Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
Nov 12th 2004, 5:00 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> John Mazor wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected] link.net...
> > >
> > > "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >> Chris wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars
in Federal
> > > >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Exactly.
> > > >
> > > > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp
about 24%
> > > > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
taxes"
> > > > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have laid
$4
> > > > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is
in
> > > > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
$50/barrel
> > > > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
> > >
> > > All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
need.
> > > They are simply paying their way,
> >
> > No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large
portion of
> > it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we tax
> > farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department?
No, we
> > give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
> Hey, just coz you're too stupid to grow corn in the cabin to take
> advantage of the farm bill doesn't mean you have to criticize our dear
farmers!
Hmm. I wonder if anyone has applied for subsidies not to grow marijuana on
the north 40? If that flies, I'll gladly take whatever the spiff is for not
planting on my 1/6 acre. It's costing me an arm and a leg to keep it
looking like a Scott's lawn as it is.
I'm sure Washington isn't unique in this, but exurban sprawl has pushed
affluent white collar types to buy small farms way out in the hinterlands as
vacation or even primary residences. One wonders how many of them are
dipping into Uncle Sugar's trough for payments not to plant that corn on the
hillside?
googling... googling... It's worse than I thought. The cost of U.S. market
price supports for agricultural products-which include tariffs, quotas, and
price guarantees-amounted to over $15 billion in 2002. And they bitch about
a one-time $5 billion payout to airlines for 9/11.
> John Mazor wrote:
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected] link.net...
> > >
> > > "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >> Chris wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars
in Federal
> > > >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Exactly.
> > > >
> > > > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp
about 24%
> > > > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
taxes"
> > > > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have laid
$4
> > > > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is
in
> > > > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
$50/barrel
> > > > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
> > >
> > > All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
need.
> > > They are simply paying their way,
> >
> > No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large
portion of
> > it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we tax
> > farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department?
No, we
> > give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
> Hey, just coz you're too stupid to grow corn in the cabin to take
> advantage of the farm bill doesn't mean you have to criticize our dear
farmers!
Hmm. I wonder if anyone has applied for subsidies not to grow marijuana on
the north 40? If that flies, I'll gladly take whatever the spiff is for not
planting on my 1/6 acre. It's costing me an arm and a leg to keep it
looking like a Scott's lawn as it is.
I'm sure Washington isn't unique in this, but exurban sprawl has pushed
affluent white collar types to buy small farms way out in the hinterlands as
vacation or even primary residences. One wonders how many of them are
dipping into Uncle Sugar's trough for payments not to plant that corn on the
hillside?
googling... googling... It's worse than I thought. The cost of U.S. market
price supports for agricultural products-which include tariffs, quotas, and
price guarantees-amounted to over $15 billion in 2002. And they bitch about
a one-time $5 billion payout to airlines for 9/11.
Nov 12th 2004, 5:17 pm
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] link.net...
>> "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> Chris wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
> Federal
>> >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> >> >
>> >> Exactly.
>> >
>> > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp about
> 24%
>> > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
> taxes"
>> > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have laid $4
>> > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is in
>> > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
>> >
>> > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
> $50/barrel
>> > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
>> All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
>> need.
>> They are simply paying their way,
> No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large portion
> of
> it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we tax
> farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department? No,
> we
> give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
> Then there's the security component of fees, in addition to the $4 billion
> in unfunded security mandates. The argument here is that the 9/11
> attacks,
> which coincidentally used airplanes as WMDs, were directed not against
> airlines, but the people and government of the United States. Which means
> that the people and government of the U.S should pay the cost of defending
> against terrorist attacks. Or do you think that if a suicide bomber lets
> go
> in a mall, malls should be taxed to pay for incremental security costs?
> If
> he lets go in a tunnel, should tunnel tolls be raised to pay for
> incremental
> security? If he lets go in a church, should we tax churches to pay for
> incremental security costs?
We could debate forever about whether the FAA would be here in its current
state if the airlines didn't exist. The flying public pays the cost of
flying which includes the regulation of the industry that the flying public
demanded (if you believe that, in a democracy that the people eventually get
what they want.). I think that you are looking at security incorrectly. On
one hand, the aircraft ARE weapons. The tunnels, malls and churches in your
example are TARGETS. If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't just
stack them up in the driveway. When you look at airplanes as TARGETS and
the security for finding bombs ect, that security is demanded by the people
flying on the airplanes and it is proper that they and the people who own
the airplanes pay for it.
