# Airlines being upended



## saxman

Surprised this forum has been quiet in the wake of recent events and how the airlines will fair out. We went from pretty full flights in the end of February to completely empty in the beginning of March. Most of us know the $2 trillion included $58 billion for airlines, half of which will be loans and half will be grants. It comes with the stipulation that there will be no layoffs until September 30th and the money doesn't go to stock buy backs nor upper management compensation. The billion dollar question is what happens after September 30 now?

I liked this article on how things might turn out: How The Airline Industry Will Transform Itself As It Comes Back From Coronavirus

Some bullet points

-Volume won't come back for 3-5 years
-Business travel will return first but remain lower
-Pricing power will lag behind volume
-Hub and Spoke model may change for more point to point service
-Regional trips (less than 500 miles) will be upended
-More use of narrow-body aircraft for long-haul flights (ala Airbus A321XLR for trans-Atlantic)
-LCC carriers will do well as leisure travel comes back

If any time is a time for Amtrak (or Brightline or Texas Central like companies) to take advantage of the changing regional travel market, NOW is the time.


----------



## Bob Dylan

saxman said:


> Surprised this forum has been quiet in the wake of recent events and how the airlines will fair out. We went from pretty full flights in the end of February to completely empty in the beginning of March. Most of us know the $2 trillion included $58 billion for airlines, half of which will be loans and half will be grants. It comes with the stipulation that there will be no layoffs until September 30th and the money doesn't go to stock buy backs nor upper management compensation. The billion dollar question is what happens after September 30 now?
> 
> I liked this article on how things might turn out: How The Airline Industry Will Transform Itself As It Comes Back From Coronavirus
> 
> Some bullet points
> 
> -Volume won't come back for 3-5 years
> -Business travel will return first but remain lower
> -Pricing power will lag behind volume
> -Hub and Spoke model may change for more point to point service
> -Regional trips (less than 500 miles) will be upended
> -More use of narrow-body aircraft for long-haul flights (ala Airbus A321XLR for trans-Atlantic)
> -LCC carriers will do well as leisure travel comes back
> 
> If any time is a time for Amtrak (or Brightline or Texas Central like companies) to take advantage of the changing regional travel market, NOW is the time.


Still flying regular runs Chris, or are there cutbacks??


----------



## Devil's Advocate

saxman said:


> If any time is a time for Amtrak (or Brightline or Texas Central like companies) to take advantage of the changing regional travel market, NOW is the time.


Travel demand is plummeting across the board leaving Amtrak in no position to expand service with no mandate and nonexistent equipment, Brightline's owner Softbank has been hemorrhaging billions while Texas Central is laying off staff left and right as they near the end of a critical approval process. Supposedly there is talk of a major infrastructure budget bill being discussed, but knowing that aviation is certain to benefit at least as much as passenger rail and that it takes a decade or more to complete an order for US-spec rolling stock, this bill is unlikely to change anything. I'm doubtful we'll see any major passenger rail expansion projects finished in the next three or four years and by that time the US airline industry will have been nursed back to subsidized profitability with working class taxpayer bailouts and looking to reclaim any lost ground.


----------



## jis

Brightline's real owner is FECI, which has relatively stable financial situation so far, since it is mostly based on Florida real estate. That could of course change if real estate crashes. Anything is possible these days given that the entire economy is upended. But the main point I am trying to make I think is that FECI's finances are relatively separate from Softbank. In any case Brightline has shut down operations for the duration, but construction for the West Palm Beach to Orlando segment carries on within the realities of the pandemic of course.

Both Delta and United have made statements to the effect that they plan to come back as much smaller airlines.


----------



## railiner

I can see the possibility of the government, allowing more merger's, even though there would be less competition....whatever it takes to bring back air service...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jis said:


> Brightline's real owner is FECI, which has relatively stable financial situation so far, since it is mostly based on Florida real estate.


And FECI's "real" owner is Softbank. Claiming that FECI is safe while Softbank is flailing is missing the forest for the trees. Unfortunately Softbank made several risky bets that failed to pay off and left them with a sloppy track record and negative trend line. Maybe they can still turn things around but when you're losing other people's money in the best of times it's difficult to see how you're going to get back on top with your own funds in a period of extreme adversity.



jis said:


> That could of course change if real estate crashes. Anything is possible these days given that the entire economy is upended. But the main point I am trying to make I think is that FECI's finances are relatively separate from Softbank. In any case Brightline has shut down operations for the duration, but construction for the West Palm Beach to Orlando segment carries on within the realities of the pandemic of course.


Being a solid investment in a weakening portfolio makes you all the more attractive to sell on to someone else in order to counter other losses and stem the bleeding. If the buyer is healthy with long term goals maybe no harm is done, but if they are desperate to make a profit on the purchase or willing to slice and dice their way to a bigger return anything is possible.



jis said:


> Both Delta and United have made statements to the effect that they plan to come back as much smaller airlines.


US airlines are coming back smaller whether they planned to or not, but as mentioned above they'll just keep merging into yet another massive behemoth that does whatever it wants because the American government has taught large American businesses that throwing money at executive enriching stock buy backs instead of saving for a rainy day is no barrier to yet another free money taxpayer bailout.



