[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 10:39:36 PM Rhino wrote:
Marky, perhaps one of the least intellectually honest posts you've made.
If you think UAL is worthy of YOUR tax dollars, please explain why.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Hi Rhino,
Please do me a favor and don't question my "intellectual honesty". I've got a right to my viewpoint just as you and everyone else here does. That doesn't make me dishonest.
The ATSB loan guarantee would not involve any expenditures of my tax dollars unless United were to default on the guaranteed loans. The government would simply act as a co-signer, just as they did for Lockheed, and just as they did for the now German-owned Chrysler.
On the contrary, I already have a sizable investment in United via my tax dollars. It was in the form of a cash grant from the government as part of the ATSA legislation. The US airline industry received a $5 Billion gift of public funds, of which United alone received close to $1 billion. So I DO have an investment to look after. And believe it or not, I was opposed to that taxpayer giveaway. Compensation for a three-day government imposed shutdown is one thing, but just throwing around billions of dollars arbitrarily is something else, and that is what essentially happened. United didn't lose a billion dollars as a result of being shut down for three days and neither did AA or anyone else. And that three day shutdown is all the government should have been responsible for.
If you take a moment to ponder the purpose of the establishment of the ATSB, you might discover that the intention was for it to function as the "Air Transportation STABILIZATION Board". That implies that the Congress recognized there was significant financial instability within the airline industry of such a magnitude as to justify government intervention in the form of direct subsidies and loan guarantees. The concept was to stabilize an industry vital to our economic security and economic well-being, our national air transportation system and ultimately therefore, our national security.
I have been as critical as anyone on this board regarding United's years of mismanagement and greed. But that was then and this is now. I defy anyone to support with factual evidence any contention that the demise of United Airlines would not cause potentially substantial injury to our national economic health. They are our second largest carrier. They employ 86,000 people. They fly the most extensive worldwide routes of any US carrier, and along with it, they carry the American flag and our national pride to nations far and wide. In that symbolic respect, they represent American prestige, American power and American goodwill around the world. They are our Ambassador and to me that is no small thing. It's something you can't put a price tag on.
Our industry used to have "back-ups". When PanAm failed, United was there to replace them. When TWA ran into trouble AA was there to pick up the banner. Who will replace United and American? JetBlue??? Give me a break.
The reality is that the US airline industry has gotten boxed into such a corner that for better or for worse, government intervention will become the rule rather than the exception. In that respect some form of re-regulation is on the horizon. Hopefully such regulatory intervention will impose the longterm stability the majors have failed to achieve through a lack of self-discipline, and provide an opportunity for the industry to prosper without massive taxpayer subsidies.
In the meantime, to watch one of our leading carriers fall to its knees and do nothing, is in my view not in our best national interest and therefore unAmerican. So while I'm a free market capitalist, I'm also willing to intervene when it's in our best interests and when thousands of jobs and the families they represent are at stake, and when the air transportation system we enjoy could be threatened, and when the economic quality of life we enjoy could be affected. I guess you could call me a "compassionate conservative".
Marky
43 PM MrMarky wrote: 
