Re: American Airlines - Last one standing

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:30:07 -0400, zak > wrote
in >::

>All in all, what a sad day for U.S. aviation, and what a sad state of
>affairs for a once-prestigious industry.


It's called Free Market Economy, the mainstay of laissez-faire
Capatolism. The airlines wanted deregulation, now they can reap the
consequences.

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert J Carpenter" > wrote in message
...
> I recall that at the time of the previous rash of airline failures,
> 1991???, Mr. Kahn ? - the chief architect of airline deregulation -
> said that foreign airlines / owners ought to be let in to show how to
> run an aitline. Back then that was particularly silly since most
> European airlins still had protected turf and some subsidies (real or
> hidden).
>
> Last I heard, Barnson's Virgin organisation still insisted that they
> are going to run an American airline through a "US Owned" shell.
> Curious.


It looks like Sir Richard is busy playing around with his buddy Burt putting
together a space travel company. Not sure why anybody would want to enter
the US airline market at this time. In a few years after things shake out
maybe but not now.

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> He said pre-deregulation U.S. major carrier. Do you think Southwest
> qualified as a major carrier before deregulation?

I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s. Southwest
was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into Atlanta (there were
a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was cool - they looked like new
planes.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[John Mazor]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mazor" >
> :
>
> > I'm not disagreeing with your premises here, just amplifying on them.
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:rY4We.351954$xm3.256217@attbi_s21...
> >> > Anyway, it seems like some more consolidation among the majors will
> >> > be needed in the future. There isn't really a need for more than
> >> > three major airlines, probably AA, DL (merged with CO and NW), and
> >> > UA (merged with US).
> >>
> >> Absolutely. The reason the airlines are in this mess is because
> >> Congress refuses to let any major airline FAIL.
> >
> > Well, there is the minor matter that until the US Airways/America West
> > merger, the administration also refused to allow mergers. Mergers
> > provide a rational, orderly reduction of capacity. Bankruptcy is a
> > weapon of mass destruction if reducing excess capacity is your goal.
> >
> >> Unfortunately, that's what capitalism requires for success. In a
> >> truly
> > free market,
> >
> > ...the government would have been open to proposals for mergers.
> >
> >> the surviving airlines would feed on the carcass of a truly bankrupt
> >> airline, plucking the profitable routes and leaving the deadwood
> >> behind.
> >
> > That already happens. You don't need bankruptcy for that.
> >
> >> In our current dream-world of "protected deregulation", Congress
> >> keeps bailing out failing airlines, allowing them to continue
> >> operating at below-profitable levels
> >
> > That goes all the way back to the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,
> > where Congress hedged its bets by providing "Essential Air Service"
> > subsidies. The problem has been that Congress and consumers want it
> > both ways - competition resulting in cheaper fares, while maintaining
> > the expectation of service levels that were possible under regulated
> > pricing.
> >
> >> -- which means they can continue to charge less than
> >> what it really costs to fly the routes, which, in turn, means that
> >> NONE of the airlines can charge what it actually costs to fly.
> >
> > True as far as it goes, but there are other factors that have undercut
> > airlines' ability to set pricing or clear a profit, such as Internet
> > fare shopping (which the airlines foolishly embraced at first), the
> > rising cost of oil (even the carriers in bankruptcy would have had
> > operating profits except for rising fuel prices), the way that the
> > government has treated airlines as a cash cow (the taxes on a typical
> > airline ticket are higher than the "sin taxes" on alcohol and
> > tobacco).
> >
> > The irony here is that allowing airlines to go into bankruptcy allows
> > them a competitive edge over solvent carriers. The solution is to
> > reduce the period for management to have exclusionary control over the
> > enterprise, and not allow a bankrupt carrier to expand operations.
> >
> >> Until the Feds let Northworst and Delta fail, this situation will
> >> continue
> > to get worse.
> >
> > That's one solution, but not the only one. There are more rational
> > approaches to the capacity problem.
> >
> Best solution is to limit it to the types of people that used to fly.
> People that needed to. People that could afford to. People with class.
> Bring back the DC-7, I say.
>
> Oh wait, wrong problem.

