777Mech wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Here is another list for you how many shall I provide Delta is 5th.

https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/em ... id/645208/

Uhhh. This is from 2015, my source was from December 2016.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

Delta employs 80,000 worldwide before i retired 30k were based in Atlanta. I seriously doubt they went from 30k to 6k something seriously wrong with those numbers.

jetero wrote:

Does anyone even know what these "discounts" were worth? Is it like a AAA discount at a hotel? So $10? Those are some real Pelosi Crumbs there.

Tugger wrote:

jetero wrote:

Does anyone even know what these "discounts" were worth? Is it like a AAA discount at a hotel? So $10? Those are some real Pelosi Crumbs there.

An earlier poster stated that the discounts are near valueless as they apply to "normal" prices and almost no one pays that and other airline discounts such as credit card linked ones are worth a lot more.

Tugg

cvgComair wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Exactly. When I joined the NRA, its primary objective was teaching gun safety and firearms responsibility. Along the way - beginning in the mid 70's, but even more so in the past two decades so - it discovered there was real money to be made in representing the interests of gun manufacturers, and pushing for guns - all types of guns - to be sold to virtually anyone, at any time. In doing so, they changed from a service organization to a lobbying group, claiming to represent their members but, in truth, pushing an agenda that is too often at odds with what the majority of their membership might believe.

I am no longer a member of the NRA, partly because I live out of the country most of the year, but mostly because I can no longer support their current objectives and inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, most of my friends who were members no longer keep their memberships active. Nevertheless, I understand we are still counted among the claimed 5-million members; even deceased are among the "lifetime" membership rolls.

I pity those who still blindly follow the NRA's dogma; if you truly think any type of weapon, no matter what a menace it poses to society, should be made available because of some "Second Amendment" argument (and why stop at assault rifles? Why shouldn't a "well-regulated militia" be allowed hand grenades? Gatling guns?), the NRA is your team. If you are a reasonable, thinking individual, and realize the government is not coming to take away your sporting firearms, and if you understand there have to be sensible limitations on the types of weapons an individual should own... then the NRA isn't for you. Not any longer.

I prefer reasonable, thinking individuals.

This is an amazing post and thank you for taking the time to write it. This folks, is about as common sense a post can get.

The 2nd amendemt was written in 1791. I am no gun buff but I believe when this amendment was written, there were only hand guns, no such thing as assault rifles that we now allow pretty much any civilain to own. Who here thinks that if assault rifles were around in 1791, the current wording of the 2nd amendment would exist today?

I for one hope that Delta sticks to its decision and does not go crawling back to the NRA.

FreequentFlier wrote:

enilria wrote:

Actually companies need to stay out of politics irrelevant to their business. Delta lobbyists will be asking this same guy to sign a petition against the ME3 in a month or two probably. You don't waste political capital on these momentary political issues that don't impact the bottom line.

Social and political issues definitely impact the bottom line and are very relevant to companies. In the age of social media, news can be spread across the country in mere seconds (and airlines have not gotten much positive PR recently ). You just need to look at Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to be flying Delta for years to come. This is a generation that is overwhelmingly progressive on social issues such as LGBT rights, the environment, gender discrimination, 2nd amendment, etc. There is a reason that DL sponsors LGBT rights events in countless cities and publishes articles about working to eliminate gender pay-gaps/offsetting carbon emissions. You can name a lot more companies supporting these issues than opposing them.

For Delta, they might risk some customers in the short-term by taking stands on the issues, but they are preparing for the long term. The majority of the demographic supporting traditionalist policies are older and therefore have less time left to do business with Delta than someone who is younger (and is more likely to support progressive issues). From a business perspective, it is important to attract these younger customers that are going to support DL for decades to come.

I don't disagree that DL conflicts itself on issues such as ME3 and Bombardier, but those are mostly economic issues. Those are separate issues and DL's public image not really defined by their positions on these issues. In all of these cases, DL is siding where they stand to make the most and loose the least amount of money. Seems like logical business moves to me.