> Delta bought back...$11 billion since 2013. American Airlines Group (AAL) has bought back $12.4 billion since 2014. Both companies have seen their stock prices and market values shrivel. Delta is now _valued_ at $14 billion and American at just $4 billion.


*Link...*


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> I can see the possibility of the government, allowing more merger's, even though there would be less competition....whatever it takes to bring back air service...



Oh, I hope not for the sake of the small and medium sized airports.


----------



## ehbowen

Dakota 400 said:


> Oh, I hope not for the sake of the small and medium sized airports.


Forget it. If you don't live in a megalopolis you'll be lucky to see a puddle jumper three days a week.


----------



## Bob Dylan

ehbowen said:


> Forget it. If you don't live in a megalopolis you'll be lucky to see a puddle jumper three days a week.


Like all things in our Society, well have to take a Thourough look @ Everything once were back to Every Day Life.

Cue David Bowie singing "Changes".


----------



## ehbowen

Bob Dylan said:


> Like all things in our Society, well have to take a Thourough look @ Everything once were back to Every Day Life.
> 
> Cue David Bowie singing "Changes".



Well, in my case it's frustration. Small retail in this country was already just barely surviving...but, when things return to "normal", it will almost certainly be gone. The giants, such as Amazon, Wal-Mart, Target and others with friends at the Fed who can borrow unlimited amounts of money at 1% interest...they'll come through this fine. Mom & Pop in Yakima? Not so much.

Change may be inevitable...but that doesn't mean it's always 'good'. There's a dispenser of milk here at the hotel which hasn't been swapped out in the two weeks since the kitchen staff was let go. The milk has 'changed'...but you sure don't want to try and drink it!



> *“Have you no idea of progress, of development?"
> "I have seen them both in an egg," said Caspian. "We call it 'Going Bad' in Narnia”*
> 
> ― C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader


----------



## Bob Dylan

Boeing just announced they will start doing "Buyouts" to reduce their Workforce Permantely!( and Airlines are starting to Furlough droves of Employees)

Wasn't the recent Corporate Stimulus Bill supposed to ensure that Corporations and Businesses kept their Employees on the Payroll in order to receive the Hundreds of Billions in Bailouts that Congress doled out??

Once again Corporate Welfare, ie Socialism, surfaces!!!!


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> US airlines are coming back smaller whether they planned to or not, but as mentioned above they'll just keep merging into yet another massive behemoth that does whatever it wants because the American government has taught large American businesses that throwing money at executive enriching stock buy backs instead of saving for a rainy day is no barrier to yet another free money taxpayer bailout.





> Delta bought back...$11 billion since 2013. American Airlines Group (AAL) has bought back $12.4 billion since 2014. Both companies have seen their stock prices and market values shrivel. Delta is now _valued_ at $14 billion and American at just $4 billion.




Hmm.. Seems to me the obvious policy is for the government bailout to take the form of stock purchases by the government. As a stockholder, the government would then have a place at the table to push back on the shenanigans of the top executives and force the companies to provide quality airline service rather than simply be a tool to allow a few people to enrich themselves. But of course, that's "socialism," even if the government does not have a controlling interest in the company.

But regulating and restricting mergers, stock buybacks, and executive compensation would be a good start.


----------



## ehbowen

MARC Rider said:


> But regulating and restricting mergers, stock buybacks, and executive compensation would be a good start.


Especially since any stock buyback, particularly those conducted with borrowed money, is essentially a way for insiders to transfer equity from "the little people" to themselves. There's a reason why it used to be banned...and why that ban used to be enforced. I hope that the mod team won't see this as 'political', as both major political parties are equally at fault.


----------



## Dakota 400

MARC Rider said:


> Hmm.. Seems to me the obvious policy is for the government bailout to take the form of stock purchases by the government. As a stockholder, the government would then have a place at the table to push back on the shenanigans of the top executives and force the companies to provide quality airline service rather than simply be a tool to allow a few people to enrich themselves. But of course, that's "socialism," even if the government does not have a controlling interest in the company.
> 
> But regulating and restricting mergers, stock buybacks, and executive compensation would be a good start.



If the government did have a place at the table, would that not be something like "nationalism" on the order of what the UK once did? (Or maybe still does? Unsure of British politics.)

Re: possible "stock buybacks and executive compensation", it is my understanding that such are specifically not to happen in the Stimulus legislation that our Congress passed. Am I incorrect in my thinking?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Dakota 400 said:


> If the government did have a place at the table, would that not be something like "nationalism" on the order of what the UK once did? Re: possible "stock buybacks and executive compensation", it is my understanding that such are specifically not to happen in the Stimulus legislation that our Congress passed. Am I incorrect in my thinking?



1. The restrictions against excessive compensation are limited and temporary.
2. The billions in buybacks that really mattered already happened _before_ the bailout.
3. The *96% of cash flow spent on buybacks* in good years left no money to weather the bad years.
4. Nationalizing a private company generally involves little or no compensation in return for _taking_ control.
5. Our system of privatized profits and socialized debt is about as far from nationalization as you can get.

We've repeated this boom-bust-bailout cycle four times in my life and nationalization never looked better.