Bring back the Connie. Now THERE was an airplane to fly in.

As to the pax, a simple literacy test would filter out the worst of the
riff-raff.

[John Mazor]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mazor" > :
>
> > "Robert J Carpenter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I recall that at the time of the previous rash of airline failures,
> >> 1991???, Mr. Kahn ? - the chief architect of airline deregulation -
> >> said that foreign airlines / owners ought to be let in to show how to
> >> run an aitline. Back then that was particularly silly since most
> >> European airlins still had protected turf and some subsidies (real or
> > hidden).
> >
> > To compound the idiocy, we still hear proposals to allow foreign
> > airlines to compete in U.S. domestic markets (cabotage).
>
> Hey, US airlines do it in Europe....

*Originate* a flight that *starts out* in, say, Paris, and drops them at the
final destination of, say, Bordeaux, with the flight not stopping or
continuing elsewhere? That's cabotage. Many countries allow lesser
freedoms, such as if a United flight originating as JFK-Bordeaux makes a
stop in Paris - the next leg could pick up Paris-Bordeaux riders. You just
can't have a United flight that starts and ends as Paris-Bordeaux, which
would be cabotage. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any nation that
allows that, except maybe for some minor countries where they're glad to
have any service at all.

[Gregory Morrow]

John Mazor wrote:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John Mazor" > :
> >
> > > "Robert J Carpenter" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> I recall that at the time of the previous rash of airline failures,
> > >> 1991???, Mr. Kahn ? - the chief architect of airline deregulation -
> > >> said that foreign airlines / owners ought to be let in to show how to
> > >> run an aitline. Back then that was particularly silly since most
> > >> European airlins still had protected turf and some subsidies (real or
> > > hidden).
> > >
> > > To compound the idiocy, we still hear proposals to allow foreign
> > > airlines to compete in U.S. domestic markets (cabotage).
> >
> > Hey, US airlines do it in Europe....
>
> *Originate* a flight that *starts out* in, say, Paris, and drops them at
the
> final destination of, say, Bordeaux, with the flight not stopping or
> continuing elsewhere? That's cabotage. Many countries allow lesser
> freedoms, such as if a United flight originating as JFK-Bordeaux makes a
> stop in Paris - the next leg could pick up Paris-Bordeaux riders. You
just
> can't have a United flight that starts and ends as Paris-Bordeaux, which
> would be cabotage. I may be wrong, but I can't recall any nation that
> allows that, except maybe for some minor countries where they're glad to
> have any service at all.


About the only recent example I can think of is the pre - 1991 intra -
German services from West Germany to West Berlin provided by PA, AF,
BA...but it was a special case as that monopoly service was set up by the
victorious Allies post - 1945; air rights to West Berlin were technically
administered by the US, France, and the UK.

--
Best
Greg

[SF3aviatrix]

AA last one standing? There are many others that qualify for major status but AA isn't the only legacy that hasn't filed. What about Continental?
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
He said pre-deregulation U.S. major carrier. Do you think Southwest qualified as a major carrier before deregulation?

I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s. Southwest
was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into Atlanta (there were
a few cargo carriers using them).

Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3 operator you remember:

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/DouglasDC-3.htm

[Maule Driver]

SF3aviatrix wrote:
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:-
>>He said pre-deregulation U.S. major carrier. Do you think Southwest
>>qualified as a major carrier before deregulation?-
>>
>>I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s.
>>Southwest
>>was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into Atlanta
>>(there were
>>a few cargo carriers using them).
>
> Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest
> Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3
> operator you remember:
>
The DC3 thing sound strange to me too. I remember mixing with SW's
737s operating out of Dallas Love. At that time, I thought they flew an
extremely limited set of routes that did not reach the SE US or anywhere
else outside of the SW.

[Maule Driver]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> There isn't really a need for more than three
>>major airlines, probably AA, DL (merged with CO and NW), and UA
>
> Absolutely. The reason the airlines are in this mess is because Congress
> refuses to let any major airline FAIL.
>
> Unfortunately, that's what capitalism requires for success.

