Untied Again?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Here are 2 more United "lost dog" stories. One about a dog on the wrong domestic flight, and another about a 10yo German Shepherd was sent to Japan instead of a domestic port. Sensing a PR disaster,United used an executive plane to bring him back to his US owners.
 
This is what I heard from someone at Delta. In the case of the MD fleet, they fly those planes 4 or 5 flights a day. The first flight pays for all the expenses for a given plane for the day. The remaining flights are profit. Something like 60% of the profit Delta makes comes from the MD fleet. Delta spends billions of $ to update terminals at airports they serve (e.g. LGA, JFK). Maybe they should use some of that money to upgrade the inflight experience.

I don't fly Delta very often anymore because I don't go places served by their route system, so I can't really say what flying on them is like now, but I expect that it is about the same as every other airline.
 
"How in the world, with inflation on every aspect of operating costs (let alone profit) can an air carrier afford to operate now a days?"

The usual "profit" for a USA carrier is about $8.00 a seat .

Times 350 seats there is money there ,

but with new equipment at over $100,000,000 each , mostly the banksters make money , as usual.
 
Bruce K said:
I really don`t think anyone expects people flying dressed up these days. Comfortable casual is just fine,drawing the line at the shorts,sleeveless shirts,sandals,etc,you might see on some pax between Oz and Bali.

Exactly, casual is fine. I frequently encounter somebody who never got out of their jammies and bunny slippers.

Sat next to a passenger last month who thought he was the Arnold or something. The tiniest sleeveless shirt (think weightlifter) that didn't cover but an inch on each shoulder (visualize spagetti straps on a woman's dress), shorts that I will not mention (and regret seeing in my mind again) with some high top tube socks. The entire ensemble in white. Including the headband. If the attire was medical in nature then a 2-piece running outfit would of greatly been appreciated by all who sat around this fella. (did I mention this man was significantly overweight.)

(hope that wasn't anyone from TF :hide:)

This gent would have looked out of place in any retirement home let alone a commercial flight dressed as he was. And oddly his wife was dressed to the nines. Go figure.

This isn't about judging anyone. I just wonder if most of the entire plant hasn't gone over the gunnel regarding "I don't give a crap what anyone else thinks!"


I wish the foreign-owned airlines flew US domestic routes.

Agreed.

The challenges go beyond AOPA and the domestic carriers themselves as the EU among others would be pressed by the US of A to allow our guys to fly their "domestic" routes. I could foresee a decade of diplomacy (more like bureaucracy) trying to get that agreed to...

In the meantime, more peeps will be removed from flights, more animals lost and just maybe MH370 will show up as we wait and wonder what the relief will be. (Elon Musk tubes!) :lol:
 
US airlines may give their profits to "banksters"(whatever they are) but I know 2 airlines which consistently distribute profits to share(stock)holders.
 
"So why don't they?"
Cabotage - AOPA

https://www.aopa.org/travel/destinations/international-travel/cabotage


The overall purpose of Cabotage rules are to prohibit foreign aircraft from one country traveling into another country and picking up foreign nationals or citizens of the other foreign country and providing transportation to and between points within that foreign country.

Sorta like the marine Jones Act , but most of the countries of the world have signed on .
 
Wifey B: Well, Delta had a wayward doggy too. :eek:

Someone said earlier, "perhaps United carries more dogs." Well, all the uproar has been effective but perhaps in a bad way. United has suspended reservations for pets in cargo. :ermm:
 
"US airlines may give their profits to "banksters"(whatever they are) but I know 2 airlines which consistently distribute profits to share(stock)holders."

Profit comes after expenses , and the cost of a 125 million dollar aircraft is paid for during every second of ownership.
A company with 500 to 4,000 hulls has a large nut to pay daily.

The banksters get their interest and principal before there IS any profit.

Remember the banksters loan credit , that they create , and get paid in currency , not credit.
 
If airlines cannot afford the capital cost to purchase airplanes outright,which is probably the norm,they acquire them by lease or by credit purchase. It follows, as night follows day(or vv)there is a cost, be it interest or lease charges, to use someone else`s valuable asset.For airlines (or any business)borrowed capital is an overhead tax deductible cost of running a business.
To label those providing the capital without which airlines cannot operate, with the pejorative term "banksters" implying they are "part gangster quasi criminals",seems quite unfair. I`m no great champion of banks, but rubbishing someone for providing a service someone else is keen to acquire, just seems wrong.
 
If airlines cannot afford the capital cost to purchase airplanes outright,which is probably the norm,they acquire them by lease or by credit purchase. It follows, as night follows day(or vv)there is a cost, be it interest or lease charges, to use someone else`s valuable asset.For airlines (or any business)borrowed capital is an overhead tax deductible cost of running a business.
To label those providing the capital without which airlines cannot operate, with the pejorative term "banksters" implying they are "part gangster quasi criminals",seems quite unfair. I`m no great champion of banks, but rubbishing someone for providing a service someone else is keen to acquire, just seems wrong.

I'm glad you spoke up. It seems popular to label with derogatory terms and that includes industries that are vital. I'm not a champion of the banks either, but that's because of the bad acts of a few. Most of those involved are decent people, working to fulfill a need. Take away banks and everything grinds to a complete halt.
 