----------



## Michigan Mom

In the midst of all the more sophisticated analyses. I'm not ever going to have a sophisticated take on anything. I just know that the stock market isn't going to take care of the people who need care the most. Stocks are not going to ensure that nursing homes are clean and well managed. The marketplace is not going to ensure that ordinary working class folks are heard. Wall Street is not going to prioritize education, safety, health, infrastructure, and environment. 
Profit as the goal is a distinct aim separate from all of these other goals. There is not a market solution for anything other than pricing and profits. 
We need human beings who care about these things to represent us.


----------



## MARC Rider

Michigan Mom said:


> In the midst of all the more sophisticated analyses. I'm not ever going to have a sophisticated take on anything. I just know that the stock market isn't going to take care of the people who need care the most. Stocks are not going to ensure that nursing homes are clean and well managed. The marketplace is not going to ensure that ordinary working class folks are heard. Wall Street is not going to prioritize education, safety, health, infrastructure, and environment.
> Profit as the goal is a distinct aim separate from all of these other goals. There is not a market solution for anything other than pricing and profits.
> We need human beings who care about these things to represent us.


I was recently reading an essay on "property" by the philosopher Bertrand Russel. (I think it was written in the 1930s or thereabout.) He pointed out that private businesses that aren't monopolies and actually provide useful goods and services are just as much exploited by capitalists as the working class. By "capitalists," he means those who extend credit at interest, landowners who engage in rent-seeking, and those who inherit excessive wealth. He believes that this worship of money causes great damage to civilization. But he was never a Communist, in fact he was one of the few leftists who strongly criticized the Soviet Union, even in the 1920s before Stalin took over.


----------



## MARC Rider

Dakota 400 said:


> If the government did have a place at the table, would that not be something like "nationalism" on the order of what the UK once did? (Or maybe still does? Unsure of British politics.)



When the British nationalized the railways in 1948, they exchanged government securities for the shares of the private railways. Of course, at that time, the private railways were more or less bankrupt, so I suspect that the value of the securities was not what the shareholders would have liked. But better that than to lose everything in a bankruptcy.

This would be different from a government actually buying shares of a company on the open market and exercising whatever ownership privileges comes with the stock. For one thing, the British government actually had complete ownership. What I suggested would be that the government would bail out the ailing company and take partial ownership, leaving the private management in place, but exercising the indirect control that all large shareholders have, kind of like being the ultimate "activist investor." The main interest of the government investors would be (1) ensuring that the enterprise continues to provide quality products and services and not be used as a cash cow for managers, (2) that the interests of the employees andcontractors, especially those who are citizens of the owning government, are protected, and (3) company operations don't endanger the public by unsafe practices or environmental pollution.


----------



## railiner

Conrail, was government ownership, done right.
They took over the bankrupt Northeast railroads, assumed their debt, infused massive cash into rationalizing and rebuilding its infrastructure, hired the best management team available, and did a remarkable turnaround.
Then, they did an IPO, and returned the property to private sector ownership. The government got their investment back, and then some.

The only unfortunate mistake they later made, was to allow it to later be chopped up and acquired by the two competing roads...


----------



## IndyLions

Devil's Advocate said:


> Travel demand is plummeting across the board leaving Amtrak in no position to expand service with no mandate and nonexistent equipment, Brightline's owner Softbank has been hemorrhaging billions while Texas Central is laying off staff left and right as they near the end of a critical approval process. Supposedly there is talk of a major infrastructure budget bill being discussed, but knowing that aviation is certain to benefit at least as much as passenger rail and that it takes a decade or more to complete an order for US-spec rolling stock, this bill is unlikely to change anything. I'm doubtful we'll see any major passenger rail expansion projects finished in the next three or four years and by that time the US airline industry will have been nursed back to subsidized profitability with working class taxpayer bailouts and looking to reclaim any lost ground.



You make valid points - but now is the time to prepare a logical strategy for a more balanced and sensible transportation infrastructure. Millions of people are going to remain out of work when this is all over - and history has shown that infrastructure construction is a proven way to put people to work.

The infrastructure needs to take into account the needs and desires of the next generation (the 20 & 30 somethings). They are the ones who will be living with it. The trick is going to be the “balanced” part of it, because the 60+ crowd is still in power.

That means there is going to have to be some give and take - not an all or nothing strategy. The older generation is going to have to accept that a strategy with no regard for carbon footprint is not going to cut it. The younger generation is going to have to accept SOME relaxation of environmental regulations to allow these eco-friendly projects to not be buried in EPA red tape. Making some sacrifices for the greater good.

From a rail perspective, it is generally accepted that a sensible transportation strategy includes higher speed rail for 500 mile corridors. It should also include eliminating the mindset of “not invented here” and by purchasing off-the-shelf trainsets. As long as companies build proven designs here in the US with US workers - that should be good enough.

A lot of our infrastructure got built originally because of the Great Depression and/or World War II. This may not be as severe a situation as we faced back then - but we need to be prepared to make the most out of a bad situation.


