How long before airlines start hiring again?

[Raoul Duke]

based on traffic released by CO it is going to be uglier than post 911. This is the worst operating environment I could imagine.

 

[crj567]

Well-

Here is the truth... We elected a president who is an avowed Marxist. This man is good at giving a speech, but seems to have few talents other than keeping the chair he is currently occupying from flying away. This bonehead and his buds in congress (slobbering Barney Frank, Pelosi, and other assorted retardgencia) keep making dumber and dumber moves which make the U.S. economy suck progressively greater amounts of wind.

If this blockhead figures out that what he is doing is having the opposite of the desired economic effects, and ceases doing these things, our economy could recover quickly.

If said blockhead continues down the same road which Carter was so familiar with (which is far more likely,) then things will clearly deteriorate. It could be a rough couple of years for us all.

Fact is we are in a Capitalistic country (for now,) and these sillly "tax the rich and punish coroprations" populist policies simply have no place here-we have seen similar crap fail miserably time and time again. Airlines have razor-thin profit margins, even in the best of times. The more socio-economic experimentation these clowns engage in, the worse off all the airlines (and the entire economy) will be.

I tend to think that the Dems wil get their teeth kicked around Nov 2010. By then, it will be clear that all of "Bush's failed economic policies" are clearly no longer responsible for the present mayhem. If this scenario happens, the economy and airlines will be riding high again in a couple of years, and the current nightmare will begin to fade.

-"Change we can believe in" (sounds catchy)
-"Yes we can" (bankrupt the country)

 

[JetFumes]

Well-

Here is the truth... We elected a president who is an avowed Marxist. This man is good at giving a speech, but seems to have few talents other than keeping the chair he is currently occupying from flying away. This bonehead and his buds in congress (slobbering Barney Frank, Pelosi, and other assorted retardgencia) keep making dumber and dumber moves which make the U.S. economy suck progressively greater amounts of wind.

If this blockhead figures out that what he is doing is having the opposite of the desired economic effects, and ceases doing these things, our economy could recover quickly.

If said blockhead continues down the same road which Carter was so familiar with (which is far more likely,) then things will clearly deteriorate. It could be a rough couple of years for us all.

Fact is we are in a Capitalistic country (for now,) and these sillly "tax the rich and punish coroprations" populist policies simply have no place here-we have seen similar crap fail miserably time and time again. Airlines have razor-thin profit margins, even in the best of times. The more socio-economic experimentation these clowns engage in, the worse off all the airlines (and the entire economy) will be.

I tend to think that the Dems wil get their teeth kicked around Nov 2010. By then, it will be clear that all of "Bush's failed economic policies" are clearly no longer responsible for the present mayhem. If this scenario happens, the economy and airlines will be riding high again in a couple of years, and the current nightmare will begin to fade.

-"Change we can believe in" (sounds catchy)
-"Yes we can" (bankrupt the country)

OK, for the record. I didn't vote for the guy, but isn't he just letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the richer Americans. We were doing ok in the 90s with the older tax code. That said, I think he is making a huge mistake with this level of spennding.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

based on traffic released by CO it is going to be uglier than post 911. This is the worst operating environment I could imagine.

Then you aren't imagining hard enough. I can think of about 10 different ways we could have a worse operating environment.

 

[crj567]

OK, for the record. I didn't vote for the guy, but isn't he just letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the richer Americans. We were doing ok in the 90s with the older tax code. That said, I think he is making a huge mistake with this level of spennding.

He is "letting Bush's tax cuts expire." Capital gains, income, corporate taxes are all going way up..... Besides, jacking up taxes in a crumbing economy will only lead to a total disaster.

The real kicker is that he is going to KILL small businesses. I read somewhere that about 85% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. If you are small enough that you have to report the net income of the small business along with your own personal income, it is not hard to fall into the "rich category." You could actually fall into this category and not even make a profit.

I am not sure whether Obama is ignorant of the way the economy works, or if he actually wants to weaken our country to make it "fair" for the rest of the world. Either way, it will SUCK!