>> they certainly aren't subsidizing anyone
>> else.. They pay little if any income taxes (They may be showing taxes on
>> GAAP income statements but not actually paying any).
Go look at United's 10K for 2000. Start with the income statement. They
reported a provision for income taxes of 160MM for 2000, 699MM for 1999 and
429MM for 1998.
Now go to the cash flow statement and look for " Adjustments to reconcile to
net cash provided by " and >go down to "Provision for deferred income taxes"
and you will see that cash increased by 317MM for 2000, 590MM for 1999 and
307MM for 1998 as a result of deferring income taxes. If you net these out
you will see that they paid a total of 74MM over the three years. If you
include more years you will probably find that they have paid nothing since
deregulation. Basically, corporations are able to carry losses forward or
backwards for many years and theoretically only pay on the net income
averaged over many years. In reality they may pay no taxes as they can
often defer even these "net" taxes virtually indefinatly.
Airlines have a lot of
>> problems, some of their own making and some not. Their main challenge is
>> that they have very high fixed costs which really limits their ability to
>> negotiate labor contracts.
> Huh?
Look at the record. When you have billions of dollars of airplanes financed
or leased the cost of a strike is millions per day and the airlines just
don't have enough staying power to get their labor costs down. The only way
they can do it is in bankrupcy where they don't have to pay the leasing or
financing costs. But bankrupcy brings about another problem where you have
the bankrupt carrier operating without having to pay all its costs and they
invariably cut prices to generate cash, then the other carriers have to cut
prices and then they are soon in trouble. High fixed cost businesses are
never very profitable since, as soon as there is a little excess capacity,
pricing goes down to variable cost. Semiconductor manufacturing is another
example.
Mike
MU-2
news:[email protected]...
> "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] link.net...
>> "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> Chris wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
> Federal
>> >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> >> >
>> >> Exactly.
>> >
>> > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp about
> 24%
>> > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
> taxes"
>> > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have laid $4
>> > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is in
>> > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
>> >
>> > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
> $50/barrel
>> > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
>> All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
>> need.
>> They are simply paying their way,
> No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large portion
> of
> it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we tax
> farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department? No,
> we
> give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
> Then there's the security component of fees, in addition to the $4 billion
> in unfunded security mandates. The argument here is that the 9/11
> attacks,
> which coincidentally used airplanes as WMDs, were directed not against
> airlines, but the people and government of the United States. Which means
> that the people and government of the U.S should pay the cost of defending
> against terrorist attacks. Or do you think that if a suicide bomber lets
> go
> in a mall, malls should be taxed to pay for incremental security costs?
> If
> he lets go in a tunnel, should tunnel tolls be raised to pay for
> incremental
> security? If he lets go in a church, should we tax churches to pay for
> incremental security costs?
We could debate forever about whether the FAA would be here in its current
state if the airlines didn't exist. The flying public pays the cost of
flying which includes the regulation of the industry that the flying public
demanded (if you believe that, in a democracy that the people eventually get
what they want.). I think that you are looking at security incorrectly. On
one hand, the aircraft ARE weapons. The tunnels, malls and churches in your
example are TARGETS. If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't just
stack them up in the driveway. When you look at airplanes as TARGETS and
the security for finding bombs ect, that security is demanded by the people
flying on the airplanes and it is proper that they and the people who own
the airplanes pay for it.
>> they certainly aren't subsidizing anyone
>> else.. They pay little if any income taxes (They may be showing taxes on
>> GAAP income statements but not actually paying any).
Go look at United's 10K for 2000. Start with the income statement. They
reported a provision for income taxes of 160MM for 2000, 699MM for 1999 and
429MM for 1998.
Now go to the cash flow statement and look for " Adjustments to reconcile to
net cash provided by " and >go down to "Provision for deferred income taxes"
and you will see that cash increased by 317MM for 2000, 590MM for 1999 and
307MM for 1998 as a result of deferring income taxes. If you net these out
you will see that they paid a total of 74MM over the three years. If you
include more years you will probably find that they have paid nothing since
deregulation. Basically, corporations are able to carry losses forward or
backwards for many years and theoretically only pay on the net income
averaged over many years. In reality they may pay no taxes as they can
often defer even these "net" taxes virtually indefinatly.
