Should Spirit Airlines be Bailed Out?

RambleTamble

Senior Member
Location
U.S.
Spirit Airlines is currently navigating the choppy, bankruptcy-infested waters of a Chapter 11 restructuring, and naturally, they’ve turned to the U.S. government for a $500 million lifeboat. In exchange for this modest pile of taxpayer cash, the U.S. government will take a 90% ownership stake in the carrier. But while the feds are busy figuring out how to run an airline where "legroom" is considered a luxury upgrade, we really need to talk about the unsung heroes of this ordeal: the executives surviving on a meager $950,000-a-year base salary.

The sheer stress of presiding over a company being repossessed by the public is a burden most of us simply couldn’t handle. While the average Spirit passenger is currently wrestling with a 29-inch seat pitch and wondering if their flight to Myrtle Beach will ever actually exist, CEO Dave Davis is facing the real struggle. Do you have any idea how much it costs to hire a legal team that can successfully explain why you deserve a $4 million signing bonus while the company’s stock is trading for the price of a discarded pretzel nub? That kind of cognitive dissonance causes a level of cortisol spike that a mere $3 million retention bonus can barely soothe.

If anything, we should be talking about a "Bankruptcy Hazard Pay" multiplier. Think about the paperwork! He has to sign his name dozens of times on documents that say things like "90% government ownership." Do you know how much ink that uses?

It’s easy for critics to say, "Maybe don't pay the guy millions when the airline is literally being repossessed by the taxpayers," but those people clearly don't understand the sheer emotional labor involved in watching your golden parachute shrink from "Private Island" size to "Slightly Smaller Private Island" size.

If we don't pay our CEOs top-tier millions during a total financial collapse, how will we ever attract the "top talent" necessary to oversee the next total financial collapse? It’s a specialized skill set. You can’t just hire anyone to lose $500 million; you need a professional.

So, next time you’re paying $65 to carry on a backpack that’s two inches too wide, take comfort in knowing that your "convenience fee" is going toward the most important cause of all: ensuring a CEO doesn't have to experience the trauma of a middle-class lifestyle just because the company he runs technically doesn't have any money left.

~ Authored by AI
 
This was actually discussed in another thread, but that's okay. I hope your OP actually gets more eyeballs.

Some believe it is necessary to bail them out to continue competition in the airline industry. My view is that there is something twisted in the government investing $500 million in an already marginal airline when it is the government that has contributed to their demise due to the war in Iran creating rising fuel costs. Also, if the government will own 90% of the airline, how can they manage it? The administration can't even adequately manage most of the government agencies that are now in place, much less an airline.
 
This was actually discussed in another thread, but that's okay. I hope your OP actually gets more eyeballs.

Some believe it is necessary to bail them out to continue competition in the airline industry. My view is that there is something twisted in the government investing $500 million in an already marginal airline when it is the government that has contributed to their demise due to the war in Iran creating rising fuel costs. Also, if the government will own 90% of the airline, how can they manage it? The administration can't even adequately manage most of the government agencies that are now in place, much less an airline.
Plus, government ownership of an airline is socialism, which a lot of people claim they hate but seem to be okay with it if it helps rich people.

Socialism is good for some things, such as health insurance, fire and police departments, the military, and a few other sectors. In this case, I'm totally against it. If the government owns an airline, it can pass legislation to favor that airline, which hurts the other airlines. It's an all around bad idea. Things like airlines are best left to capitalism.
 
Plus, government ownership of an airline is socialism, which a lot of people claim they hate but seem to be okay with it if it helps rich people.

Socialism is good for some things, such as health insurance, fire and police departments, the military, and a few other sectors. In this case, I'm totally against it. If the government owns an airline, it can pass legislation to favor that airline, which hurts the other airlines. It's an all around bad idea. Things like airlines are best left to capitalism.
👍 👍 👍
 
Back
Top