Originally Posted by
Super Mario
Because your definition of "protections" involves taking a pandemic and forcing companies to rewrite their business model on things that have nothing to do with. In reality, you're asking to use a difficult time for your own selfish wants. Would we want nicer perks? Who wouldn't? However, most of us know better than to cheer for government regulation. No one wins in the end.
"Without asking for anything in return." The government has already mandated that this cannot be used for buybacks, and has mandated refunds for cancelled flights, amongst other things. What do you really need protected from?
Now in a free market, it is just fine to ask for these things. In fact, nearly everything you asked for, is available already. You just don't want to pay for it. You want everything for free and/or want everyone else to subsidize it. In most economic downturns, like we are already in, these types of business generally DO get more consumer friendly as they are fighting for more business.
God forbid consumers ever demand industry changes, but whenever corporations seek favorable changes, not a peep out of anyone, right? In a truly free market, we would let these airlines fail under the stress of market forces and wait for other airlines to take their place. You're right though, it isn't their fault that the virus has cut their revenue streams by such wide margins, but it's not my fault or anyone's fault either, so why should my tax dollars go towards funding the operations of a corporation that has consistently tries to cut costs anywhere it can while also stuffing seats into a plane to marginally safe limits, all while reducing lavatory space to a minimum, adversely affecting disabled flyers. If I'm handing over my tax dollars to bailout an airline, of course I'm going to want the airline to make changes to the way it is managed and its services/operation; I now have an interest in the airline(s) through my tax dollars despite not being issued stock, and if that's selfishness then so be it, but I never got a chance to decide whether my tax dollars went to funding their operations.
After all, burning cash in order to increase the value of stock for shareholders was a great decision at the time, but obviously a poor one in the long-run, right? I mean, would we all be in favor of bailing out someone that would've burnt extra cash left over after payments on trinkets, only to be asking for a bailout from an emergency medical procedure? I would, but many here wouldn't, countering with the "why should my tax dollars go towards paying for their medical bill; instead of burning their extra money on trinkets, they should've had a rainy day fund", as cbn42's example goes. Let's not forget that a free market doesn't believe in government subsidies and bailouts; if you run your business poorly, made poor decisions, or are overcome by external forces and fail, tough luck; that's how the game goes.
The reality is that airlines made bad choices, and I feel no remorse for the corporate side of any company, since after all its a "free market". I feel bad for the employees and workers of airlines, and would want these bailouts geared towards assisting them if/when needed. You can also essentially call me an unhappy freeloader all you want, but simply wanting the industry to be more regulated for the safety and yes, some added comforts, isn't an airline-killing demand. Minimum seat pitch and width (safety and comfort), minimum size requirements for lavatories that can properly and comfortably serve disabled flyers (safety and comfort), minimum hygiene standards (safety); these will kill airlines? Refusing to adopt basic standards due to profits simply isn't a good excuse. And yes, I of course don't cheer for government regulation of any kind to interfere with the lead in my paint or the chemicals in my local water supply, or even ensuring that I receive my hard-earned cash when an airline cancels my trip; it wouldn't end well for anyone.