How To Prevent Destruction of Airline Industry: Non-Profit VerticalOil Company

" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

No one company is allowed to own more than 5 or 10 percent; No airline
is allowed an advantage: Thus there would be some restraint.

The non-profit consortium buys small refinery(ies), which currently
are apparently generally hurting too, apparently because of the
current high cost of raw oil.

The airlines' respective countries' governments encourage this
measure of govt intervention by the (non-market priced) subsidizing
with some of their stored emergency raw oil.

Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.

If they already are doing this in some countries, then everybody else
should get a clue from such.

Robert Cohen wrote:

" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

No one company is allowed to own more than 5 or 10 percent; No airline
is allowed an advantage: Thus there would be some restraint.

The non-profit consortium buys small refinery(ies), which currently
are apparently generally hurting too, apparently because of the
current high cost of raw oil.


LOL......

How about this?

1. Oil is a commodity
2. If airlines can't make a profit due to the price of a commodity they
need, perhaps they shouldn't be flying. Joe Touris is going to have to
understand that you can't fly LAX to LHR on $200.

On Apr 21, 10:48*pm, James Robinson wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.

Why do they need to do this?

In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their
operating cost. *All they need to do is pass the cost on to their
customers. *The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that
they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is
high.

Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price
of fuel so it is predictable. *It's called hedging. *Southwest uses it to
great advantage over its competitors. *The others just haven't learned.

My Perceptions & Conjectures of why Uncle should intervene

Flying is a choice or option for many of us.

The passenger load or population or amount of air commerce thus
seemingly diminshes as the fare price increases

Certainly the leisure & tourist passenger population diminish

Tourism is not an insignificant industry as it perhaps was 50+ years
ago

The airport of Atlanta is considered the important numero uno employer
(as I've read)

It's something of a "public utility"

Business trips dimish less, particularly as they're expense write-
offs, not out of pocket for many of the business passengers, though
some companies would seemingly now cut some trips (thinking of that tv
commercial about
meeting the customer in person to retain loyalty)

I concede the necessity case can be made by the important trucking
industry too

With the real estate/mortgage default debacle and the increasing/
doubling/tripling of fuel cost, there are destined bad economic times

That Delta's stock price hasn't increased, the market considers fuel
as biggest problem/hindrance

Of course you guys are "right"

James Robinson wrote:

Robert Cohen wrote:


Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.


Why do they need to do this?

In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their
operating cost. All they need to do is pass the cost on to their
customers. The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that
they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is
high.

Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price
of fuel so it is predictable. It's called hedging. Southwest uses it to
great advantage over its competitors. The others just haven't learned.

It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the
airline has a sound financial position.

In article ,
"Mr. Travel" wrote:

It isn't that they have to learn. The ability to hedge requires that the
airline has a sound financial position.

All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing.

On 22 Apr, 03:48, James Robinson wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.

Why do they need to do this?

In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their
operating cost. *All they need to do is pass the cost on to their
customers. *The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that
they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is
high.

Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price
of fuel so it is predictable. *It's called hedging. *Southwest uses it to
great advantage over its competitors. *The others just haven't learned.

Or they just 'gambled' the wrong way.

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

"Mr. Travel" wrote:

The ability to hedge requires that the airline has a sound financial
position.

All it requires is that they spend the money. It is priority thing.

Yes and no. He's right that a company has to be financially solvent to
participate in the hedge market. It's one of the things that works against
companies that are heading down the tubes.

Again it is priority. They are losing money, but it then becomes
what is more important to the airline's honchos. Especially when going
down the tubes, they have to decide if short term is more important than
long term. It is a decision they make, a priority they establish.



poorly if the market goes down, but more importantly, they know what the
price for their fuel will be, and can financially plan accordingly.

Which should be (now whether or not it is another thread altogether)
doubly important if you are going down the tubes. I mean planning for
your single biggest or second biggest expense isn't important when times
are rough?
It is a non-sexy expense, so it goes by the wayside and then people
get bit twice.