Airlines have a lot of
>> problems, some of their own making and some not. Their main challenge is
>> that they have very high fixed costs which really limits their ability to
>> negotiate labor contracts.
> Huh?
Look at the record. When you have billions of dollars of airplanes financed
or leased the cost of a strike is millions per day and the airlines just
don't have enough staying power to get their labor costs down. The only way
they can do it is in bankrupcy where they don't have to pay the leasing or
financing costs. But bankrupcy brings about another problem where you have
the bankrupt carrier operating without having to pay all its costs and they
invariably cut prices to generate cash, then the other carriers have to cut
prices and then they are soon in trouble. High fixed cost businesses are
never very profitable since, as soon as there is a little excess capacity,
pricing goes down to variable cost. Semiconductor manufacturing is another
example.
Mike
MU-2
Nov 12th 2004, 6:02 pm
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] hlink.net...
> We could debate forever about whether the FAA would be here in its current
> state if the airlines didn't exist. The flying public pays the cost of
> flying which includes the regulation of the industry that the flying
public
> demanded (if you believe that, in a democracy that the people eventually
get
> what they want.).
What happened to my agriculture analogy?
> I think that you are looking at security incorrectly. On
> one hand, the aircraft ARE weapons. The tunnels, malls and churches in
your
> example are TARGETS.
The distinction is meaningless in this context. Airline security guards
against airplanes as targets as well as weapons.
> If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
> am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't just
> stack them up in the driveway.
A case of TNT is intended to be used as an explosive devise. Airplanes
aren't. See previous comment.
> When you look at airplanes as TARGETS and
> the security for finding bombs ect, that security is demanded by the
people
> flying on the airplanes and it is proper that they and the people who own
> the airplanes pay for it.
So we should tax malls, tunnels, and churches because they're targets and
people who use them demand that they be protected as targets. Okay, just
trying to triangulate your position and its implications. Kind of extreme,
wouldn't you say, taxing malls, tunnels and churches?
> >> they certainly aren't subsidizing anyone
> >> else.. They pay little if any income taxes (They may be showing taxes
on
> >> GAAP income statements but not actually paying any).
> Go look at United's 10K for 2000. Start with the income statement. They
> reported a provision for income taxes of 160MM for 2000, 699MM for 1999
and
> 429MM for 1998.
Gee, I'm not a CPA. Can you explain the difference between a 10K "provision
for income taxes" and the actual 1040? The 1040 is the only thing that
matters. 10K filings, like annual reports, can be, well, a little divorced
from the reality.
> Now go to the cash flow statement and look for " Adjustments to reconcile
to
> net cash provided by " and go down to "Provision for deferred income
taxes"
> and you will see that cash increased by 317MM for 2000, 590MM for 1999
and
> 307MM for 1998 as a result of deferring income taxes. If you net these
out
> you will see that they paid a total of 74MM over the three years. If you
> include more years you will probably find that they have paid nothing
since
> deregulation. Basically, corporations are able to carry losses forward or
> backwards for many years and theoretically only pay on the net income
> averaged over many years. In reality they may pay no taxes as they can
> often defer even these "net" taxes virtually indefinatly.
Okay, they get to carry forward losses. They also get accounting gimmicks
that we mere wage slaves can't even imagine. But, if I understood your
explication, they still paid taxes, which is what I said, and unless you can
show otherwise, whatever tax breaks or gimmicks they used are not unique to
airlines. Which is consistent with my earlier statement that "this is in
addition to *normal* taxes."
> Airlines have a lot of
> >> problems, some of their own making and some not. Their main challenge
is
> >> that they have very high fixed costs which really limits their ability
to
> >> negotiate labor contracts.
> >
> > Huh?
> Look at the record. When you have billions of dollars of airplanes
financed
> or leased the cost of a strike is millions per day and the airlines just
> don't have enough staying power to get their labor costs down.
Better tell that to the airlines. Their argument is "we have fixed costs
such as leases and fuel and maintenance that we can't control, the only
thing we can control is labor costs, so all you people bend over and smile
while we stick it to you."
> The only way
> they can do it is in bankrupcy where they don't have to pay the leasing or
> financing costs.
Far more concessionary airline labor contracts have been negotiated out of
bankruptcy than in. And that includes concessionary contracts negotiated
before the current wave of bankruptcies.
> But bankrupcy brings about another problem where you have
> the bankrupt carrier operating without having to pay all its costs and
they
> invariably cut prices to generate cash, then the other carriers have to
cut
> prices and then they are soon in trouble.
