[throwaway2048]

Bad situations happen, they have happened before, and they will happen again.

All bailing out companies does in the long run is ensure they run things as close to the line of collapse as possible, because if there is any disruption, the government will bail them out.

It creates titanic systematic risk, and greatly rewards poorly managed companies vs well managed companies.

Any company weathering this storm well might as well have never bothered saving money and making long term wise decisions that may have limited short term upside, when you get a guaranteed bailout when things start going south when you have made decisions that lead to having no reserve capital (see American Airlines 12 billion dollar stock buyback, the airline industry wants a 50 billion dollar bailout, having spent 45b on stock buybacks in the last years, why would they save money when the government will swoop in and pay)

Don't think the individuals running these companies don't see the pattern here.

Its akin to betting red on a roulette wheel every time, and getting more free money when it comes out black instead.

[tathougies]

No business should prepare for their business to become illegal. Air demand is down only partly due to consumer behavior. The majority of the demand is down due to government action. Your argument is like arguing alcohol producers should have prepared for Prohibition.

No the best recourse when your business becomes illegal is to grant a large dividend to shareholders before your creditors liquidate the company. Preparing for your business to become illegal is a waste of money

[triceratops]

> The majority of the demand is down due to government action.

If government action didn't kill demand, the ensuing death toll from letting the virus spread unchecked would eventually do it anyway.

"Travel is illegal" is only the proximate cause of the woes of the airline industry. The root cause is a lack of preparation.

[tathougies]

> If government action didn't kill demand, the ensuing death toll from letting the virus spread unchecked would eventually do it anyway.

2 million people dying in the United States isn't really that much. Given that COVID mostly affects people already more likely to die, the death toll had COVID gone unchecked would likely not be that much greater than the 2.8 million Americans that already die each year. Assuming a 30% overlap, we'd see deaths go from 2.8million to 4.2 million in one year, followed by herd immunity (according to the models). We'd then see subsequent years with a lower death rate (since there'd be fewer people with pre-existing conditions). It is unlikely that this would be as economically devastating as argued. It is incredibly unlikely it would have reduced air demand to the levels we're seeing now.

Air demand would still be around for flights to see family, etc. Most of it is gone due to government regulation. Necessary regulation for sure, but still regulation.

[matthewdgreen]

The Wimbledon organizers paid substantial premiums for pandemic insurance. They recently received a large payout.

[mrkstu]

In this environment, if all the affected business had done the same, the insurance companies would have all gone broke and we'd be at square one.