As I sit here in my home office preparing to do a show and tell with 9
people across Europe, it occurs to me that it may take a bit of a
technology roll-back for continued airline success.

There was a time when I boarded a jet once or twice a month just so I
could meet with a customer/teammates in another city for a couple of
hours. I just watched a ridiculous airline commercial where 'the boss'
is looking for 'Bob' who he saw earlier this morning. The office staff
tells him that 'Bob' doesn't really work here but flew back home to
Chicago an hour ago. Just like he does several times a week to supply
the 'software' for the office. What planet were they on when they came
up with that one?

You run around major US and European international airports and you see
the 'usual' collection of heavy iron moving people around the globe.
You go to Tokyo or Sydney or Singapore and you find out where the
world's 747s really go to work. Is it a coincidence that the
Asia/Pacific rim region is the only major industrial region where you
can't quite depend on the net to do real time work? 5 minutes from now,
when you can use the net across all borders, where will the giant ships
go? (a bit of an exaggeration...)

There's a lot more going on than just competition and regulation.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-15, George Patterson > wrote:
> I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s. Southwest
> was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into Atlanta (there were
> a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was cool - they looked like new

Southwest? I thought they had only ever operated Boeing 737s and nothing
else.
--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-15, sfb > wrote:
> Airlines and all businesses do not play taxes. They collect them from
> passengers and customers who are the government's cash cow.

All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
government.

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-15, nobody > wrote:

> Congress isn't the one constantly bailing out airlines. The banks are
> the ones doing that...

Congress has been spending billions in taxpayer dollars on airline
bailouts for at least 15 years; both cash and loan guarentees. Perhaps
more congressmen ride on airlines than live behind levees :)

[Jay Honeck]

> All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
> various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
> as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
> government.

Yes, but I suspect the O.P. was making the point that businesses pay no
"real" tax, in that every tax they pay is passed along to consumers.

Which is why the Left's diversionary arguments about "making the
corporations pay more" always rings so hollow to my ears, BTW.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank F. Matthews]

Bob Moore wrote:

> "sfb" > wrote in news:NJfWe.25196$8h6.14300@trnddc09:
>
>
>>Southwest, which starting flying in 1971, didn't fly outside Texas
>>until after deregulation in 1978 when they started service to New
>>Orleans in 1979.
>
>
> That's right. Both Southwest and Air Florida (where I served as Director
> of Operations) started as INTRASTATE air carriers, not INTERSTATE.
> They were both regulated by state authority instead of the CAB/Dept of
> Transportation.
> We had quite a rush to certificate Air Florida prior to October 1972 at
> which time the Florida Public Service Commission intended to implement
> route and fare regulations similar to those in effect by the CAB for
> Interstate Air Carriers. We grandfathered a lot of stuff on Sep 29, just
> before the Oct 1 cutoff date. :-)
> Many in the airline industry do not remember that Air Florida was started
> with an ex-PanAm B-707-331, N705PA, and after one year, exchanged it for
> three ex-Eastern L-188 Electras.
>
> Bob Moore
> Air Florida 1972-73
> Chief Pilot, Director of Operations


Has everyone forgotten PSA?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:6j6We.21953$Zv6.4968@trndny03...
>
> I worked on the Hartsfield Airport expansion project in the late 70s.
> Southwest was the only carrier I saw flying DC-3 passenger planes into
> Atlanta (there were a few cargo carriers using them). I thought it was
> cool - they looked like new planes.
>

I don't think so. Southwest Airlines never operated the DC-3, and didn't
serve it's first city outside Texas until 1979 (New Orleans).

[George Patterson]

SF3aviatrix wrote:
>
> Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest
> Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3
> operator you remember:
>
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/DouglasDC-3.htm

Yep, that's it.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> I just watched a ridiculous airline commercial where 'the boss'
> is looking for 'Bob' who he saw earlier this morning. The office staff
> tells him that 'Bob' doesn't really work here but flew back home to
> Chicago an hour ago. Just like he does several times a week to supply
> the 'software' for the office. What planet were they on when they came
> up with that one?