FreequentFlier wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

This is an amazing post and thank you for taking the time to write it. This folks, is about as common sense a post can get.
The 2nd amendemt was written in 1791. I am no gun buff but I believe when this amendment was written, there were only hand guns, no such thing as assault rifles that we now allow pretty much any civilain to own. Who here thinks that if assault rifles were around in 1791, the current wording of the 2nd amendment would exist today?
I for one hope that Delta sticks to its decision and does not go crawling back to the NRA.

FreequentFlier wrote:

Social and political issues definitely impact the bottom line and are very relevant to companies. In the age of social media, news can be spread across the country in mere seconds (and airlines have not gotten much positive PR recently ). You just need to look at Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to be flying Delta for years to come. This is a generation that is overwhelmingly progressive on social issues such as LGBT rights, the environment, gender discrimination, 2nd amendment, etc. There is a reason that DL sponsors LGBT rights events in countless cities and publishes articles about working to eliminate gender pay-gaps/offsetting carbon emissions. You can name a lot more companies supporting these issues than opposing them.
For Delta, they might risk some customers in the short-term by taking stands on the issues, but they are preparing for the long term. The majority of the demographic supporting traditionalist policies are older and therefore have less time left to do business with Delta than someone who is younger (and is more likely to support progressive issues). From a business perspective, it is important to attract these younger customers that are going to support DL for decades to come.
I don't disagree that DL conflicts itself on issues such as ME3 and Bombardier, but those are mostly economic issues. Those are separate issues and DL's public image not really defined by their positions on these issues. In all of these cases, DL is siding where they stand to make the most and loose the least amount of money. Seems like logical business moves to me.

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.
Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ive-WW2.ht
The reality is no one knows what 15 year olds are going to believe in 25-30 years. We'll all be riding in self automated flying cars by then. Maybe DL or airlines won't even exist.
But DL's position was stupid, not to mention unnecessary, because companies can always choose not to wade into politics at all. It's pretty stupid to antagonize even a large minority of of your customer base. I figured that would be obvious after DL just lost out on $40 to 50 million in specialized tax breaks because of some pointless virtue signaling, but your mileage may vary.

FreequentFlier wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

This is an amazing post and thank you for taking the time to write it. This folks, is about as common sense a post can get.

The 2nd amendemt was written in 1791. I am no gun buff but I believe when this amendment was written, there were only hand guns, no such thing as assault rifles that we now allow pretty much any civilain to own. Who here thinks that if assault rifles were around in 1791, the current wording of the 2nd amendment would exist today?

I for one hope that Delta sticks to its decision and does not go crawling back to the NRA.

FreequentFlier wrote:

Social and political issues definitely impact the bottom line and are very relevant to companies. In the age of social media, news can be spread across the country in mere seconds (and airlines have not gotten much positive PR recently ). You just need to look at Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to be flying Delta for years to come. This is a generation that is overwhelmingly progressive on social issues such as LGBT rights, the environment, gender discrimination, 2nd amendment, etc. There is a reason that DL sponsors LGBT rights events in countless cities and publishes articles about working to eliminate gender pay-gaps/offsetting carbon emissions. You can name a lot more companies supporting these issues than opposing them.

For Delta, they might risk some customers in the short-term by taking stands on the issues, but they are preparing for the long term. The majority of the demographic supporting traditionalist policies are older and therefore have less time left to do business with Delta than someone who is younger (and is more likely to support progressive issues). From a business perspective, it is important to attract these younger customers that are going to support DL for decades to come.

I don't disagree that DL conflicts itself on issues such as ME3 and Bombardier, but those are mostly economic issues. Those are separate issues and DL's public image not really defined by their positions on these issues. In all of these cases, DL is siding where they stand to make the most and loose the least amount of money. Seems like logical business moves to me.

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.

Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-WW2.html


The reality is no one knows what 15 year olds are going to believe in 25-30 years. We'll all be riding in self automated flying cars by then. Maybe DL or airlines won't even exist.

