Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Key U.S. Democrat readies bill to help a

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

justApilot

Dawn Patroller
Joined
Jan 27, 2002
Posts
346
Key U.S. Democrat readies bill to help airlines
Monday March 3, 6:51 pm ET
By Susan Cornwell


WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - Legislation is being drafted to help U.S. airlines with financial hardships that could result from a war with Iraq, a key congressional Democrat said on Monday.
Warning that war would cost the already ailing industry billions of dollars, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, said he hoped to introduce the aid bill "as soon as possible."

Oberstar's measure would propose reopening a federal loan guarantee program to cover rising fuel prices, as well as provisions on war risk insurance and compensating airlines for strengthening cockpit doors -- a security measure imposed by Congress after the hijack attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Oberstar told Reuters.

The bill might also include provisions for opening U.S. strategic petroleum stocks to ease fuel costs.

The first Gulf War in 1991 cost the airlines four to five billion dollars as revenue from transatlantic travel dropped by 50 percent, Oberstar said. "This time it could be as much as 14 or 15 billion," a level that would force some carriers out of business, he said.

Oberstar hopes to get bipartisan support for his bill.

House Republicans say they are listening to airline pleas for help, but they appear in less of a hurry to produce legislation before the start of a possible conflict with Iraq.

SEEKING SUPPORT

So far Congress has looked skeptically at suggestions it should extend another hand to the carriers after approving a $15 billion package of cash and loan guarantee assistance for losses incurred after the 2001 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon, accelerating the worst-ever industry downturn.

Airline representatives will testify at a hearing on March 12 on the Federal Aviation Administration, providing a forum to discuss airline needs in case of military action in Iraq, a House Republican aide said. Airline industry lobbyists also are trying to forge an aid proposal.

"When we see what their aid request is, we'll have a better idea of what they feel they need. Then we can see what the members say and get a better idea of what we are prepared to do," the Republican aide said.

The Republican aide also said many of the provisions Oberstar described were similar to those in a bill sponsored last year by Rep. John Mica, a Florida Republican and chairman of the aviation subcommittee.

That bill was approved by the subcommittee late in the congressional session and never made it onto the House floor.

U.S. airlines have warned for months that a war with Iraq could force bankruptcies for some commercial carriers.

They have already requested tax relief to compensate for the expense of airport passenger and baggage screening, but an Oberstar aide said this relief was not expected in his bill.

Congress did include assistance for airline insurance costs in legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security last year.

That measure extended government-issued war-risk insurance through 2003, a provision worth nearly $1 billion to the airline industry. But the carriers want longer relief.

Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican who heads the Senate aviation subcommittee, is concerned about unfunded security mandates imposed on the airlines by the government after Sept 11, 2001, and wants to evaluate their cost -- whether or not there is a war with Iraq, a spokeswoman said.

"Some of these security concerns are something we'll take a look at, but he (Lott) would stop short right now of saying whether or not he would support another bailout bill," the Lott spokeswoman said.
 
Yeah right.

It's a good thing if they actually approve some loans this time. How many airlines went under in the last round because the gov decided they weren't good enough (or well connected enough) to justify a loan guarantee.
 
Ahh, one problem, the Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches, at the present time.
 
Just hope that the money is used wisely and not used to line the pockets of upper management.
 
cl-65link said:
Ahh, one problem, the Republicans control both the legislative and executive branches, at the present time.

I usually don’t talk politics on this board since it’s a hotbed subject with a million responses to a single reply. With that being said, I’ll break my rule this one time.

It’s cracks me up, the liberal vs. conservative ideals. Hardcore democrats try their best to portray the Republican Party as the party of the rich, well-connected businessman. CEOs dominate the political push/pull with a republican president (why, everyone says a CEO will get richer thanks to a GOP president!). Yet, in the same breath they’ll make the comments (see quote) how, since the GOP has “control” over the house, senate and White House, some airline isn’t good enough to get a government backed loan. Seems to me a real contradiction in philosophies here. Didn’t you just say the GOP was all big business? Now you’re telling me that that rich CEO of airline X isn’t making out like a bandit thanks to the GOP.