You're talking about ripple effect, which has no role in the thinking of the
airline that took the action that created the ripple. As Bob Crandall
shrewdly noted years ago, each airline makes decisions that make perfect
sense in terms of their situation, but collectively they add up to disaster
for the industry.
> High fixed cost businesses are
> never very profitable since, as soon as there is a little excess capacity,
> pricing goes down to variable cost. Semiconductor manufacturing is
another
> example.
Excess capacity is what's killing the industry. And that's got nothing to
do with the price of labor - or airplanes or oil or gates or anything else,
for that matter. Too many seats chasing too few passengers. It's a
mindless race for market share, and that's a business policy set in the head
shed. Conversely, look at Southwest. In addition to all the other
brilliant business decisions that Kelleher made, he slowly, persistently,
and systematically pursued a growth plan wherein his reach never exceeded
his grasp. The airline graveyard is littered with carriers that violated
that precept.
news:[email protected] hlink.net...
> We could debate forever about whether the FAA would be here in its current
> state if the airlines didn't exist. The flying public pays the cost of
> flying which includes the regulation of the industry that the flying
public
> demanded (if you believe that, in a democracy that the people eventually
get
> what they want.).
What happened to my agriculture analogy?
> I think that you are looking at security incorrectly. On
> one hand, the aircraft ARE weapons. The tunnels, malls and churches in
your
> example are TARGETS.
The distinction is meaningless in this context. Airline security guards
against airplanes as targets as well as weapons.
> If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
> am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't just
> stack them up in the driveway.
A case of TNT is intended to be used as an explosive devise. Airplanes
aren't. See previous comment.
> When you look at airplanes as TARGETS and
> the security for finding bombs ect, that security is demanded by the
people
> flying on the airplanes and it is proper that they and the people who own
> the airplanes pay for it.
So we should tax malls, tunnels, and churches because they're targets and
people who use them demand that they be protected as targets. Okay, just
trying to triangulate your position and its implications. Kind of extreme,
wouldn't you say, taxing malls, tunnels and churches?
> >> they certainly aren't subsidizing anyone
> >> else.. They pay little if any income taxes (They may be showing taxes
on
> >> GAAP income statements but not actually paying any).
> Go look at United's 10K for 2000. Start with the income statement. They
> reported a provision for income taxes of 160MM for 2000, 699MM for 1999
and
> 429MM for 1998.
Gee, I'm not a CPA. Can you explain the difference between a 10K "provision
for income taxes" and the actual 1040? The 1040 is the only thing that
matters. 10K filings, like annual reports, can be, well, a little divorced
from the reality.
> Now go to the cash flow statement and look for " Adjustments to reconcile
to
> net cash provided by " and go down to "Provision for deferred income
taxes"
> and you will see that cash increased by 317MM for 2000, 590MM for 1999
and
> 307MM for 1998 as a result of deferring income taxes. If you net these
out
> you will see that they paid a total of 74MM over the three years. If you
> include more years you will probably find that they have paid nothing
since
> deregulation. Basically, corporations are able to carry losses forward or
> backwards for many years and theoretically only pay on the net income
> averaged over many years. In reality they may pay no taxes as they can
> often defer even these "net" taxes virtually indefinatly.
Okay, they get to carry forward losses. They also get accounting gimmicks
that we mere wage slaves can't even imagine. But, if I understood your
explication, they still paid taxes, which is what I said, and unless you can
show otherwise, whatever tax breaks or gimmicks they used are not unique to
airlines. Which is consistent with my earlier statement that "this is in
addition to *normal* taxes."
> Airlines have a lot of
> >> problems, some of their own making and some not. Their main challenge
is
> >> that they have very high fixed costs which really limits their ability
to
> >> negotiate labor contracts.
> >
> > Huh?
> Look at the record. When you have billions of dollars of airplanes
financed
> or leased the cost of a strike is millions per day and the airlines just
> don't have enough staying power to get their labor costs down.
Better tell that to the airlines. Their argument is "we have fixed costs
such as leases and fuel and maintenance that we can't control, the only
thing we can control is labor costs, so all you people bend over and smile
while we stick it to you."
> The only way
> they can do it is in bankrupcy where they don't have to pay the leasing or
> financing costs.
Far more concessionary airline labor contracts have been negotiated out of
bankruptcy than in. And that includes concessionary contracts negotiated
before the current wave of bankruptcies.