----------



## Bob Dylan

IndyLions said:


> You make valid points - but now is the time to prepare a logical strategy for a more balanced and sensible transportation infrastructure. Millions of people are going to remain out of work when this is all over - and history has shown that infrastructure construction is a proven way to put people to work.
> 
> The infrastructure needs to take into account the needs and desires of the next generation (the 20 & 30 somethings). They are the ones who will be living with it. The trick is going to be the “balanced” part of it, because the 60+ crowd is still in power.
> 
> That means there is going to have to be some give and take - not an all or nothing strategy. The older generation is going to have to accept that a strategy with no regard for carbon footprint is not going to cut it. The younger generation is going to have to accept SOME relaxation of environmental regulations to allow these eco-friendly projects to not be buried in EPA red tape. Making some sacrifices for the greater good.
> 
> From a rail perspective, it is generally accepted that a sensible transportation strategy includes higher speed rail for 500 mile corridors. It should also include eliminating the mindset of “not invented here” and by purchasing off-the-shelf trainsets. As long as companies build proven designs here in the US with US workers - that should be good enough.
> 
> A lot of our infrastructure got built originally because of the Great Depression and/or World War II. This may not be as severe a situation as we faced back then - but we need to be prepared to make the most out of a bad situation.


This IS as Serious as the Great Depression, we have Multiple Millions More out of Work,Broke and Losing their Healthcare.

We need to take a Really Serious Look @ our Economy, especially Healthare,the Service Sector and Travel and Leisure which are the Areas that will be hurting the most!

The Days of Wine and Roses is over in this Country, your idea of putting people back to work is Excellent!

Maybe call it the New Green Deal! All that's lacking is an FDR to Lead us, right now the Marx Brothers are in charge!


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> Conrail, was government ownership, done right.
> They took over the bankrupt Northeast railroads, assumed their debt, infused massive cash into rationalizing and rebuilding its infrastructure, hired the best management team available, and did a remarkable turnaround.
> Then, they did an IPO, and returned the property to private sector ownership. The government got their investment back, and then some.
> 
> The only unfortunate mistake they later made, was to allow it to later be chopped up and acquired by the two competing roads...


Two problems with that.
1) The taxpayers should not should have not have assumed the debt. The railroads were bankrupt. The lenders presumbly knew (or should have known) about the shaky finances, and have been prepared to take the risk that they'd lose their money. I have no sympathy for the banks. I guess this is what is called "socializing 'private' debt," and it's a curse of our political and economic system.

2) The government should never have allowed an IPO and let the competing railroads (CSX and NS) get hold of the assets. Monopoly is to nobody's benefit except the monopolists. Even after they privatized it, they should have retained some residual partial ownership so in order to prevent future shenanigans like stock buybacks and excessive executive compensation.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MARC Rider said:


> Two problems with that.
> 1) The taxpayers should not should have not have assumed the debt. The railroads were bankrupt. The lenders presumbly knew (or should have known) about the shaky finances, and have been prepared to take the risk that they'd lose their money. I have no sympathy for the banks. I guess this is what is called "socializing 'private' debt," and it's a curse of our political and economic system.
> 
> 2) The government should never have allowed an IPO and let the competing railroads (CSX and NS) get hold of the assets. Monopoly is to nobody's benefit except the monopolists. Even after they privatized it, they should have retained some residual partial ownership so in order to prevent future shenanigans like stock buybacks and excessive executive compensation.


Look for it to happen again when this Crisis is over!


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> Maybe call it the New Green Deal! All that's lacking is an FDR to Lead us, right now the Marx Brothers are in charge!
> [/QUOTe
> 
> The name of "New Green Deal" has become too politically charged for wide acceptance of whatever governmental package(s) that come out of this crisis. A different "name" is required.
> 
> America has been, for a long time, yearning for Statesmen/Stateswomen, in my opinion. During times of severe crisis, our Nation has been able to allow one or more of such persons to rise to the occasion. I am hopeful that "history will repeat itself" again. As it often seems to do.


----------



## jiml

I'll just interject that there are a lot of very smart people on this site, no matter how diverse the opinions. Makes for interesting reading.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Two problems with that.
> 1) The taxpayers should not should have not have assumed the debt. The railroads were bankrupt. The lenders presumbly knew (or should have known) about the shaky finances, and have been prepared to take the risk that they'd lose their money. I have no sympathy for the banks. I guess this is what is called "socializing 'private' debt," and it's a curse of our political and economic system.


I am not sure that they did assume the debt. I just assume that they did to acquire the property, that was otherwise worthless. If they hadn't, the banks and other creditor's would surely have liquidated the assets for whatever they were worth, if anything, and then we would have been left with nothing. Even the real estate probably owed a fortune in back taxes...


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Two problems with that.
> 
> 2) The government should never have allowed an IPO and let the competing railroads (CSX and NS) get hold of the assets. Monopoly is to nobody's benefit except the monopolists. Even after they privatized it, they should have retained some residual partial ownership so in order to prevent future shenanigans like stock buybacks and excessive executive compensation.


I disagree with that. The Company thrived even more, when it regained private ownership, after the IPO. The government could have disallowed the other two railroads to merge with it, under existing antitrust laws, without having to be on its board of directors.


