Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry?


John Gaquin wrote:
There was the one-time bailout following the terrorist attacks

Correct.
No subsidy there, huh?

... which
legislation did include what you could call indirect subsidy in the form of
deferred tax payments, etc.

If by "etc" you mean guaranteed bond backing & loans (grants really
since nobody expectes them to be paid back, but calling it a "loan"
helps mask the size of the deficit) then yep, right again.

But that's not really a "subsidy" is it? I mean, what's a few billion
among friends right?

... These deferments have, I believe, all passed in
the intervening 4 years.

Bzzzt
But you're 2 for 3 here, pretty good.

... There is also a small program to subsidize
essential air service to small rural communities, comprising some $120M per
annum, a statistical pittance of which, I believe, Southwest does not
partake.

Don't know about that, if true the program doesn't work. Rural air
service sucks, and that's on the east coast near the DC-Boston axis.

... Generally speaking, though, the days are long gone when airlines
were broadly subsidized by federal money across the board.


Other than all the subsidies and unpaid loans, yeah. But who's gonna get
picky about details when you're having a nice little fascist rant?

Actually I'm glad to see that you have at least a slight connection to
reality, even if you forget at times. Perhaps you could keep an eye on
the other members of your little club.

DSK