Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-06-2013, 06:27 AM
Sho me da money!
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: B25, Left
Posts: 947
Exempt any recip. under 12.5k. Anything bigger is used as a biz tax write-off anyway. Any GA taxes under that will be costly! Just ask a Canadian how much a touch and go costs!!!
03-06-2013, 06:37 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
Apparently they already do...It's collected in fuel taxes which the airlines are exempt from (but collect in ticket taxes).
http://www.nbaa.org/news/letters/200611_propilot.pdf
http://www.nbaa.org/news/letters/200611_propilot.pdf
Last edited by Columbia; 03-06-2013 at 06:49 AM.
03-06-2013, 06:41 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,530
That's analogous to saying that guy in the Benz or Lexus needs to "pay their fair share" when using the freeways.
03-06-2013, 06:44 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Very Unlikely. This is a little message to ALK. We can do this one of two ways. The nice way, or we can destroy your market cap and call in to question the nice little thing you have going. Which way do you want to do this?
DAL has plenty of gate space for international Growth in SEA, what they do not have is enough gate space to add the feed required to replace ALK. On top of this, DAL would have a very hard time competing with the loyalty that ALK enjoys with its customers in the Pacific NW. DAL knows it, ALK knows it.
What ALK has is a market cap that makes them very difficult for one to be successful in a hostile takeover. A buyer would need to offer a premium on the already inflated market price and that would put the cash needed in the ballpark of 4 billion plus or minus a few hundred million. That is cash AMR and DAL do not have. ALK management knows it and it appears that they have pushed back on some of DAL's desires. What we are seeing is DAL sending ALK a very understated but strong message.
DAL has plenty of gate space for international Growth in SEA, what they do not have is enough gate space to add the feed required to replace ALK. On top of this, DAL would have a very hard time competing with the loyalty that ALK enjoys with its customers in the Pacific NW. DAL knows it, ALK knows it.
What ALK has is a market cap that makes them very difficult for one to be successful in a hostile takeover. A buyer would need to offer a premium on the already inflated market price and that would put the cash needed in the ballpark of 4 billion plus or minus a few hundred million. That is cash AMR and DAL do not have. ALK management knows it and it appears that they have pushed back on some of DAL's desires. What we are seeing is DAL sending ALK a very understated but strong message.
03-06-2013, 06:44 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 581
Why should Tiger Woods (for example) get to deduct the cost of flying around in a Gulfstream? He should be able to deduct the cost of a full fare coach ticket. If he wants to fly any thing else: Great he can deduct the full coach fare, and pay the difference out of pocket.
Why should the US taxpayers subsidize the lifestyles of the uber-rich?
03-06-2013, 06:45 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
as to user fees I think that is just a bad idea and a lot of propaganda by the airlines. They already have to fuel tax in place and it works and increasing it would be very simple. a fuel tax does a lot to promote trading in old airplanes for more efficient ones which is to me a form of stimulus. A user fee does a lot to denigrate safety.
As to Netjets and Mr Warren I Want To Pay More Taxes Buffett, this is something I chuckle at:
Warren Buffett's Company NetJets Sued For Millions In Unpaid Taxes
Seems he doesn't really want to pay more taxes after all.
03-06-2013, 06:46 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
03-06-2013, 06:50 AM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
He doesn't want to pay those taxes. He just makes a national appeal for the rich to pay more taxes to appeal to the current occupant of the White House which will yield a "quid pro quo" for him & his companies.
If a Republican Administration were in power he'd back their plan for the same reasons.
If a Republican Administration were in power he'd back their plan for the same reasons.
03-06-2013, 06:50 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A-320/A
Posts: 588
I've been bothered by the tax deductibility of private jets for a long time. In fact it really p*sses me off.
Why should Tiger Woods (for example) get to deduct the cost of flying around in a Gulfstream? He should be able to deduct the cost of a full fare coach ticket. If he wants to fly any thing else: Great he can deduct the full coach fare, and pay the difference out of pocket.
Why should the US taxpayers subsidize the lifestyles of the uber-rich?
Why should Tiger Woods (for example) get to deduct the cost of flying around in a Gulfstream? He should be able to deduct the cost of a full fare coach ticket. If he wants to fly any thing else: Great he can deduct the full coach fare, and pay the difference out of pocket.
Why should the US taxpayers subsidize the lifestyles of the uber-rich?
Why, pray tell, should 'home-renters' subsidize the lifestyles of 'uber-rich home owners' by allowing tax deductions of home mortgage interest payments? I'd be careful about where you want to give the IRS guys a hatchet approach to revenue. You (we) may not like what they carve out. There are a few things that the government actually does pretty well. Our ATC system has it's fraud/abuse issues, but user fees is not the answer.
Respectfully,
03-06-2013, 06:51 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Boeing Hearing and Ergonomics Lab Rat, Night Shift
Posts: 1,724
great perspective:
Cheers
George
Cheers
George
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