-Our country will be officially bankrupt within ten years-thanks to this fool!

 

[Andy Neill]

... If you are small enough that you have to report the net income of the small business along with your own personal income, it is not hard to fall into the "rich category." You could actually fall into this category and not even make a profit....

How can you not make a profit and wind up in the rich category unless your non-business income puts you there?

 

[rumorhasit]

Oh yea and good luck trying to make ANY MONEY as a flight instructor (independent...ie small business). With the proposed user fees and the 12500 lbs security regs dont worry about getting a flying gig.

Obama has killed 12 years of stock market growth in his first 100 days.

 

[crj567]

How can you not make a profit and wind up in the rich category unless your non-business income puts you there?

I am no accountant, but I think it would be easy to go over this threshold with a small business (many small businesses are structured so that the owner has to file income as personal income).... It really depends on whether the $250K is defined as net or gross income... If it is defined as gross, it would actually be easy to be above that level and even take an actual loss... Operating expenses>gross income=Net loss. (also keep in mind that Obama will be eliminating many of the deductions people in this category could have made.)

PLUS- Obama will bring back the Estate Tax... This horrible confiscatory tax is my favorite target-it puts the screws to anyone who has played by the rules their whole lives and managed to accumulate some wealth (such as any farmer with 1,000 acres or more of family land.) The govt. just comes and takes about half when you die-just because. The real kicker is: Scumbags like Ted Kennedy get to skate by tax-free because their rich-ass-bootlegging daddy set them up an irrevokable trust! That ass never had to work a day in his drunk life.

-Obma will completely destroy this economy, and grin like a big-eared idiot while doing so!

 

[Abbey]

He is "letting Bush's tax cuts expire." Capital gains, income, corporate taxes are all going way up..... Besides, jacking up taxes in a crumbing economy will only lead to a total disaster.

The real kicker is that he is going to KILL small businesses. I read somewhere that about 85% of all new jobs are created by small businesses. If you are small enough that you have to report the net income of the small business along with your own personal income, it is not hard to fall into the "rich category." You could actually fall into this category and not even make a profit.

I am not sure whether Obama is ignorant of the way the economy works, or if he actually wants to weaken our country to make it "fair" for the rest of the world. Either way, it will SUCK!

-Our country will be officially bankrupt within ten years-thanks to this fool!

Pretty much. I am going to have to limit what my small business produces in way of income so that my total income does not reach the mark of me owing the government 40% of MY work. Nothing like government mandating a population of under-achievers.

Of course, this is in fact what they want. They need their families to have zero competition.

 

[brokedash]

Oh yea and good luck trying to make ANY MONEY as a flight instructor (independent...ie small business). With the proposed user fees and the 12500 lbs security regs dont worry about getting a flying gig.

Obama has killed 12 years of stock market growth in his first 100 days.

How exactly has Obama killed the market? Did he sell off all the shares? More realisitic is the fact that the economy was was already shooting down before O got elected. This was the result of rampant greed and un-regulated speculation in the marketplace.

When the market goes down, sellers sell off and in situations where the greed resulted in colssal business failures, it only aggrevated the market further. This sent the average down. This is what has kept it down because the reality has been shown that the 10000 and 14000 pt markets were largely that high because massive amounts of greed and rampant speculation.

Will the market get better, yes. But don't act like it has to get as high as it was to say it's better. Better will actual see the market adjust and grow slower better reflecting the return to traditional pricinpales vs. the buy, buy, buy method of rampant speculators and un-educated day traders looking to get rich quick without consideration that their actions will lead to what we are currently experiencing.

 

[LivestockTony]

I am no accountant, but I think it would be easy to go over this threshold with a small business (many small businesses are structured so that the owner has to file income as personal income).... It really depends on whether the $250K is defined as net or gross income... If it is defined as gross, it would actually be easy to be above that level and even take an actual loss... Operating expenses>gross income=Net loss. (also keep in mind that Obama will be eliminating many of the deductions people in this category could have made.)