Maybe the same one on which a friend of mine lives. Her home is near Morristown,
NJ. Every Monday, she drives to work in Piscataway. That evening, she hops a
plane to her other job in Birmingham. Friday evening, she flies back home.
United loves her. No, she's not typical.

More typical are the people who hop shuttle flights between cities several times
a week. Quite a few BellSouth employees and contractors shuttle back and forth
between B'ham and Atlanta for meetings. I know other people here who spend a lot
of time flying down to DC during the week.

And if you think it's unlikely that someone would make a trip just to supply the
software, we did a lot of that at Telcordia. It's cheaper in the long run to fly
over a skilled installer than to ship a tape or several CDs and have the
customer botch up the installation of a large system.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:reeWe.330700$x96.16375@attbi_s72...
>> All U.S. for profit businesses are subject to income, property and
>> various use and consumption taxes *in addition* to involuntary servitude
>> as tax and information collector for local, state and federal
>> government.
>
> Yes, but I suspect the O.P. was making the point that businesses pay no
> "real" tax, in that every tax they pay is passed along to consumers.
>
> Which is why the Left's diversionary arguments about "making the
> corporations pay more" always rings so hollow to my ears, BTW.
> --

The issue is not a simple zero-sum pass-through as you suggest. There *is*
some balance to be struck.

The tax burden is shared by the workers (payroll income tax), the
shareholders (dividend income tax), and the consumers (sales taxes and/or
passed-through corporate tax).

In the cases where all three of these entities are the same person, you may
very well be correct: who cares whether the State gets its money from you
as dividend income, or as salary income, or as a sales tax on the end
product.

But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the worker.
Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great many shareholders
may even be outside the country. Hence taxing corporate profits before
distribution, probably guarantees a better chance of getting at the money
before it leaves the country, whether it is going to legitimate
shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or being siphoned illegally by the
executive.

The left's argument is, of course, that the tax pendulum has swung too far
to the worker (payroll income tax), and away from the corporate shareholder
and executive. So taxing the corporations would "put more money in the
consumer's pocket" (workers being consumers). Of course the right suggests
this is nonsense, because in their mind, it is the shareholders that are the
consumers.

Neither is wrong, and the question becomes: What is the correct balance?
I am sure both sides can put up "today's" financial numbers and projections
to suggest that *they* are the ones paying too much and that any a reduction
of *their* tax will have huge benefits for the overall economy of the
nation.

Each may be right, or not... but the issue is not a simple zero-sum
pass-through as you suggest.

[Icebound]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:reeWe.330700$x96.16375@attbi_s72...
....
>
> The left's argument is, of course, that the tax pendulum has swung too far
> to the worker (payroll income tax), and away from the corporate
> shareholder and executive. So taxing the corporations would "put more
> money in the consumer's pocket" (workers being consumers). Of course the
> right suggests this is nonsense, because in their mind, it is the
> shareholders that are the consumers.
>


"Taxing the corporations" is meant to mean: taxing the corporations more
(less shareholder income), and the workers less (more worker income).

[Jay Honeck]

> But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the worker.
> Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great many
> shareholders may even be outside the country. Hence taxing corporate
> profits before distribution, probably guarantees a better chance of
> getting at the money before it leaves the country, whether it is going to
> legitimate shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or being siphoned
> illegally by the executive.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

Whatever widget (or service) the shareholder's corporation is selling must
be priced proportionately higher in order to pay Mr. Shareholder his
dividend. If you tax Mr. Shareholder's dividend more, he's now making
less -- and the corporation will be compelled to increase profitability, so
that it can pay Mr. Shareholder his expected dividend.

Guess who pays for this increased profitability, in the form of a price
increase? You, me, and every other consumer.

This is obviously a grossly over-simplified example, but there really is NO
free lunch with taxes. Every single tax on business is a tax on the
consumer, in the long run -- and don't let any politician fool you into
thinking otherwise.