----------



## Qapla

Even if the Gov't didn't nationalize the railroads by owning the trains - they should nationalized the trackage the same as they own the highways


----------



## dlagrua

From what I read airline business is down a whopping 94% but in the end they will get billions of federal (taxpayer) money to bail them out. Last I read the airlines will receive $28 billion but Amtrak gets only $1 billion. 
Nationalizing the railroad trackage is not the answer. Right now the government takes in solid tax revenue form the freight railroads and doesn't have to pay to repair the tracks. Taking over doesn't help anything.


----------



## Ryan

That’s why privately owned roads are so wildly successful in the USA.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Ryan said:


> That’s why privately owned roads are so wildly successful in the USA.


Sadly the Toll Roads in Texas are for the Rich folks that buy the Government Guaranteed Bonds!

Then when they go broke,we, the Tax Payers, pick up the debt!


----------



## IndyLions

Bob Dylan said:


> The Days of Wine and Roses is over in this Country, your idea of putting peopleMaybe call it the New Green Deal! All that's lacking is an FDR to Lead us, right now the Marx Brothers are in charge!



The messenger matters. The only way a Green New Deal like approach can work is if the flag is carried by someone who can bring people to consensus non-divisively (ala FDR, as you mentioned). Maybe someone like Biden could do that - but I worry about his current stamina.


----------



## IndyLions

Ryan said:


> ...But none of this has much to do with airlines.



good point - sorry for the detour.

Back to topic - has anyone heard anything lately regarding senators pressuring the airlines to agree to refunds instead of credit? I cancelled 3 trips, involving airlines, Amtrak, hotels and rental cars. Got full refunds on everything, but only credit from Delta & Southwest on those itineraries.


----------



## blueman271

IndyLions said:


> good point - sorry for the detour.
> 
> Back to topic - has anyone heard anything lately regarding senators pressuring the airlines to agree to refunds instead of credit? I cancelled 3 trips, involving airlines, Amtrak, hotels and rental cars. Got full refunds on everything, but only credit from Delta & Southwest on those itineraries.


Last week the DOT sent the airlines a reminder that they must refund tickets when they cancel a flight or significantly change an itinerary. However, if you cancelled your flight then you wouldn’t be eligible for a refund unless you booked a non-refundable ticket. You would only be covered by the applicable airlines current waiver which seems to be the case.
I highly recommend, if at all possible, to wait until the very last minute (two or so hours before departure) to cancel a ticket, if the airline hasn’t already canceled. I have a flight on United in mid-May that I know I’m not taking but I won’t be cancelling my ticket anytime soon. I’m going to wait for them to cancel and then call them to get a refund.

edited because I can’t spell


----------



## IndyLions

blueman271 said:


> Last week the DOT sent the airlines a reminder that they must refund tickets when they cancel a flight or significantly change an itinerary. However, if you cancelled your flight then you wouldn’t be eligible for a refund unless you booked a non-refundable ticket. You would only be covered by the applicable airlines current waiver which seems to be the case.
> I highly recommend, if at all possible, to wait until the very last minute (two or so hours before departure) to cancel a ticket, if the airline hasn’t already canceled. I have a flight on United in mid-May that I know I’m not taking but I won’t be cancelling my ticket anytime soon. I’m going to wait for them to cancel and then call them to get a refund.
> 
> edited because I can’t spell



Thanks. I guess that is irony for you. The safe/responsible thing to do is to cancel well ahead of time so the airline knows your intentions and can plan accordingly. If you do that - “No refund for you!” 

If you wait until the last second, in which case the airline thinks you intend to travel anyway - it causes more work for the airlines and forces them to re-arrange a flight itinerary you have no intention of fulfilling - you get the refund.

In Amtrak’s case - as long as you call the hotline in nearly all cases you can get a full refund on fares and itineraries that pre-Covid19 were penalty/voucher only.


----------



## jebr

Some posts have been removed that were off-topic and political. Please ensure to stay relatively on-topic in this thread.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> I disagree with that. The Company thrived even more, when it regained private ownership, after the IPO. The government could have disallowed the other two railroads to merge with it, under existing antitrust laws, without having to be on its board of directors.


When you say "thrived," do you mean the company's financial performance or the amount and quality of freight rail service it provided?


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> When you say "thrived," do you mean the company's financial performance or the amount and quality of freight rail service it provided?


Unfortunately, I do not have a source to verify that statement...sorry. The only thing I do know, was my purchase of that stock was _very_ rewarding...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anybody else notice the international air freight market is seizing up due to lack of available lift? The handful of countries that were still able to exchange goods are running out of commercial flights to leverage. Freight aggregators that normally serve hundreds of countries with a long list of schedules are down to less than a dozen destinations with only one or two active contracts remaining. Medical and private contract goods are still moving but that's about it. I can only imagine what the outbound interchange facilities look like right now.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Flying of goods was always expensive. The increase in demand just shows another problem with the Just-In-Time supply chain. Sure a lot of C-5 galaxy aircraft sitting around awaiting orders. If and when there needed.


----------



## railiner

Wonder when they'll convert A-380's into freighter's?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Wonder when they'll convert A-380's into freighter's?


A380 conversions would only be able to handle parcel traffic and in that role the financials are unlikely to net a meaningful profit.