But DL's position was stupid, not to mention unnecessary, because companies can always choose not to wade into politics at all. It's pretty stupid to antagonize even a large minority of of your customer base. I figured that would be obvious after DL just lost out on $40 to 50 million in specialized tax breaks because of some pointless virtue signaling, but your mileage may vary.

FreequentFlier wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

This is an amazing post and thank you for taking the time to write it. This folks, is about as common sense a post can get.

The 2nd amendemt was written in 1791. I am no gun buff but I believe when this amendment was written, there were only hand guns, no such thing as assault rifles that we now allow pretty much any civilain to own. Who here thinks that if assault rifles were around in 1791, the current wording of the 2nd amendment would exist today?

I for one hope that Delta sticks to its decision and does not go crawling back to the NRA.

FreequentFlier wrote:

Social and political issues definitely impact the bottom line and are very relevant to companies. In the age of social media, news can be spread across the country in mere seconds (and airlines have not gotten much positive PR recently ). You just need to look at Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to be flying Delta for years to come. This is a generation that is overwhelmingly progressive on social issues such as LGBT rights, the environment, gender discrimination, 2nd amendment, etc. There is a reason that DL sponsors LGBT rights events in countless cities and publishes articles about working to eliminate gender pay-gaps/offsetting carbon emissions. You can name a lot more companies supporting these issues than opposing them.

For Delta, they might risk some customers in the short-term by taking stands on the issues, but they are preparing for the long term. The majority of the demographic supporting traditionalist policies are older and therefore have less time left to do business with Delta than someone who is younger (and is more likely to support progressive issues). From a business perspective, it is important to attract these younger customers that are going to support DL for decades to come.

I don't disagree that DL conflicts itself on issues such as ME3 and Bombardier, but those are mostly economic issues. Those are separate issues and DL's public image not really defined by their positions on these issues. In all of these cases, DL is siding where they stand to make the most and loose the least amount of money. Seems like logical business moves to me.

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.

Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-WW2.html


The reality is no one knows what 15 year olds are going to believe in 25-30 years. We'll all be riding in self automated flying cars by then. Maybe DL or airlines won't even exist.

But DL's position was stupid, not to mention unnecessary, because companies can always choose not to wade into politics at all. It's pretty stupid to antagonize even a large minority of of your customer base. I figured that would be obvious after DL just lost out on $40 to 50 million in specialized tax breaks because of some pointless virtue signaling, but your mileage may vary.

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Social and political issues definitely impact the bottom line and are very relevant to companies. In the age of social media, news can be spread across the country in mere seconds (and airlines have not gotten much positive PR recently ). You just need to look at Millennials and Generation Z, who are going to be flying Delta for years to come. This is a generation that is overwhelmingly progressive on social issues such as LGBT rights, the environment, gender discrimination, 2nd amendment, etc. There is a reason that DL sponsors LGBT rights events in countless cities and publishes articles about working to eliminate gender pay-gaps/offsetting carbon emissions. You can name a lot more companies supporting these issues than opposing them.

For Delta, they might risk some customers in the short-term by taking stands on the issues, but they are preparing for the long term. The majority of the demographic supporting traditionalist policies are older and therefore have less time left to do business with Delta than someone who is younger (and is more likely to support progressive issues). From a business perspective, it is important to attract these younger customers that are going to support DL for decades to come.

I don't disagree that DL conflicts itself on issues such as ME3 and Bombardier, but those are mostly economic issues. Those are separate issues and DL's public image not really defined by their positions on these issues. In all of these cases, DL is siding where they stand to make the most and loose the least amount of money. Seems like logical business moves to me.

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.

Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-WW2.html


The reality is no one knows what 15 year olds are going to believe in 25-30 years. We'll all be riding in self automated flying cars by then. Maybe DL or airlines won't even exist.

But DL's position was stupid, not to mention unnecessary, because companies can always choose not to wade into politics at all. It's pretty stupid to antagonize even a large minority of of your customer base. I figured that would be obvious after DL just lost out on $40 to 50 million in specialized tax breaks because of some pointless virtue signaling, but your mileage may vary.