Example: Here in Iowa City, there is a 5% state sales tax, and a 7%
hotel/motel tax, added to the price of every, single hotel room. When we
advertise our hotel, we sure don't quote the "with tax" rate (hell, *we*
don't get any of that money), but when you check in -- golly! -- your $99.95
suite now costs $111.95!

Everyone thinks this is a 12% tax on the hotels -- but it ain't. It's just
another way for the politicians to stick it to Joe & Lois Sixpack -- and,
best of all (from the local politico's end) -- most of the people paying it
don't get to vote here! There are therefore NO repercussions against the
tax instigators at all.

And so it is with the airlines. Tax them, and you tax *us*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"SF3aviatrix" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those two companies are not the same. The present day Southwest
> Airlines has only flown Boeing 737s. Southwest Airways was the DC-3
> operator you remember:
>
> http://1000aircraftphotos.com/PRPhotos/DouglasDC-3.htm
>

No, he's remembering Southern Airways.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...
>
> Yep, that's it.
>

I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/images/Southern%20DC-3atl.jpg

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...
>
> Yep, that's it.
>

I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/images/Southern%20DC-3atl.jpg

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...
>
> Yep, that's it.
>

I don't think so. I think it's this one:

http://www.southernairways.org/images/Southern%20DC-3atl.jpg

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:kIlWe.20637$ck6.2771@trndny05...
>
>>Yep, that's it.
>
> I don't think so. I think it's this one:

Nope. I distinctly remember the circular sort of Aztec symbol. And it was
definitely Southwestern.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:eJqWe.6030$sa6.5327@trndny06...
>
> Nope. I distinctly remember the circular sort of Aztec symbol. And it was
> definitely Southwestern.
>

Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific Air
Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:A2pWe.331656$x96.76629@attbi_s72...
>> But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the worker.
>> Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great many
>> shareholders may even be outside the country. Hence taxing corporate
>> profits before distribution, probably guarantees a better chance of
>> getting at the money before it leaves the country, whether it is going to
>> legitimate shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or being siphoned
>> illegally by the executive.
>
> That's nice, but irrelevant.
>
....snip...
>
> Example: Here in Iowa City, there is a 5% state sales tax, and a 7%
> hotel/motel tax, added to the price of every, single hotel room. When we
> advertise our hotel, we sure don't quote the "with tax" rate (hell, *we*
> don't get any of that money), but when you check in -- golly! -- your
> $99.95 suite now costs $111.95!
>


That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the consumer,
the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
changed the distribution of the taxation load.

You may argue that is good place to shift the load, others may argue that is
bad.

Also, your example is strictly consumer taxation, not taxation on corporate
profit. Corporate taxes may or may not be passed down to the consumer. The
corporation's reduced after-tax profit may be offset instead by slower
expansion. Or, in a "competitive market", the corporation well may have to
reduce dividends to keep prices down and maintain market share. That's
where the big debate occurs....

And especially, corporate taxation addresses the issue of profits leaving
the country.

My whole point was not the right or wrong of how the balance should be
distributed between workers, consumers, shareholders, and corporate
expansion.

My point was that adding or reducing corporate taxes changes this balance
and is *not* a simple pass-through always to the consumer...as you suggested
in your original post. Instead, corporate taxation is a re-distribution of
the taxation load away from the worker.


And of course, as you suggest. it *isn't* simple. Governments have
interesting ways of "decreasing" (or "increasing") taxes for some sector,
whether labour, corporate, or consumer.... only to institute other
benefits/costs that may totally negate or even reverse that action.

So it may be interesting to see the actually amount of dollars which the
government gets from each of those 3 sectors, if reliable numbers could be
found, somewhere. One particular budget-analysis think tank, will have us
believe that the overall share of government revenue from corporations (in
2003) was lower than any year since 1930, except for 1983. And was 1/3
lower in 2003 than even 2000.

Again, we can argue that this is good, or this is bad, that is not the
point. But that share of government revenue has been shifted to somebody
else. *That* is the point. Corporate taxation re-distributes the tax
burden.

[sfb]

Bleep, bleep, and more bleep. All monies paid by corporations as taxes
come out of the consumers pocket. Period.

