I'm probably too pessimistic but I wouldn't be surprised to see airlines permanently adopt some of the "temporary" emergency measures or exceptions they've put in place.

Indeed it is, it's just another operational cost that must be paid for. There's only one airline I know of that tried to seperate it out as an individual line item and that was Ryanair. It was all of 2 Euro ($2.17 USD) per flight.

Well..that depends on what you mean by "out of their control". If you read through the EC261 focused threads on FT you will see MANY examples of airlines being expected to pay in circumstances I at least would have said were NOT within their control.... ie..Volcanic eruptions.... Delays caused by damage to aircraft by airport equipment and so on. YMMV of course, but IMO EC261 is already being pushed too far.

Yet people kept packing the planes, even the most horrible carrier Ryanair. I'd hitch hike across Europe before I flew them. As long as people are going to buy tickets on the ULCCs the shoddy treatment will continue. Now given what is happening with the global economy the ULCCs might find few takers for their $59 fares because so many people will be flat broke.

Who is "we"?

The owners of UA, e.g. its shareholders, received a benefit. That includes large institutional funds such as teacher & fire fighter pension plans. Remove a row of seats rather than properly fund an EMT's pension? It's all a balance.

Well let's just rip out the seats and stack the passengers like cordwood so we can all maximize our 401ks.

Perhaps you missed the use of the word "balance"?

This is the stretch of the century lmao.

I think it was very interesting to see how many individuals are actually against consumer protections and regulations, when we (the US taxpayers) are handing out billions in our tax dollars in a blank check without asking for anything in return. Protect the company, not the consumer! It's very interesting to say the least, and while I understand these positions, I think GuyIncognito said it best.

They would have received some criticism from shareholders, but that's about it.

Maybe we need a "stress test" for airlines like we developed for banks after the recession. They should be required to have enough cash on hand to weather a downturn of a certain intensity. If we tell individuals to have a 6 month emergency fund in case they lose their job, why shouldn't airlines have a similar requirement? Airlines without sufficient cash on hand should fail the stress test and have limitations placed on their ability to pay dividends or buy back stock.

Alternatively, we could allow airlines to "opt out" of the stress test on the condition that they not participate in any bailout. If a disaster happened, this would likely wipe out the shareholders.

I know people say this situation was unforeseeable, but we are 20 years into the new millennium and this is the second time US airlines have required a bailout. It's not as uncommon as people think. Businesses need to plan for such things.

You will hardly ever see me defend typical airline management, and as I said upthread the industry's current position re: government rescue is ridiculous, e.g. you owe us $50 billion, we owe you nothing. But the current situation is pretty off-the-charts in terms of exterior stressors. This is not a hurricane destroying some planes, or even 9/11. This is revenue dropping to virtually zero for at least half a year in a business that is extremely cash flow dependent. To advance your example of prudent personal finance, of course individuals should keep three to six months' funds on hand for rainy days if they can amass it (and many can't, particularly younger people), but virtually no individual has cash stacked up to live on for years in the aftermath of a meteor strike. This is a meta event.

That said it wouldn't bother me to see Doug Parker sweeping up at Denny's after this is over.

The major US airlines were prepared to handle another 9/11-scale event. Nobody was prepared to have an 80%+ reduction in flights then still operate at less than a 15% load factor on the remaining flights.

No business in prepared for a >95% reduction in revenue.

Exactly, this 6 months emergency fund is something which has been preached to individuals for a long time and something similar should have been planned not only by airlines but by all businesses.

The "once in a blue moon" excuse doesn't wash as that's the same thought process as to why we do it (an emergency fund we hope never to touch), and the airlines have had their hands out almost since the first Chinese bat sneezed.

"Smith & Wesson...and me." - Harry :p

All the MERGERS also meant you were down to three big hub-and-spoke legacies that all figured they were too big to fail and had more "leverage" to demand a bailout than they did in 2001. So they went their merry way in making things worse for passengers in the name of increased profits and then spending most of that on share buybacks. :td:

I've said all along that I think we'll need government-mandated minimums on the seating because airlines won't be reasonable about it on their own. Someone like Spirit will try to push it just a bit more and, if they get away with it, it puts pressure on others to join the race to the bottom.

We also shouldn't let up on all-in pricing. We've had airlines like Spirit just invent airline-imposed fees and make them look like taxes. They'd like nothing better than to advertise $0 fares in large type but have them price to $50, minimum, after taxes and hidden fees and then start the "optional" fees on top of that.