Dottie sounds like you’ve got it figured out ... Delta’s going down, The Daily Mail says you’re going to have a Permanent Majority, all sounds good for you! If I were you I’d just pour myself a nice glass of champagne, sit back, and watch myself get proven right. Come back on in a couple of years and give us a good “I Told You So.”

Why panties in such a wad, Dot? Are you having a few leaks worried that we libtards might actually have a chance? Get yourself some Depends ... I have faith you guys can turn up the lying, cheating, and stealing even more to hold on to power.

ThomasMTroxell wrote:

Delta could have spun it that they were ending the discount because of lack of use or because they weren't the exclusive airline of the NRA.

Seriously - This discount was essentially nothing and was only valid on Y or B fares, purchased through the Delta corporate meeting/booking travel portal using the NRA code. I HIGHLY doubt most convention attendees knew about it or that they used it in the first place.

FreequentFlier wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Considering many people (including several on this board) are regularly likening those 5 million individuals to "terrorists" and constantly dehumanizing them as if they are not even people,

Now you know what it's like to be a Muslim in the USA. Or a big scary transgender kid trying to pee in peace. Feels good doesn't it?

So you weren't bothered by those actions. You were just bothered by who was targeted by those actions. As long as the "right people" (in your view) are targeted by them, then go right ahead.

FreequentFlier wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Considering many people (including several on this board) are regularly likening those 5 million individuals to "terrorists" and constantly dehumanizing them as if they are not even people,

Now you know what it's like to be a Muslim in the USA. Or a big scary transgender kid trying to pee in peace. Feels good doesn't it?

So you weren't bothered by those actions. You were just bothered by who was targeted by those actions. As long as the "right people" (in your view) are targeted by them, then go right ahead.

WarRI1 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

What’s not been said here also is the Lt. Gov in his ire is all but admitting a direct relationship between the NRA and conservative politicians when he says something to the effect of you cannot attack “conservatives” and not expect retaliation.

What would anyone expect from a bunch of political Red Neck hacks from Georgia? Greedy SOB's willing to retaliate against any and all to defend gun rights over the rights to life and safety of children, children!!, I find it repulsive.

blrsea wrote:

All this debate about blaming companies for "taking sides" or "wading into politics" reminds me of the same-sex marraige/union support in the 2000s in the US. When companies started offering benefits for same-sex couples, they were in similar position, with politicians trying to brandish their "conventional marriage" credentials (and many even do now), and people calling for boycott of companies supporting/opposing same-sex marraige. I wonder whether the people who are accusing DL of taking sides in this issue would have accused companies for promoting same-sex marriages/unions then! And do those people still think the companies did the right thing then?

WarRI1 wrote:

Of course some are whackos, especially when you are talking about 5 million people.

But DL decided to collectively punish all of them, for the actions that literally none of them.

You know who pulled the trigger? Cruz did. Ultimately he is responsible at the end of the day


Of course Cruz is, that is the legal system and rightly so. Of course an insanity plea always muddies the waters. I am sure all the Republicans will be very pleased if he is found insane instead of guilty. They are the ones who constantly blame this horror show on everybody but the NRA, it is insanity, mental health issues, so if insanity is the end result of this, I cannot wait for all you tRumpers and Republican/Conservative folks to make comments supporting the verdict.

It is to me like a Drug dealer laying out loaded needles and saying to the addict, if you take this and commit a crime, it is not my fault, I just left the needles on the table. You took the drug, so you bear all the blame. The NRA and their Politician cohorts are worse than a Drug Dealer and it is tragic, but expected none of them are going to jail.

Pellegrine wrote:

blrsea wrote:

All this debate about blaming companies for "taking sides" or "wading into politics" reminds me of the same-sex marraige/union support in the 2000s in the US. When companies started offering benefits for same-sex couples, they were in similar position, with politicians trying to brandish their "conventional marriage" credentials (and many even do now), and people calling for boycott of companies supporting/opposing same-sex marraige. I wonder whether the people who are accusing DL of taking sides in this issue would have accused companies for promoting same-sex marriages/unions then! And do those people still think the companies did the right thing then?