----------



## jiml

Air Canada has "temporarily" converted 5 777-300's to freighters. It's quite a sight to see the footage of a plane that size totally empty save for bulkheads.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> A380 conversions would only be able to handle parcel traffic and in that role the financials are unlikely to net a meaningful profit.


Why is that? Why couldn't they be converted to full freighter's, handling container's and everything else air freighter's carry?


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> Air Canada has "temporarily" converted 5 777-300's to freighters. It's quite a sight to see the footage of a plane that size totally empty save for bulkheads.


They still left the wall panels, and overhead bins and ceilings intact...hope they don't get damaged or badly marred while carrying whatever they will be carrying...


----------



## Just-Thinking-51

Loaded those converted aircraft is going to be a pain. Fingerprinting ever box, no forklift, no roller boards. A lot of time, or a lot of people in close contact.


----------



## jiml

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Loaded those converted aircraft is going to be a pain. Fingerprinting ever box, no forklift, no roller boards. A lot of time, or a lot of people in close contact.


I agree, and surely the size of the doors are going to slow things down too. Same for A-380 x 2 levels. While both aircraft have huge cargo holds, their upper levels weren't designed for speedy loading of cargo. That's why "back in the day" some airlines had Combi models with a large cargo door on the main level.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

jiml said:


> View attachment 17388


Now that is leg room.


----------



## jiml

AmtrakBlue said:


> Now that is leg room.


I believe the 777-300 and the A340-600 are the longest commercial aircraft in the world.


----------



## Trogdor

railiner said:


> Why is that? Why couldn't they be converted to full freighter's, handling container's and everything else air freighter's carry?



My main guess is that the floors aren’t strong enough to handle the dense cargo that most freighters carry. This is one of the main reasons that a 777 passenger-to-freighter conversion has been so slow to be developed.

Strengthening the floors would be an expensive task, and that would add weight to an already relatively inefficient fuselage. Then there’s the whole upper deck, which would be difficult to use without massive infrastructure investment to load upstairs, and it would be difficult to get a return on investment for those costs.


----------



## jis

Passenger 777-300s are being used as freighters by several airlines to make some money while market is down. Apparently you can run a 777-300ER profitably just by filling its belly with the maximum number of containers that it can hold while leaving the passenger compartment empty. It is not possible to do so using the A380, so they were the first intercontinental aircraft to be parked as this episode evolved.. It is surmised that many of them will never get unparked after this ends.


----------



## Dakota 400

jis said:


> Apparently you can run a 777-300ER profitably just by filling its belly with the maximum number of containers that it can hold while leaving the passenger compartment empty



Wow! I'd like to see the interior of that area!


----------



## Night Ranger

Saw this story yesterday that Delta has received permission to fly cargo in passenger cabins. In the article, the Delta CEO says it could be 3 years before Delta sees a "sustainable recovery" in passenger travel. 









With few passengers, Delta gets FAA approval to carry cargo in cabin


Delta Air Lines says it has received Federal Aviation Administration approval to carry cargo in overhead bins.




www.ajc.com


----------



## jiml

jis said:


> Passenger 777-300s are being used as freighters by several airlines to make some money while market is down. Apparently you can run a 777-300ER profitably just by filling its belly with the maximum number of containers that it can hold while leaving the passenger compartment empty.


That makes sense, and removing all the seats would lighten their load and increase capacity at the same time.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Why is that? Why couldn't they be converted to full freighter's, handling container's and everything else air freighter's carry?


Full freighter conversions are an involved process that borrows from the design and testing of the production freighter version. The A380 platform abandoned freighter concepts early in the design process so new solutions would need to be created and tested from scratch with little in the way of prior effort to call upon. The time and expense required to convert the world's largest, heaviest, and least flexible passenger aircraft into a newly certified (but still inflexible) full service freighter would be immense. You would have to work around several passenger-specific design choices that never took freighter service into consideration (floor strength, pallet clearance, loading access, weight management, fire suppression, etc.). Then you would need regulators to certify your work and to convince manufacturers to support your modifications at a reasonable cost. Put frankly this would be a massive undertaking with an extremely limited path to financial success. Hundreds of aircraft with established conversion plans are entering the secondary market leaving little demand for unproven solutions with limited flexibility. The most viable plan I've seen for A380's on the secondary market are high density wet leasing arrangements for troop movements, religious pilgrimages, and emergency evacuations. That role is already certified and supported with minimal effort involved. Any A380's that survive their first retirement will probably end up there.


----------



## jis

jiml said:


> That makes sense, and removing all the seats would lighten their load and increase capacity at the same time.


Very few of the passenger airlines that are in the freight husiness using their 777s at this time are actually removing seats in a big way. Some are just loading light cargo into the the passenger section on the seats covered by heavy duty plastic wrappers. Many are simply not using that compartment at all. As I said, you don;t need to to operate a reasonably profitable operation, the 77W is that good. 78Js are also being used similarly.


----------



## Michigan Mom

maybe lots of lower weight/ lower dimension medical shipments.. the temperature controlled cabins are actually ideal for when a certain temperature range is indicated.


----------



## railiner

I could see one possible advantage of the huge size of the 380...they could reconfigure the seating into a "social distancing" configuration, and still carry enough to perhaps run some flights at a profit....not sure...