All this crap about shifting burdens is political double talk about
bribing voters with the voter's own money. You sound like Senator Kerry
explaining how the flat tax would allow the high income folks to escape
their fair share when in fact it would have cost his wife $750,000 in
additional taxes.

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:A2pWe.331656$x96.76629@attbi_s72...
>>> But on the other hand, the shareholder is not usually also the
>>> worker. Where corporations have millions of shareholders, a great
>>> many shareholders may even be outside the country. Hence taxing
>>> corporate profits before distribution, probably guarantees a better
>>> chance of getting at the money before it leaves the country, whether
>>> it is going to legitimate shareholders, into dodgy tax havens, or
>>> being siphoned illegally by the executive.
>>
>> That's nice, but irrelevant.
>>
> ...snip...
>>
>> Example: Here in Iowa City, there is a 5% state sales tax, and a 7%
>> hotel/motel tax, added to the price of every, single hotel room.
>> When we advertise our hotel, we sure don't quote the "with tax" rate
>> (hell, *we* don't get any of that money), but when you check in --
>> golly! -- your $99.95 suite now costs $111.95!
>>
>
>
> That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD
> of taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the
> consumer, the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers.
> You have changed the distribution of the taxation load.
>
> You may argue that is good place to shift the load, others may argue
> that is bad.
>
> Also, your example is strictly consumer taxation, not taxation on
> corporate profit. Corporate taxes may or may not be passed down to
> the consumer. The corporation's reduced after-tax profit may be
> offset instead by slower expansion. Or, in a "competitive market",
> the corporation well may have to reduce dividends to keep prices down
> and maintain market share. That's where the big debate occurs....
>
> And especially, corporate taxation addresses the issue of profits
> leaving the country.
>
> My whole point was not the right or wrong of how the balance should be
> distributed between workers, consumers, shareholders, and corporate
> expansion.
>
> My point was that adding or reducing corporate taxes changes this
> balance and is *not* a simple pass-through always to the consumer...as
> you suggested in your original post. Instead, corporate taxation is a
> re-distribution of the taxation load away from the worker.
>
>
> And of course, as you suggest. it *isn't* simple. Governments have
> interesting ways of "decreasing" (or "increasing") taxes for some
> sector, whether labour, corporate, or consumer.... only to institute
> other benefits/costs that may totally negate or even reverse that
> action.
>
> So it may be interesting to see the actually amount of dollars which
> the government gets from each of those 3 sectors, if reliable numbers
> could be found, somewhere. One particular budget-analysis think tank,
> will have us believe that the overall share of government revenue from
> corporations (in 2003) was lower than any year since 1930, except for
> 1983. And was 1/3 lower in 2003 than even 2000.
>
> Again, we can argue that this is good, or this is bad, that is not the
> point. But that share of government revenue has been shifted to
> somebody else. *That* is the point. Corporate taxation
> re-distributes the tax burden.
>
>

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-16, Icebound > wrote:

> That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
> taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the consumer,
> the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
> changed the distribution of the taxation load.

Your thesis presumes workers are not consumers.

I operate a one man business. Is this a corporation? Yes, Do I/we pay
taxes? Yes. Do I work? Yes. Do I consume? Yes.

Governments know that if all your taxes (income, property, consumption,
excise, et al) were bundled on a single bill that there *would* be a
tax revolt. Decentralization of collection is key to maximum
extraction.

Your presumption that "...would have to be collected..." presumes
society is better off with government consuming substantial fractions of
the workers production. Silly.

[sfb]

Why does the government bother classifying airlines? Other than some
Commerce department financial kind of thing, there is no reason for
any classifications.