In reality, airlines turn to the government for guaranteed loans because traditional banks wouldn’t touch that investment with a 10-foot pole. Why? Because, for whatever reason (economic, investment, long term survivability, etc.) airline X can’t show it will be around long enough to payback millions in loans. Therefore, IMHO, why would the government give a loan like this? Do you think K-Mart should be allowed to get a government-backed loan when it hasn't shown it has the ability to stop the financial bleeding?

It seems the democratic criticism changes with the breezes of the day to meet their immediate needs.

2000Flyer
 
hogdriver00 said:
2000 flyer,

Excellent point! Either it's a free market or it's not.

Hog

Frankly, they need to let an airline or two bite the dust... it would be a good thing for the industry as a whole and our profession in the long run.
 
I don't believe that the airlines should get bailout loans again, just termination of certain taxes and compensation on security expenses. 9-11 proved that airline cockpit doors opening in flight can cause National security problems (The AA 757 hitting the Pentagon etc.). It is a defensive measure to secure the cockpit doors---at a cost of $50,000 each. If it is a form of national security, why are we paying for it? And why are the airlines taxed more than every other industry? Some of those taxes should be terminated. As far as bailouts, the Gov't shouldn't have to pay for mismanagement. A lot of the airlines crying for Federal bailouts again made huge mistakes with their management teams. Leo Mullin stated that he doesn't want any bailouts. Ofcourse, he is probably trying to outlast every other airline and see who is standing after this is all over. (That is what Dave Seigel said to his employees on a recent code-e-phone)


Bye Bye--General Lee:cool: :rolleyes: :p
 
Right on General Lee

Everyone should know by now more money doesn't mean a thing. This is true for schools, airlines , and anything else. You can't just through money at something and watch it work. Except a stripper of course. Instead of giving out corporate welfare, the government should help airlines return to profitability by lowering there operations cost. This would include taking over the burden of airport security. Yesterday I saw in 1990 major airlines spent about 20 million a year on security; this year it will be 300 million. Regardless of ideology, I think we all can agree that airport security is a matter of national security. Therefore it should be the burden of the tax payer. The burden of the tax payer should not be giving money out to failing businesses.

Liberals always feel that throwing money some where will make it better; for examlpe ,schools, welfare, arts, government, and airlines. Then if the Republicans try to investigate the source of the problem and come up with a solution that is different or doesn't need as much money the liberals say we are racist, hate kids, hate unions, and most of all hate anyone that is not rich. What a load of BS. Don't be stupid. Go get an education.
 
cocknbull said:
Right on General Lee

Everyone should know by now more money doesn't mean a thing. This is true for schools, airlines , and anything else. You can't just through money at something and watch it work. Except a stripper of course. Instead of giving out corporate welfare, the government should help airlines return to profitability by lowering there operations cost. This would include taking over the burden of airport security. Yesterday I saw in 1990 major airlines spent about 20 million a year on security; this year it will be 300 million. Regardless of ideology, I think we all can agree that airport security is a matter of national security. Therefore it should be the burden of the tax payer. The burden of the tax payer should not be giving money out to failing businesses.

Liberals always feel that throwing money some where will make it better; for examlpe ,schools, welfare, arts, government, and airlines. Then if the Republicans try to investigate the source of the problem and come up with a solution that is different or doesn't need as much money the liberals say we are racist, hate kids, hate unions, and most of all hate anyone that is not rich. What a load of BS. Don't be stupid. Go get an education.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't TSA a federal job and no longer a burden for the airlines?
 
As of right now( since new security measures were put in place) yes, the federal government is paying most of the tab for security. However the airlines are required to take over the tab in the very near future.
 
Jim

Don't forget that dumb @ss sitting on the toilet thinking up all this ingenious security crap, is making $45,000. That is twice what I made last year.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top