----------



## Trogdor

I don’t think there is any airplane that can be profitably flown in any configuration when social distancing must be maintained.

The A380 has a lot of space, but it is also the most expensive modern passenger plane in the world to fly on a per-trip basis. That space costs money. That money requires revenue. Revenue means high airfares, which would mean few would be able to afford them.

If the A380 could be profitable with 150 or so people on board, it would have sold more than the 250 that it did.


----------



## bratkinson

It was just announced today in Forbes and other publications that Richard Branson, owner of VIrgin Atlantic Airlines, is seeking a buyer for the airline. click here

It makes one wonder what the future of Brightline in Florida and now California & Nevada will be...
Warning...don't post Virgin railroad holdings comments in this thread.


----------



## jis

bratkinson said:


> It was just announced today in Forbes and other publications that Richard Branson, owner of VIrgin Atlantic Airlines, is seeking a buyer for the airline. click here
> 
> It makes one wonder what the future of Brightline in Florida and now California & Nevada will be...
> Warning...don't post Virgin railroad holdings comments in this thread.


Well, you should not have posted your ill informed comment on this thread if you did not want a followup post  So here goes 

Those two are not financially as deeply connected as most confused people think they are. Branson's financial involvement in Brightline is less than 5% of the total book value of the company. It is still mostly an FECI/ Softbank operation. If it sinks it will be due to Florida Real Estate market tanking (which could happen but at present appears to be unlikely) and will have very little to do with Branson or Virgin Atlantic. Even if Branson decides to bail and pull his small investment that by itself will not sink Brightline.


----------



## willem

Trogdor said:


> If the A380 could be profitable with 150 or so people on board, it would have sold more than the 250 that it did.



That might be true, but your analysis does not complete the proof. Other aircraft could fly 150 people at a greater profit, so airlines bought other aircraft for flights that were expected to have 150 passengers. This does not mean that the A380 could not make a profit with 150 passengers. (It doesn't mean it could, either.)

Of course, flying with 150 passengers with revenue exceeding variable costs would be better than not flying, even if the flight lost money due to fixed costs. The fixed costs are there regardless.


----------



## jiml

It is going to be a very long time before airlines return to anything resembling pre-Covid. I would not be surprised to see many A-380's parked permanently, since only the Middle-Eastern carriers with very deep pockets will be able to afford to fly them. The era of the large jet may be done for good, with the airlines focusing on super long-range versions of smaller planes. KLM took advantage of the current situation to retire the last of their 747's a year before planned, and apparently Qantas has now followed with a similar advance, affecting the 6 still flying. If you're a plane fan that loves the 747, this is really sad news.


----------



## NS VIA Fan

Here's an Air Canada '777 with the seats removed and the cabin converted for cargo:


----------



## railiner

That's a great video, thanks for posting the link!

And thanks to those worker's, helping to transport health essential products....


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

jis said:


> Well, you should not have posted your ill informed comment on this thread if you did not want a followup post  So here goes
> 
> Those two are not financially as deeply connected as most confused people think they are. Branson's financial involvement in Brightline is less than 5% of the total book value of the company. It is still mostly an FECI/ Softbank operation. If it sinks it will be due to Florida Real Estate market tanking (which could happen but at present appears to be unlikely) and will have very little to do with Branson or Virgin Atlantic. Even if Branson decides to bail and pull his small investment that by itself will not sink Brightline.


I guess nobody wanted his island (which he claims was a business that he lived in) as collateral for a loan? 

Wasn't the Virgin branding on Brightline essentially naming rights (like the Sears Tower becoming the Willis Tower, or a sports arena)? As I understand it, it wasn't even a franchise, correct?


----------



## railiner

Branson now has to add a brand new cruisline, that launched a new ship, and can't cruise to his woes, although it is a joint venture with Bain Capital...


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> Branson now has to add a brand new cruisline, that launched a new ship, and can't cruise to his woes, although it is a joint venture with Bain Capital...



Poor Mr. Branson. Introducing Scarlet Lady to the cruising market at "just the poorest time". (Good looking vessel, though.) His crystal ball must be just as fuzzy as the rest of ours are.


----------



## saxman

So perhaps a little surprising but not so much is that Delta is parking their entire 777 fleet permanently. They only have 18 of them and they've always been a small part of their wide body fleet. The MD-88/90's are also done as of June 2.

Delta Fleet Plans

Haven't heard much other yet, from the other US carriers fleet plans yet. American has said they will permanently park their older 737's along with the E-190's and Airbus A330-300's. 767's and 757's are done too. AA has a huge chunk of 777's and 787's for the majority of it's long haul fleet. 787's can do almost the same job as the 777 on most routes so I've heard talk of older 777's being parked as well. It all depends on international travel. 

United also rely's on only 787's and 777 for its long haul flights as well. 767's are being parked as well.

I'm curious to see the future of long thinner markets that usually comprise of 767 and 757 type aircraft. I fly to Shannon, Ireland a lot, and the summer months usually have a 757 doing non-stops to the East Coast. Perhaps the A321's will start doing that if there is even demand for it.