On Apr 22, 1:15*am, Robert Cohen wrote:
On Apr 21, 10:48*pm, James Robinson wrote:





Robert Cohen wrote:
Hey, it's only a napkin dooodle idea, though something does need to be
done in the public interest, as more bankruptcies will seemingly hurt
the very competitive industry more.

Why do they need to do this?

In the first place, all airlines have to buy fuel as part of their
operating cost. *All they need to do is pass the cost on to their
customers. *The fact that the airlines aren't making money is simply that
they all are charging too little for their services, not that fuel cost is
high.

Second, airlines already have the financial mechanism to control the price
of fuel so it is predictable. *It's called hedging. *Southwest uses it to
great advantage over its competitors. *The others just haven't learned..

My Perceptions & Conjectures of why Uncle should intervene

Flying is a choice or option for many of us.

The passenger load or population or amount of air commerce thus
seemingly diminshes as the fare price increases

Certainly the leisure & tourist passenger population diminish

Tourism is not an insignificant industry as it perhaps was 50+ years
ago

The airport of Atlanta is considered the important numero uno employer
(as I've read)

It's something of a "public utility"

Business trips dimish less, particularly as they're expense write-
offs, not out of pocket for many of the business passengers, though
some companies would seemingly now cut some trips (thinking of that tv
commercial about
meeting the customer in person to retain loyalty)

I concede *the necessity case can be made by the important trucking
industry too

With the real estate/mortgage default debacle and the increasing/
doubling/tripling of fuel cost, there are destined bad economic times

That Delta's stock price hasn't increased, the market considers fuel
as biggest problem/hindrance

Of course you guys are "right"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This is what I tend to think, others are allowed under a decadent
liberal interpretation of law to think whatever they wanna.

Is this vacation trip necessary?

Is visiting grandma and grandpa twice this year necessary?

And on top of all the hassles, the fare isn't that cheap any more.

Robert Cohen wrote:

" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

Why bother with oil? How about a truly alternative approach? Like,
for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's
coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to
convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? This can be blended with
petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a
way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?
--
dgs

On Apr 22, 11:53*am, dgs wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:
" Co-op Jet Fuel"

The industry consists of all or any of the airlines in the U.S. and
perhaps the world.

The airline companies purchase partnerships or shares in the
consortium.

Why bother with oil? *How about a truly alternative approach? *Like,
for instance, the consortium enterw into contracts to exploit Montana's
coal reserves, and build Fischer-Tropsch-style processing plants to
convert the coal into jet-compatible fuel? *This can be blended with
petroleum-based jet fuel if need be, but maybe the airlines could have a
way to step away from the oil stream entirely ... ?
--
dgs

I recall a boast that Jet Blue is involved with researching fuel from
coal, which is nothing new since this has been done by necessity by
Germany and possibly by South Africa during their infamous crises in
the 20th century

My totally irrational politically know nuthin prejudiced opinion: The
U.S. govt under Bush II is not going to take any oil market away from
the oil industry.

Maybe Hillary, Barack, and McCain would, while McCain thinks ethanol a
boondoggle (and he's probably accurate).

If they'd make the mentanol-ethanol from kudzu and some other weeds
and waste, I'd certainly be gungho for it.

But there are food riots on-going now, which is a predictable result
but damn awful thing.

Coal--fuels is an obvious thing, and I suppose private industry would
bring it about if, say, the airlines and/or trucking companies,
assured the industry of buyers for the seemingly higher priced "coal
derived fuels."

When the production of coal fuel is massive, the price is market-
lowered and via economy of scales.

"Filler-up with kudzu" is my first preference, though coal seems to me
to be alreadty be historically proven.

Steam a la Stanley Steamer (1920s car and name of a rug cleaning
franchise) is my preference after garbage, chicken and pig waste.

Wouldn't millions of steam vehicles do in the atmosphere/ionsphere a
la global warming.