It's different. Equality for LGBT2QIA+ deals with inherent human rights. Owning a gun isn't a human right, it's a right bestowed by the US Bill of Rights, and there are already many...many restrictions on that amendment when connected to individual gun ownership.

blrsea wrote:

Pellegrine wrote:

blrsea wrote:

All this debate about blaming companies for "taking sides" or "wading into politics" reminds me of the same-sex marraige/union support in the 2000s in the US. When companies started offering benefits for same-sex couples, they were in similar position, with politicians trying to brandish their "conventional marriage" credentials (and many even do now), and people calling for boycott of companies supporting/opposing same-sex marraige. I wonder whether the people who are accusing DL of taking sides in this issue would have accused companies for promoting same-sex marriages/unions then! And do those people still think the companies did the right thing then?

It's different. Equality for LGBT2QIA+ deals with inherent human rights. Owning a gun isn't a human right, it's a right bestowed by the US Bill of Rights, and there are already many...many restrictions on that amendment when connected to individual gun ownership.

I was addressing the political aspect of it. The political "taking sides" if you will. Whether LGBT is a equality issue or gun control is question of right to live isn't the focus, whether there was politics over it is what I am raising. Similar to the political sides of gun control debate, there are/were political sides to LGBT issue too. And many companies took sides then it irrespective of the politics behind it, just like they are doing now. So its not like companies are taking sides only now.

Pellegrine wrote:

With business this large, politics is involved every step of the way.

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.

Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-WW2.html


The reality is no one knows what 15 year olds are going to believe in 25-30 years. We'll all be riding in self automated flying cars by then. Maybe DL or airlines won't even exist.

But DL's position was stupid, not to mention unnecessary, because companies can always choose not to wade into politics at all. It's pretty stupid to antagonize even a large minority of of your customer base. I figured that would be obvious after DL just lost out on $40 to 50 million in specialized tax breaks because of some pointless virtue signaling, but your mileage may vary.

Dottie sounds like you’ve got it figured out ... Delta’s going down, The Daily Mail says you’re going to have a Permanent Majority, all sounds good for you! If I were you I’d just pour myself a nice glass of champagne, sit back, and watch myself get proven right. Come back on in a couple of years and give us a good “I Told You So.”

Why panties in such a wad, Dot? Are you having a few leaks worried that we libtards might actually have a chance? Get yourself some Depends ... I have faith you guys can turn up the lying, cheating, and stealing even more to hold on to power.

Seek help jet. You're losing it bro.

jetero wrote:

Let’s all go shopping at Dick’s today to p*ss off our self-righteous, freedom fighting friends on this board!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/b ... ifles.html

einsteinboricua wrote:

jetero wrote:

Let’s all go shopping at Dick’s today to p*ss off our self-righteous, freedom fighting friends on this board!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/b ... ifles.html

Can't wait to read the "let's boycott Dick's for being dicks" tweets and the videos of folks purchasing merchandise and/or burning it.

Nothing says "boycott" and "outrage" like destroying the items you bought from the store. Is this the new Keurig movement?

MaverickM11 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Now you know what it's like to be a Muslim in the USA. Or a big scary transgender kid trying to pee in peace. Feels good doesn't it?

So you weren't bothered by those actions. You were just bothered by who was targeted by those actions. As long as the "right people" (in your view) are targeted by them, then go right ahead.

That's what you got from that? Swing and a miss. The right has demonized two groups who pose either zero or infinitesimal risk to others, while guns kill 30,000 people per year. Toddlers kill more people with guns than terrorists. But guess which one the GOP sets themselves on fire over? It ain't the 30,000 gun deaths.

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

Dottie sounds like you’ve got it figured out ... Delta’s going down, The Daily Mail says you’re going to have a Permanent Majority, all sounds good for you! If I were you I’d just pour myself a nice glass of champagne, sit back, and watch myself get proven right. Come back on in a couple of years and give us a good “I Told You So.”