> But bankrupcy brings about another problem where you have
> the bankrupt carrier operating without having to pay all its costs and
they
> invariably cut prices to generate cash, then the other carriers have to
cut
> prices and then they are soon in trouble.
You're talking about ripple effect, which has no role in the thinking of the
airline that took the action that created the ripple. As Bob Crandall
shrewdly noted years ago, each airline makes decisions that make perfect
sense in terms of their situation, but collectively they add up to disaster
for the industry.
> High fixed cost businesses are
> never very profitable since, as soon as there is a little excess capacity,
> pricing goes down to variable cost. Semiconductor manufacturing is
another
> example.
Excess capacity is what's killing the industry. And that's got nothing to
do with the price of labor - or airplanes or oil or gates or anything else,
for that matter. Too many seats chasing too few passengers. It's a
mindless race for market share, and that's a business policy set in the head
shed. Conversely, look at Southwest. In addition to all the other
brilliant business decisions that Kelleher made, he slowly, persistently,
and systematically pursued a growth plan wherein his reach never exceeded
his grasp. The airline graveyard is littered with carriers that violated
that precept.
Nov 12th 2004, 10:11 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
>> am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't
>> just
>> stack them up in the driveway.
> A case of TNT is intended to be used as an explosive devise. Airplanes
> aren't. See previous comment.
There is another problem here and that is that it is questionable whether a
significant part of the security measures in airports are in fact making us
any safer at all. No doubt they will be better able to catch the lonely
moron who - gun in hand - want to highjack a plane to get his girlfriend
back etc. But professional and highly trained terrorists (who are not in any
way stupid but in many cases very well educated - and often much better so
than those in charge of the daily airport security) will be able to get
around the security now in place in most airports. You might well ask
whether or not it is really reasonable for the airlines to pay for the
politicians attempts to make us feel good.
Nik
news:[email protected]...
>> If I have a stockpile of explosives for a business, I
>> am required to pay to have those explosives properly secured, I can't
>> just
>> stack them up in the driveway.
> A case of TNT is intended to be used as an explosive devise. Airplanes
> aren't. See previous comment.
There is another problem here and that is that it is questionable whether a
significant part of the security measures in airports are in fact making us
any safer at all. No doubt they will be better able to catch the lonely
moron who - gun in hand - want to highjack a plane to get his girlfriend
back etc. But professional and highly trained terrorists (who are not in any
way stupid but in many cases very well educated - and often much better so
than those in charge of the daily airport security) will be able to get
around the security now in place in most airports. You might well ask
whether or not it is really reasonable for the airlines to pay for the
politicians attempts to make us feel good.
Nik
Nov 13th 2004, 12:06 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
> 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.
Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
sized airports in the heartland. This would have helped General Aviation
more than anything else, in the long run.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
> 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.
Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
sized airports in the heartland. This would have helped General Aviation
more than anything else, in the long run.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Nov 13th 2004, 12:33 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
Federal
> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
> sized airports in the heartland.
Don't sell government bailouts short.
Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
Sure, one is an ugly little thing that looks like a big jellybean on wheels,
and the other looks like an overgrown clothes hamper .... and sure, the Neon
might be the noisiest, most uncomfortable, bad-handling little rattletrap
ever made .... and sure, the PT is the darling of the Trailer Park Grandma
who still likes to wear capris and cruise the fast food strips ..... but by
golly, they're good Merkun products. Plus we set up a nice retirement for
Lee Iacocca. Money well spent!
news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
Federal
> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
> sized airports in the heartland.
Don't sell government bailouts short.
Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
Sure, one is an ugly little thing that looks like a big jellybean on wheels,
and the other looks like an overgrown clothes hamper .... and sure, the Neon
might be the noisiest, most uncomfortable, bad-handling little rattletrap
ever made .... and sure, the PT is the darling of the Trailer Park Grandma
who still likes to wear capris and cruise the fast food strips ..... but by
golly, they're good Merkun products. Plus we set up a nice retirement for
Lee Iacocca. Money well spent!
Nov 13th 2004, 12:37 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Mazor wrote:
>> >
>> > "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected] link.net...
>> > >
>> > > "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]...
>> > > > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[email protected]...
>> > > >> Chris wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars
> in Federal
>> > > >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> Exactly.