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote
>> None of what I posted in anyway said that SW was a major in 1979 and
>> the part you quoted above was in response to a statement that if an
>> airline didn't have international routes it isn't a major and that's
>> just silly.
>
> Definitions have changed from time to time, but currently, the US
> Government defines "Major", "National", "Large Regional", and
> "Medium Regional" air carriers. The difference is solely based on
> annual revenue except in the case of the "Medium Regional" where
> there is a cutoff of 30 seat a/c as I recall. There are other
> definitions such as Domestic/Flag and Scheduled/Supplemental.
>
> Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote
>> None of what I posted in anyway said that SW was a major in 1979 and
>> the part you quoted above was in response to a statement that if an
>> airline didn't have international routes it isn't a major and that's
>> just silly.
>
> Definitions have changed from time to time, but currently, the US
> Government defines "Major", "National", "Large Regional", and
> "Medium Regional" air carriers. The difference is solely based on
> annual revenue except in the case of the "Medium Regional" where
> there is a cutoff of 30 seat a/c as I recall. There are other
> definitions such as Domestic/Flag and Scheduled/Supplemental.
>
> Bob Moore

Which pretty much poo-poos the poster I was replying to's idea that you had
to have a counter in Japan to be US major.

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
> ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific Air
> Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
> serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.

Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in that
livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[W P Dixon]

May be possible,
There was a place in Athens, GA that restored several DC-3's, but I am not
sure of the earliest project. Used most for frieght haulers, but it is
possible they restored one to look like it?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9YCWe.31$265.16@trndny07...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>> Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
>> ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific
>> Air Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
>> serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.
>
> Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
> that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.
>
> George Patterson
> Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
> use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Montblack]

("George Patterson" wrote)
> Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
> that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.


George, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yeasterday. :-)


Montblack

[George Patterson]

Montblack wrote:
>
> George, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yeasterday. :-)

Yeah, I'm having that problem too. But it's not every day that you get assigned
to flag traffic crossing a main taxiway of an international airport.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Icebound]

ire.net...
> On 2005-09-16, Icebound > wrote:
>
>> That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
>> taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the
>> consumer,
>> the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
>> changed the distribution of the taxation load.
>
> Your thesis presumes workers are not consumers.
>
> I operate a one man business. Is this a corporation? Yes, Do I/we pay
> taxes? Yes. Do I work? Yes. Do I consume? Yes.

You are a corporation, but you are also a "small" business... this is a very
different issue than that of my reference. I made it pretty clear in an
earlier post that where the worker, shareholder, consumer were pretty much
the same population, it does not much matter how the government gets its
revenue.

But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different population
than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or tax
sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax the
worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.

I am not arguing taxing one as opposed to the other as being good or bad....
just that it makes a difference as to how the two populations share the
total tax burden.



>
> Governments know that if all your taxes (income, property, consumption,
> excise, et al) were bundled on a single bill that there *would* be a
> tax revolt. Decentralization of collection is key to maximum
> extraction.
>
> Your presumption that "...would have to be collected..." presumes
> society is better off with government consuming substantial fractions of
> the workers production.

No. What it *does* presume is that there is no difference in the revenue
stream to the government. Whether the government actually *needs* that
revenue stream was not the point of the discussion.

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-16, Icebound > wrote:

> But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different population
> than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or tax
> sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
> whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax the
> worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.

Not in actual practice. Increased corporate tax burdens are passed on
the consumer, not the shareholder. Return on invested capital is very
constant through periods of varying tax rates.

You can't protect the poor slob at the end of the line by raising
corporate tax rates; he just pays more for his products. Reducing
government revenue demand is by far the best way to lower the net burden
on labor.

If you are worried about the little guy getting hosed then fight to
simplify the tax code so that congress has less opportunity to funnel
vast sums to their friends for unnecessary projects at the direct
expense of the consumer. This would have a much greater effect on the
bottom line.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:9YCWe.31$265.16@trndny07...
>
> Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
> that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.
>

I don't recall any fitting that description. Was it at an airline terminal?

[Morgans]

"George Patterson" > wrote
>
> Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
that
> livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.

Piedmont (US Air) has an old DC-3 that still goes around to shows.
--
Jim in NC

[Icebound]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
ire.net...
> On 2005-09-16, Icebound > wrote:
>
>> But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different
>> population
>> than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or
>> tax
>> sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
>> whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax
>> the
>> worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.
>
> Not in actual practice. Increased corporate tax burdens are passed on
> the consumer, not the shareholder. Return on invested capital is very
> constant through periods of varying tax rates.