Business taxes are on the basis of net income. If you lose money you have _always_ had a credit you could carry forward. That's why people with legitimate businesses keep reciepts... to document SG&A (selling, general and administrative) expenses. If you're paying taxes (except for segregating sales taxes) on your sales reciepts, you need to get a new accountant.

The top marginal tax rate was 94% in 1944 and 1945 (ok, we were at war), and was 91% from '54-63.* Industry did just fine-- the later in particular was a point when the US was rising to the top of the world's economy and taking no prisoners. People "limiting income" to avoid 40% taxes is a bit rich.
-TF


*- figures from the first link I found with a search for 'top marginal tax rates us'. Consistant with what I'd read elsewheres anyways, but I don't know anything about the site.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

[wms]

To the original question, they'll hire when the furloughs are back and continue hiring until they furlough again.

 

[lookin4better]

it will be a looooong time ...

all the regionals will look like Eagle with very senior Captains.... many will get stuck at the regionals for a career.

 

[JustaNumber]

How exactly has Obama killed the market? Did he sell off all the shares? More realisitic is the fact that the economy was was already shooting down before O got elected. This was the result of rampant greed and un-regulated speculation in the marketplace.

This pearl of conventional wisdom needs to be addressed. So many people keep repeating it, that for some it is being held up as fact. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Allow me to paste an extremely informative article by the highly respected economist Thomas Sowell, as I could not say it nearly as well.

UPSIDE DOWN ECONOMICS

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us. What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

 

[USCtrojan]

This pearl of conventional wisdom needs to be addressed. So many people keep repeating it, that for some it is being held up as fact. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Allow me to paste an extremely informative article by the highly respected economist Thomas Sowell, as I could not say it nearly as well.

UPSIDE DOWN ECONOMICS

From television specials to newspaper editorials, the media are pushing the idea that current economic problems were caused by the market and that only the government can rescue us. What was lacking in the housing market, they say, was government regulation of the market's "greed." That makes great moral melodrama, but it turns the facts upside down.

It was precisely government intervention which turned a thriving industry into a basket case.

An economist specializing in financial markets gave a glimpse of the history of housing markets when he said: "Lending money to American homebuyers had been one of the least risky and most profitable businesses a bank could engage in for nearly a century."

That was what the market was like before the government intervened. Like many government interventions, it began small and later grew.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 directed federal regulatory agencies to "encourage" banks and other lending institutions "to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

That sounds pretty innocent and, in fact, it had little effect for more than a decade. However, its premise was that bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans.

The real potential of that premise became apparent in the 1990s, when the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) imposed a requirement that mortgage lenders demonstrate with hard data that they were meeting their responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act.

What HUD wanted were numbers showing that mortgage loans were being made to low-income and moderate-income people on a scale that HUD expected, even if this required "innovative or flexible" mortgage eligibility standards.

In other words, quotas were imposed— and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed.

Both HUD and the Department of Justice began bringing lawsuits against mortgage bankers when a higher percentage of minority applicants than white applicants were turned down for mortgage loans.

A substantial majority of both black and white mortgage loan applicants had their loans approved but a statistical difference was enough to get a bank sued.

It should also be noted that the same statistical sources from which data on blacks and whites were obtained usually contained data on Asian Americans as well. But those data on Asian Americans were almost never mentioned.

Whites were turned down for mortgage loans more often than Asian Americans. But saying that would undermine the reasoning on which the whole moral melodrama and political crusades were based.

Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval.

Government regulators refused to approve such decisions when a lender was under investigation for not producing satisfactory statistics on loans to low-income people or minorities.

Under growing pressures from both the Clinton administration and later the George W. Bush administration, banks began to lower their lending standards.

Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded. Although this was done under pressures begun in the name of the poor and minorities, people who were neither could also get these mortgage loans.

With mortgage loans widely available to people with questionable prospects of being able to keep up the payments, it was an open invitation to financial disaster.

Those who warned of the dangers had their warnings dismissed. Now, apparently, we need more politicians intervening in more industries, if you believe the politicians and the media.

And what I love most about Sowell is that he's black. He's as much of a fan of Obama, as I am.

Trojan