>> > > >
>> > > > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp
> about 24%
>> > > > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
> taxes"
>> > > > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have
>> > > > laid
> $4
>> > > > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is
> in
>> > > > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
> $50/barrel
>> > > > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
>> > >
>> > > All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
> need.
>> > > They are simply paying their way,
>> >
>> > No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large
> portion of
>> > it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we
>> > tax
>> > farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department?
> No, we
>> > give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
>> Hey, just coz you're too stupid to grow corn in the cabin to take
>> advantage of the farm bill doesn't mean you have to criticize our dear
> farmers!
> Hmm. I wonder if anyone has applied for subsidies not to grow marijuana
> on
> the north 40? If that flies, I'll gladly take whatever the spiff is for
> not
> planting on my 1/6 acre. It's costing me an arm and a leg to keep it
> looking like a Scott's lawn as it is.
> I'm sure Washington isn't unique in this, but exurban sprawl has pushed
> affluent white collar types to buy small farms way out in the hinterlands
> as
> vacation or even primary residences. One wonders how many of them are
> dipping into Uncle Sugar's trough for payments not to plant that corn on
> the
> hillside?
> googling... googling... It's worse than I thought. The cost of U.S.
> market
> price supports for agricultural products-which include tariffs, quotas,
> and
> price guarantees-amounted to over $15 billion in 2002. And they bitch
> about
> a one-time $5 billion payout to airlines for 9/11.
Another bunch of welfare claimants
news:[email protected]...
> "CJS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> John Mazor wrote:
>> >
>> > "Mike Rapoport" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected] link.net...
>> > >
>> > > "John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[email protected]...
>> > > > "kontiki" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[email protected]...
>> > > >> Chris wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars
> in Federal
>> > > >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> Exactly.
>> > > >
>> > > > The airlines deserve their share of the blame, but the feds scalp
> about 24%
>> > > > off the price of a typical airline ticket in taxes and fees. ("Sin
> taxes"
>> > > > on alcohol and tobacco only run about 16%-18%.) They also have
>> > > > laid
> $4
>> > > > billion a year in unfunded security costs on the airlines. This is
> in
>> > > > addition to normal taxes like income tax, property taxes, etc.
>> > > >
>> > > > Also, many airlines would have had operating profits except for
> $50/barrel
>> > > > oil prices. Even JetBlue is struggling now.
>> > >
>> > > All the ticket taxes go to fund the infrastructure that the airlines
> need.
>> > > They are simply paying their way,
>> >
>> > No. The Aviation Trust Fund used to be that way, but now a large
> portion of
>> > it is used to fund FAA operational costs, not infrastructure. Do we
>> > tax
>> > farmers extra to pay for the services of the Agriculture Department?
> No, we
>> > give tax breaks and MASSIVE subsidies to them.
>> Hey, just coz you're too stupid to grow corn in the cabin to take
>> advantage of the farm bill doesn't mean you have to criticize our dear
> farmers!
> Hmm. I wonder if anyone has applied for subsidies not to grow marijuana
> on
> the north 40? If that flies, I'll gladly take whatever the spiff is for
> not
> planting on my 1/6 acre. It's costing me an arm and a leg to keep it
> looking like a Scott's lawn as it is.
> I'm sure Washington isn't unique in this, but exurban sprawl has pushed
> affluent white collar types to buy small farms way out in the hinterlands
> as
> vacation or even primary residences. One wonders how many of them are
> dipping into Uncle Sugar's trough for payments not to plant that corn on
> the
> hillside?
> googling... googling... It's worse than I thought. The cost of U.S.
> market
> price supports for agricultural products-which include tariffs, quotas,
> and
> price guarantees-amounted to over $15 billion in 2002. And they bitch
> about
> a one-time $5 billion payout to airlines for 9/11.
Another bunch of welfare claimants
Nov 13th 2004, 12:45 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
>> 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.
> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
> sized airports in the heartland. This would have helped General Aviation
> more than anything else, in the long run.
all this crap about security adding to their costs is total bollocks. Most
if not all of this is passed on to the passenger anyway.
The fact is the major airlines as a whole are badly run, held to ransom by
unions too stupid to understand that they will destroy themselves eventually
and bailed out by governments too weak to take a stand or looking after
campaign donors.
Many of the airlines were in and out of Chapter 11 before 9/11.
All Osma has done is create a wall of excuses for the incompetent to hide
behind.
news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
>> 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.
> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
> sized airports in the heartland. This would have helped General Aviation
> more than anything else, in the long run.
all this crap about security adding to their costs is total bollocks. Most
if not all of this is passed on to the passenger anyway.
The fact is the major airlines as a whole are badly run, held to ransom by
unions too stupid to understand that they will destroy themselves eventually
and bailed out by governments too weak to take a stand or looking after
campaign donors.
Many of the airlines were in and out of Chapter 11 before 9/11.
All Osma has done is create a wall of excuses for the incompetent to hide
behind.
Nov 13th 2004, 1:03 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"John Mazor" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Flying Rat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] t...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> >
>> > United was the recipient of government-backed loan guarantees.
>> >
>> United was refused its ATSB guarantees
> ATSB only granted about 15% of the $10 billion in loan guarantees it was
> authorized to dispense.
And these are loan guarantees, not subsidies. Still has to be paid back (unless you default, like another poster
said)...
> "Flying Rat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected] t...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>> >
>> > United was the recipient of government-backed loan guarantees.
>> >
>> United was refused its ATSB guarantees
> ATSB only granted about 15% of the $10 billion in loan guarantees it was
> authorized to dispense.
And these are loan guarantees, not subsidies. Still has to be paid back (unless you default, like another poster
said)...
Nov 13th 2004, 2:27 am
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:33:59 -0700, "AbsolutelyCertain"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
>> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
>Federal
>> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
>> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
>> sized airports in the heartland.
>Don't sell government bailouts short.
>Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
>Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
The Neon came more than a decade after the bailout and the PT Cruiser
when Chrysler was already a new company. Right after the bailout,
Chrysler delivered the industry's first minivan, the first mid-size
truck and other vehicles that were considered revolutionary in their
day.
The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
>> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
>Federal
>> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
>> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
>> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the small-to-medium
>> sized airports in the heartland.
>Don't sell government bailouts short.
>Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
>Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
The Neon came more than a decade after the bailout and the PT Cruiser
when Chrysler was already a new company. Right after the bailout,
Chrysler delivered the industry's first minivan, the first mid-size
truck and other vehicles that were considered revolutionary in their
day.
The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
Nov 13th 2004, 2:36 am
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
AbsolutelyCertain wrote:
>
> Don't sell government bailouts short.
>
> Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
> Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
Chrysler didn't get any bailout from the government. What they did was get the
government to cosign their loans. Since they survived, it didn't cost the taxpayers a
dime. Not the same as the airline situation at all.
George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.
>
> Don't sell government bailouts short.
>
> Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have the
> Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
Chrysler didn't get any bailout from the government. What they did was get the
government to cosign their loans. Since they survived, it didn't cost the taxpayers a
dime. Not the same as the airline situation at all.
George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.
Nov 13th 2004, 2:45 am
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
Jay Honeck wrote:
> Which was, of course, the reason many of us argued against bailing them out
> in the first place.
Remember that the government forced the shutdown of the complete north
american airspace for quite a few days, causing a LOT of loss of revenus.
Remember that the government was caught with its pants down in terms of
airport security (never having adopted simple worldwide standards such as
allowing only ticketed pax airside).
In Canada, because we helped the USA, we lost a fine charter carrier (Canada
3000) because it didn't get such help from the government and 9-11 happened at
a particularly bad time for it (it had just absorbed another carrier, Royal).
It failed within a very short time after 9-11.
The shutdown itself costed the airlines a lot of money. But it was the
handling by the government which lenghtened and worsened this slowdown.
Instead of the government using "the show must go on" mentality, they kept
reminding people of the disaster over and over and over and over again, and
they kept changing security at airports left and right and made sure people
were affraid of another "imminent" terrorist act. That did not help the
airline industry which, by being very sick, helped pull down the US economy,
and with a worsened economic situation, the airlines' condition worsened. (and
it wasn't that great to begin with pre-911)
So, if, for political reasons, the USA government chose to continue to play on
the terrorism issues, then it should help the industries which are being
negatively hurt by those policies.
And they are continuing those policies by adding more and more measures,
spying on credit card transaction (and punishing those who pay cash with
cavity searches).
Yes, the legacy carriers had very inefficient (and still do) domestic
networks. But had the economy not been hurt by how the government responded to
9-11, those airlines wouldn't be in the dire straight they are in now.
Note that United hasn't received those loans. But many others have (including
US Air). So even if the government hadn't instituted the ATSB funds, I don't
think that the "as good as dead" carriers would have failed any faster. I
believe one failed right away. Others just limped along.