FWIW, American Airlines has bought about 500 new planes over the past 18 months. They did finance a lot of them, but only because they were able to get a 3-4% interest rate. American has large cash reserves at the moment and if interest rates were higher they likely would buy them outright.
 
I'll take the train before United, but I disagree that there aren't any good domestic airlines. I traveled around 85,000 miles on Alaska last year, and they are invariably great. Staff is always polite and considerate, rarely late departing. United has been terrible always - a corporate cultural problem, and that is reflected in their hideous staff.
 
I'll take the train before United, but I disagree that there aren't any good domestic airlines. I traveled around 85,000 miles on Alaska last year, and they are invariably great. Staff is always polite and considerate, rarely late departing. United has been terrible always - a corporate cultural problem, and that is reflected in their hideous staff.

+1 for Alaska, I have been flying wit them since the mid sixties, and never had an issue.
 
Ditto for Alaska. And they bought Virgin America which was good too. It's the only time I can think of when two good Airlines merged. Most airline mergers are like two dunks getting married, thinking it will solve their drinking problem.
 
"I`m no great champion of banks, but rubbishing someone for providing a service someone else is keen to acquire, just seems wrong."

The problem is the current system of "fractional reserve banking" is wrong.

A couple of folks put $5.00 in the pot and get a bank license.

They borrow $5.00 from the public which the call a liability as they might need to return the bucks .

They take this $10.00 and loan out between $400 and $1000 of credit, which pays interest and is called an asset.

They take 40% of the profit and pay staff , building costs etc.
60% is divvied up among the higher level folks as annual salary enhancement bonus.

When the asset cant pay either interest or principal Unkle Federal Reserve steps in sez there "too big to fail" , so uses either our tax money or simply creates more credit (out of thin air) to restock the bankers with operating cash.

Nice deal, If you can get it! No guns required for a fantastic lifestyle.

Similar world wide the Swiss UBS head just took a 5% pay cut , but still takes home over $10,000,000 a year.
 
Last edited:
If that's the way it really works, then the national debt doesn't matter, they can just create more smoke and mirrors forever.

Long as real wages don't go up much, little inflation.

But when U$D stops being the world's reserve and trading currency, the store of value for all the narco, armaments & petroleum cartels & mafia/dictator/kleptocrats of the world, boy will that be a day of reckoning.
 
Last edited:
"I`m no great champion of banks, but rubbishing someone for providing a service someone else is keen to acquire, just seems wrong."

The problem is the current system of "fractional reserve banking" is wrong.

A couple of folks put $5.00 in the pot and get a bank license.

They borrow $5.00 from the public which the call a liability as they might need to return the bucks .

They take this $10.00 and loan out between $400 and $1000 of credit, which pays interest and is called an asset.

They take 40% of the profit and pay staff , building costs etc.
60% is divvied up among the higher level folks as annual salary enhancement bonus.

When the asset cant pay either interest or principal Unkle Federal Reserve steps in sez there "too big to fail" , so uses either our tax money or simply creates more credit (out of thin air) to restock the bankers with operating cash.

Nice deal, If you can get it! No guns required for a fantastic lifestyle.

Similar world wide the Swiss UBS head just took a 5% pay cut , but still takes home over $10,000,000 a year.


Wow. You really have no clue what you are talking about, so fall for such fiction.
 
I'm not saying it isn't true from some really distant big-picture POV with a long enough time frame, if you squint

but yes the true-value nature-of-money economics crowd usually seems a bit cultish and abstract.

The point remains that no civilisation nor its currency have ever lasted more than a few hundred years, and the signs abound the decline and fall are'nt tgat far off.

Problem is with one global system it'll likely go down everywhere together.
 
"I`m no great champion of banks, but rubbishing someone for providing a service someone else is keen to acquire, just seems wrong."

The problem is the current system of "fractional reserve banking" is wrong.

A couple of folks put $5.00 in the pot and get a bank license.

They borrow $5.00 from the public which the call a liability as they might need to return the bucks .

They take this $10.00 and loan out between $400 and $1000 of credit, which pays interest and is called an asset.....

.
How to lend $1000,with capital of $10 less the cost of license acquisition? Might borrowing be involved, creating a liability on which interest is paid to the terrible lenders you complain about,and balancing the amount lent?
 
" Might borrowing be involved, creating a liability on which interest is paid to the terrible lenders you complain about,and balancing the amount lent?"

The borrowing involved does create a credit liability , out of thin air,and yes interest is collected on every buck of liability.

The hassles come when the borrower defaults and the fed steps in by creating more thin air credit and purchasing the liability.

This is the the basis for world wide QE .

The reason the dollar hasn't collapsed is most of the big currencys are also using QE in the hopes of creating inflation.

With massive debts world wide only by destroying the value of the payment currency can trillions be "paid".

The hassle is if the inflation gets out of hand , governments get tossed out , in countries where that is possible.
 
Last edited:
They would throw me off the flight before I would put my pet in an unsafe situation..
 
Yes they would.

Even if the staff were in the wrong, they feel they have to uphold the requirement that all passengers must obey them in all circumstances.
 
Ditto for Alaska. And they bought Virgin America which was good too. It's the only time I can think of when two good Airlines merged. Most airline mergers are like two dunks getting married, thinking it will solve their drinking problem.



[emoji23]
 
Back
Top Bottom