----------



## jis

United just unparked 17 of their RR 757s for induction back into their June schedule lineup, which is expanding service considerably. They are also unparking a significant part of their 739ER fleet, and even several 772s. Of course they already had all their 77Ws and 78Js operating regularly, though rotating through the fleet, since all of the fleet was not needed for their May schedule.


----------



## Exvalley

I have a credit that is about to expire so I booked a half-day trip to Boston. I arrive in Boston at 8:10 AM and my return flight is at 1:47 PM. This is really just an excuse to purchase some items in Little Italy. I'm definitely nervous to be in an airplane with other people, but the maximum number of passengers on the plane is nine, so that helps. My guess is that there will be just a couple of us on the flight.

It will be interesting to see how dead things are at the airport. The flight tracking website I use says that the overall number of commercial flights has ticked up in the past few weeks. 

My last flight was a London to Boston flight on March 2nd that was half empty. People were just starting to cancel their trips then.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I flew on the 4 biggest US airlines during the pandemic to see which is handling it best, and found one blew the rest out of the water


I found that, above all, social distancing is a concept that varies depending on which airline you choose to fly on during the pandemic.




www.businessinsider.com




According to this review of the major US airlines it sounds like Delta is doing the most to address safety concerns with actual policy, Southwest has reduced passenger loads but struggles with boarding controls, United pays lip service to safety concerns and expects passengers to request a change to an emptier flight (which may not exist), while American is already back to business as usual like nothing ever happened.


----------



## saxman

TSA checkpoint travel numbers for 2020 and 2019 | Transportation Security Administration

Here's a link to passenger throughput for the US. July 6th broke 750,000 vs. a low of 87,000 on April 14th. July 6th 2019 (or same weekday) was over 2.7 million. 

Some days are still kinda busy when I travel, but over half the retail and restaurants in airports remain closed. Most airline clubs remain closed save for a handful of clubs in the hubs.


----------



## daybeers

Devil's Advocate said:


> I flew on the 4 biggest US airlines during the pandemic to see which is handling it best, and found one blew the rest out of the water
> 
> 
> I found that, above all, social distancing is a concept that varies depending on which airline you choose to fly on during the pandemic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this review of the major US airlines it sounds like Delta is doing the most to address safety concerns with actual policy, Southwest has reduced passenger loads but struggles with boarding controls, United pays lip service to safety concerns and expects passengers to request a change to an emptier flight (which may not exist), while American is already back to business as usual like nothing ever happened.


That's craziness! I don't get it! Things aren't going back to even a "new normal" until a couple months after the vaccine comes out, and the United States is a first-world country. Just think of how hard third-world countries will be hit. It took forever to eradicate Ebola and nobody in the U.S. gave a ****.


----------



## Willbridge

Airline travel horror stories mount as Americans pack the not-so-friendly skies

Interesting how things change.


----------



## John Bredin

Willbridge said:


> Airline travel horror stories mount as Americans pack the not-so-friendly skies
> 
> Interesting how things change.


It's like the aviation industry got... a shot in the arm.


----------



## railiner

Willbridge said:


> Airline travel horror stories mount as Americans pack the not-so-friendly skies
> 
> Interesting how things change.


Good article. Glad to hear that the "zero-tolerance" policy for unruly behavior is having the desired effect of diminishing it. I think that besides an airline permanently banning unruly passenger's for life, the TSA should put them on the "no fly list", also for life, so that they can't fly on any airline. That should make people think twice before "acting out"....


----------



## Barb Stout

Willbridge said:


> Airline travel horror stories mount as Americans pack the not-so-friendly skies
> 
> Interesting how things change.


I had figured this was bound to happen. Between high prices, travel industry labor shortages, and this kind of bad behavior, I'm glad that I had already determined that I would do short camping trips mid-week within my own state for my vacations this summer. Lake Quemado and Eagle Nest Lake, here I come!


----------



## Willbridge

Barb Stout said:


> I had figured this was bound to happen. Between high prices, travel industry labor shortages, and this kind of bad behavior, I'm glad that I had already determined that I would do short camping trips mid-week within my own state for my vacations this summer. Lake Quemado and Eagle Nest Lake, here I come!


Yes, good idea! I received a painful series of text msgs from a friend stranded for two days by a major airline. A mechanical triggered a canceled flight and then the process of finding seats to redistribute a sold-out plane's load took a longggg time.


----------



## jiml

Air Canada vows to fight US$26-million penalty from U.S. over unpaid refunds


----------



## jis

Willbridge said:


> Yes, good idea! I received a painful series of text msgs from a friend stranded for two days by a major airline. A mechanical triggered a canceled flight and then the process of finding seats to redistribute a sold-out plane's load took a longggg time.


I was in a cascade of events that started with a mechanical at Newark on an itinerary to Delhi India, flying through London on what was then UA 2 round the world flight, finally got me delayed close to 24 hours and the rerouting went via Hong Kong and the last leg on UA 1 instead. I have never had anything to beat that one yet.

Many years before that in 1978 or thereabouts I had an Air India reservation goofup that got me onto Pan Am going from Delhi via Hong Kong and Tokyo to JFK instead of Air India via London to JFK. That is the time I got to fly on Pan Am's 747SP on the Tokyo - JFK leg.


----------

