago
And yet, it is not the point that management/owners could not have foreseen this, and so do not deserve to have the company go under.
Even if the company goes under, there will still be airlines afterwards regardless of who owns them. Should we all pay to keep the ones that happen to be there, or let new players have a go?
Dinosaurs didn't hedge themselves either, in terms of evolution. But life went on anyway, and mammals dominate now.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoI'm not knowledgeable enough to know which is best. Is it more efficient for these companies to go under, and for luckier rivals to buy their assets and consolidate? Or is it more efficient for the government to provide capital (for some consideration of course) and smooth out the dip? Whichever leads to better outcomes is what we ought to do. I'm not a pure capitalist. I don't subscribe to the theory that market forces always lead to optimal outcomes. As such I don't buy the notion that bailouts are always the wrong decision.
- luckylion 7y ago> Whichever leads to better outcomes is what we ought to do. The question is: better for ... the shareholders? The tax payers? The environment? The pilots? The passengers? The airline managers? You'll find that "better" is often at odds for different groups.