Why panties in such a wad, Dot? Are you having a few leaks worried that we libtards might actually have a chance? Get yourself some Depends ... I have faith you guys can turn up the lying, cheating, and stealing even more to hold on to power.

Seek help jet. You're losing it bro.

Uh oh Dot, does this mean you’re not too confident in you’re “I Told You So”? Maybe you are finally learning. I’ll give you a C- this round. (Would’ve been a straight C but the constant “virtue signaling” regurgitation is bringing back bad memories of the “Adjust your reality accordingly.” You must see some words that look big to you, your eyes widen, and you latch on to them and never let go.)

(And don’t worry about me. I can go all night with an outlet like you. And I will. I kind of like your Young Republican earnestness.)

FreequentFlier wrote:

Defensive much?

That's not what I "got" from that. That's what you've been doing. The average law abiding gun owners are no more responsible for Nikolas Cruz' actions than the average American Muslim is for the Boston Bomber.

So you're not really concerned about collective punishment and demonization of groups. You just want to be the one doling out the collective punishment and doing the demonizing.

FreequentFlier wrote:

jetero wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Seek help jet. You're losing it bro.

Uh oh Dot, does this mean you’re not too confident in you’re “I Told You So”? Maybe you are finally learning. I’ll give you a C- this round. (Would’ve been a straight C but the constant “virtue signaling” regurgitation is bringing back bad memories of the “Adjust your reality accordingly.” You must see some words that look big to you, your eyes widen, and you latch on to them and never let go.)

(And don’t worry about me. I can go all night with an outlet like you. And I will. I kind of like your Young Republican earnestness.)

Oh jet, I'm just not that into you. But if you're feeling lonely, there is always match.com for you.

FreequentFlier wrote:

But DL decided to collectively punish all of them, for the actions that literally none of them.

alfa164 wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

Your post implies that because a majority of young people are liberal on a particular issue, then companies should ignore the significant number of them that are not. It also presumes that political viewpoints are static, which they're also not.

Not to mention that there's evidence that Generation Z, the post Millenial Generation, may be the most conservative in nearly 100 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-WW2.html

cvgComair wrote:

It says that 80% would identify as fiscally conservative with 20% lower alcohol/drug/etc usage compared to Millennials, but 75% agree with same-sex marriage, 76% think climate change is a problem, and "Having grown up bombarded by mass shootings in their own country, and terrorist attacks overseas, this generation more likely supports gun control." I think it will be interesting to see how the current 2-party system goes forward, the average "Gen Z" in this article (and myself included) do not fit well into the core views of Democrats or Republicans (Libertarian and Green don't fit any better).

jfklganyc wrote:

Not much. Delta has such a large operation there because it is a red state with low taxes and good business climate. To shareholders, the ROI is what matters. Georgia, Texas, Florida...these are good places to run a business that is always in search of lower costs like airlines.

Of course, that same small government, red state mentality also comes with guns. Lots and lots of guns with few restrictions on ownership.

Plain and simple, Delta stepped onto popular platform du jour, and now they have to deal with the political fallout in their home state...where most people love the NRA.

TVNWZ wrote:

Tempest in a teapot. Six months from now nobody will remember this, and those tax breaks will be sneaked into some other legislation. It's all political posturing.

TVNWZ wrote:

Tempest in a teapot. Six months from now nobody will remember this, and those tax breaks will be sneaked into some other legislation. It's all political posturing.

jfklganyc wrote:

Not much. Delta has such a large operation there because it is a red state with low taxes and good business climate. To shareholders, the ROI is what matters. Georgia, Texas, Florida...these are good places to run a business that is always in search of lower costs like airlines.

Of course, that same small government, red state mentality also comes with guns. Lots and lots of guns with few restrictions on ownership.

Plain and simple, Delta stepped onto popular platform du jour, and now they have to deal with the political fallout in their home state...where most people love the NRA.

Aesma wrote:

If it's a great state with low taxes, why the hell are they giving tax breaks ?