Which company makes chairs for airlines?

Pros and cons of Lufthansa rescue: does the FRG have a bird?

Germany's largest airline receives state aid - without any requirements for more environmental and worker protection.

Environment only in the logo - Cranes in flight: Floated without conditions Photo: Lufthansa

Yes,

Because the way the federal government is tackling the Lufthansa rescue is bizarre: saving the airline without combining it with strict conditions for climate protection and the protection of employees. Lufthansa receives billions in tax money. Even if they are only borrowed, the company should provide something in return. And that must not only consist in the fact that it continues to exist.

When the state picks up taxpayers' money in this dimension to support an individual company, it must be in the interest of the common good and not of the shareholders. Otherwise it cannot be justified. Take climate-damaging domestic flights, for example: It is wrong to run this business yourself as a state shareholder. Lufthansa should do without it immediately. It is unlikely that other airlines will find themselves in the void. Because they are first concerned with overcoming the crisis. There would be a great opportunity here to switch to other modes of transport.

The global flight market will reposition itself after the crisis, some airlines will disappear, others will become stronger. Thanks to state aid, Lufthansa has the best chance of being among the winners of the crisis and of collecting stumbled airlines all over the world. This course is going in the wrong direction. The Lufthansa managers want to pick up where they left off before the crisis. However, it should not be a question of maintaining or even expanding air traffic in the way that it is up to now. It has to be changed. For the climate, but also for employees who are enslaved by low-cost airlines and subsidiaries of long-established corporations.

The federal government is giving up this opportunity. She doesn't care about the employees or the climate, as the waiver of requirements shows. She wants to save the airline from national location logic alone - because, in her opinion, an industrial nation with strong exports needs a large airline. If that is really that important, then it must also secure the option to intervene.

The Lufthansa rescue is a sign. It must not become a blueprint for further help in crisis-ridden large companies and industries. Otherwise the common good, employees and the environment will fall by the wayside. (Anja Krüger)

No,

Germany has no bird. Because nothing would be more nonsensical than to forbid Lufthansa from doing what it earns its money with - flying. When it comes to government intervention in sole proprietorships, it's similar to chocolate: It's a great idea to be able to eat a mountain of sweets every day and get thinner at the same time. Chocolate just makes you fat.

Quite similar, if not so sweet, is the case with the thickest chunk of German aviation, Lufthansa. If you keep an environmental pig, you cannot process it into tofu schnitzel. The state has decided to save the company from bankruptcy. That is wise. The airline group employs well over 100,000 people and is what is called systemically relevant for Germany as a business location. A really big chocolate bar.

On the other hand, Lufthansa is one of the largest CO2-Things of the Republic. Wouldn't it be sensible to force the company to take an eco-course if the state is already participating?

If you keep an environmental pig, you cannot process it into tofu schnitzel.

If a company like this is rescued, it also means that the state accepts that it will damage the climate - because that is simply part of the business model of an airline. The state's business model, on the other hand, should include getting the money invested back as quickly as possible - so it must be interested in the company doing well economically.

If Lufthansa has not yet had the idea of ​​canceling domestic flights that are particularly environmentally questionable, for example, it has economic reasons. If the new shareholder state were to forbid precisely this and also forbid dismissals, it would not only harm the company, but also risk its deposits. He eats the chocolate but doesn't want to get any fat.

This can not go well. If the state wants to prescribe an eco-course for aviation, then that would be possible. For example, he can ban all domestic flights. Not only Lufthansa but also Easyjet would have to adhere to this. Then the same conditions would apply to everyone. (Klaus Hillenbrand)