Cyrus Afzali wrote:

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:10:41 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Bob Fry wrote:

"Jay Honeck" writes:

It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in Federal
subsidies and still cannot get by.

Which was, of course, the reason many of us argued against bailing them out
in the first place.

If the business climate is such that an airline cannot make money without
taxpayer support, let it die. The surviving airlines will pounce on the
opportunity, becoming more efficient in the long run.

Great idea. Let's apply this to the ag business in the USA first
though.

In fact, let's apply this to entire states and regions. The entire
Mid-West and South would collapse without the two Coasts subsidizing
them. Not a bad thing really.

The collapse will get real interesting as I watch you function without
southern petro chemicals and ports. Wake up the whole US economy is
mixed and one part cannot collapse without the others going.

Not for nothing, but the impact of the ports on the two coasts is
greater to the overall U.S. economy than any ports in the Gulf.
Remember what the overall impact was when the longshoremen struck in
L.A. a couple of years ago? Huge -- because cars and many other
imports simply sat on docks waiting to be delivered to retailers and
moved through the economy.

It's interesting to see what would happen without New Orleans, Houston,
and Jacksonville. I also wonder what would happen to all the goods at
the LA port if they had to be shipped by central railways. Closing any
major port will have vast repercussions. It was Bobs idea to do without
the whole south.

Closing New Orleans & Houston would certainly settle the agriculture
subsidy issue. With all the farmers up the Miss out of the export
business subsidies would drop greatly.

Note the comment in this thread that 9/11 caused one Canadian airline to
go under. The links go beyond the US.