Interesting. That must mean large corporations are operating in a monopoly
position, because in a free market, increased prices would probably be
accompanied by reduced volume.


>
> You can't protect the poor slob at the end of the line by raising
> corporate tax rates; he just pays more for his products. Reducing
> government revenue demand is by far the best way to lower the net burden
> on labor.
>
> If you are worried about the little guy getting hosed then fight to
> simplify the tax code so that congress has less opportunity to funnel
> vast sums to their friends for unnecessary projects at the direct
> expense of the consumer. This would have a much greater effect on the
> bottom line.

Efficiency is a whole other issue :-)

As far as "protecting the poor slob", I am personally intrigued by the
various proposals that call for elimination of all current forms of tax, and
replacing them a single tax-on-fund-transfers sort of approach.
http://users.ixpres.com/~concepts/ for one example.
Implementation might be a bitch, or not. But the simplicity and inherent
fairness is intriguing.

Another proposal is Linders Bill:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm
which *does* put it all explicitly consumer's head. If that bill ever sees
the light of day, it will interesting to hear the debate.

[mrtravel]

sfb wrote:

> The seller of the futures isn't extending credit. The buyer has a
> contractual obligation to pay. Oil is a commodity that somebody will buy
> so the exposure is limited to the difference between the future price
> and the spot market price. If the airline goes broke and closes the
> doors, it sells the futures contract for cash.

Since there is an exposure, this requires the seller to know that the
purchaser has the ability to buy the commodity. After all, if the
contract was for $30 per barrel and the price of oil dropped to $20,
then the seller would be getting $10 less per barrel then they would
have receive had a more stable entity had purchased the option.

Do you think they just sell options to anyone with the cash to cover the
cost of the option or do you think they look at the person's/company's
ability to actually covre the purchase of the commodity? IF it was only
an issue of cash to pay for the option cost, then why wasn't this done
by the other carriers?

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-09-17, Icebound > wrote:

> As far as "protecting the poor slob", I am personally intrigued by the
> various proposals that call for elimination of all current forms of tax, and
> replacing them a single tax-on-fund-transfers sort of approach.
> http://users.ixpres.com/~concepts/ for one example.
> Implementation might be a bitch, or not. But the simplicity and inherent
> fairness is intriguing.

Agreed.

>
> Another proposal is Linders Bill:
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm which *does* put
> it all explicitly consumer's head. If that bill ever sees the light
> of day, it will interesting to hear the debate.

The basic problem is that the entire process of federal "revenue
sharing" is clearly designed to circumvent the restrictions on federal
authority in the constitution. Debate on that point will be muted at
best.

[George Patterson]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> I don't recall any fitting that description. Was it at an airline terminal?

No. Hartsfield has four parallel runways. There are crossover taxiways between
them. At the time, the terminals were all on the north side of the field. We
were building a tunnel between the center two runways. Today, this tunnel links
the new terminal and the concourses which are located between the center two
runways. Today, the old passenger terminal to the north of the field is the
cargo terminal.

Back then, all traffic headed to the north side of the field; cargo, GA,
airlines, etc.. There were taxiways between the runways to allow traffic to get
there. I was posted on a dirt road used by construction vehicles which crossed
one of these taxiways. Since the tunnel base was about 60' below ground level,
trucks coming out of the jobsite couldn't see traffic on the taxiway. My job
that day was to flag the trucks down if there was a plane coming. Looking at a
diagram, it seems that I was located somewhere in the vicinity of what is now
F5, though E5 ran all the way across back then (E5, F5, and J were all one long
road).

As I recall, the DC-3 landed on the runway just north of my position (that would
be 8R). I saw him land, and he turned off towards the terminals (away from me)
on the taxiway I was guarding. That was a few hundred feet away from me. I
remember the symbol, the "Southwest" markings, and the curtains in the windows.
It looked like new.

I don't recall watching to see where it wound up, and I wouldn't have known
which of the buildings was what anyway (except for the tower).

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.