> Which was, of course, the reason many of us argued against bailing them out
> in the first place.
Remember that the government forced the shutdown of the complete north
american airspace for quite a few days, causing a LOT of loss of revenus.
Remember that the government was caught with its pants down in terms of
airport security (never having adopted simple worldwide standards such as
allowing only ticketed pax airside).
In Canada, because we helped the USA, we lost a fine charter carrier (Canada
3000) because it didn't get such help from the government and 9-11 happened at
a particularly bad time for it (it had just absorbed another carrier, Royal).
It failed within a very short time after 9-11.
The shutdown itself costed the airlines a lot of money. But it was the
handling by the government which lenghtened and worsened this slowdown.
Instead of the government using "the show must go on" mentality, they kept
reminding people of the disaster over and over and over and over again, and
they kept changing security at airports left and right and made sure people
were affraid of another "imminent" terrorist act. That did not help the
airline industry which, by being very sick, helped pull down the US economy,
and with a worsened economic situation, the airlines' condition worsened. (and
it wasn't that great to begin with pre-911)
So, if, for political reasons, the USA government chose to continue to play on
the terrorism issues, then it should help the industries which are being
negatively hurt by those policies.
And they are continuing those policies by adding more and more measures,
spying on credit card transaction (and punishing those who pay cash with
cavity searches).
Yes, the legacy carriers had very inefficient (and still do) domestic
networks. But had the economy not been hurt by how the government responded to
9-11, those airlines wouldn't be in the dire straight they are in now.
Note that United hasn't received those loans. But many others have (including
US Air). So even if the government hadn't instituted the ATSB funds, I don't
think that the "as good as dead" carriers would have failed any faster. I
believe one failed right away. Others just limped along.
Nov 13th 2004, 2:47 am
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
"Cyrus Afzali" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:33:59 -0700, "AbsolutelyCertain"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
> >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
> >Federal
> >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> >
> >> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> >> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the
small-to-medium
> >> sized airports in the heartland.
> >
> >Don't sell government bailouts short.
> >
> >Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have
the
> >Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
> The Neon came more than a decade after the bailout and the PT Cruiser
> when Chrysler was already a new company. Right after the bailout,
> Chrysler delivered the industry's first minivan, the first mid-size
> truck and other vehicles that were considered revolutionary in their
> day.
> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
The mid-size truck is revolutionary? Only in Usenet could such a thing be
said with a straight face.
Steve Martin's History of the Auto Industry:
First came the Model T. Then, the Dodge Dakota.
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 06:33:59 -0700, "AbsolutelyCertain"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:OFnld.92292$R05.12286@attbi_s53...
> >> > It is amazing these airlines have soaked up billions of Dollars in
> >Federal
> >> > subsidies and still cannot get by.
> >
> >> Personally, if we were going to waste money on such a grand scale, I'd
> >> rather have seen the Feds subsidize airline service to the
small-to-medium
> >> sized airports in the heartland.
> >
> >Don't sell government bailouts short.
> >
> >Thanks to Uncle Sam, Chrysler was saved from extinction, and now we have
the
> >Grand Prizes: The Neon, and the PT Cruiser.
> The Neon came more than a decade after the bailout and the PT Cruiser
> when Chrysler was already a new company. Right after the bailout,
> Chrysler delivered the industry's first minivan, the first mid-size
> truck and other vehicles that were considered revolutionary in their
> day.
> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
The mid-size truck is revolutionary? Only in Usenet could such a thing be
said with a straight face.
Steve Martin's History of the Auto Industry:
First came the Model T. Then, the Dodge Dakota.
Nov 13th 2004, 2:53 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:27:43 +0000, Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
The loans, or the loan guarantees?
> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
The loans, or the loan guarantees?
Nov 13th 2004, 3:00 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Delta Pilots End Era of Luxurious Pay
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:53:47 GMT, devil <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:27:43 +0000, Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
>The loans, or the loan guarantees?
Chrysler got government-backed loans. The money actually came from
non-government sources and was paid back to the lenders. The
government never had to put one thin dime into Chrysler.
>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 15:27:43 +0000, Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> The loan guarantees were paid back by Chrysler.
>The loans, or the loan guarantees?
Chrysler got government-backed loans. The money actually came from
non-government sources and was paid back to the lenders. The
government never had to put one thin dime into Chrysler.
