Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

The management is incompetent beyond belief.

But Delta totally deserved it.

It's not their stance on the NRA that matters; its the fact that they made the insanely short sighted mistake of putting out a lengthy and extremely controversial statement to substantiate the ideal neutral original statement.

PR 101: Keep it short and simple. Delta failed in every way in this regard. Instead of stopping at their original statement, they went on to defend it which only fueled the fire. If they had the sense to stop at the original statement, it would not have been out of line or unusual compared to any one of the dozens of other companies that cut ties with the NRA with nearly identical statements.

Idiots.

Love of tax breaks and/or fear.

North Carolina did the same for AA. I'm not sure about what Georgia's bill would do, but NC had an incredibly small fuel sales tax -- airlines would only pay up to a certain value and even then, it was only for fuel used in NC airspace. AA could fuel up an entire A330 and only pay for a couple minutes of sales tax on that fuel. Instead of extending the cap on that value (only a couple million), the legislature removed the sales tax completely. Some legislators were probably worried of Charlotte becoming the next PIT (especially after the merger).

I don't understand these either. The state loses this income and the airlines make a tiny bit more.

kiowa wrote:

Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

Or the millions they get for each TATL they start from a non hub. Or the airlines in Chica they cuddle up with. They want a "level playing field" in which they win every time. Honestly though they did the right thing with the NRA business wise. Like it or not ultraconservatives, but the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

AP and moved to the non-civil aviation forum.
viewtopic.php?p=20207347

the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. DL pissed off the older and more middle of the road generation with the money to fly....on someone else.

gatibosgru wrote:

AP and moved to the non-civil aviation forum.
viewtopic.php?p=20207347

Its a different question

exFWAOONW wrote:

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror.

And when did the article say DL did this because of the shooting

This is the Civil aviation form. Read the question. If you want to start your nonsense about how dumb liberals are, do it in the non aviation section. There is a topic already there.

So an elected official speaks out on the behave of a special interest group and not just that, but even goes so far as using the state to blackmail the company. And the conservatives are digging this governmental interference in the business of a private company?

Dutchy wrote:

And the conservatives are digging this governmental interference in the business of a private company?

Love it.

kiowa wrote:

Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

The golden rule is;
- if it's tax breaks for a US company (Delta, Boeing) it's legal
- if it's any other kind of subsidy for someone else (ME3, Airbus, Bombardier) it's unfair and totally wrong.
Simples.

Delta's mistake was even saying they even had a discount with the NRA. I am a life member of the NRA never even knew there was some deal from delta. I bet if you asked 1000 Delta customers maybe a handful knew they had a discount with the NRA. I looked on Delta's website and cant find a list of organizations that have a discount. I bet I could find 1 or 2 with companies or organizations I didn't like. This whole "Outrage" mentality is silly and childish. Delta has nothing to do with the NRA they only were trying to gain a few customers.

travaz wrote:

Delta's mistake was even saying they even had a discount with the NRA. I am a life member of the NRA never even knew there was some deal from delta. I bet if you asked 1000 Delta customers maybe a handful knew they had a discount with the NRA. I looked on Delta's website and cant find a list of organizations that have a discount. I bet I could find 1 or 2 with companies or organizations I didn't like. This whole "Outrage" mentality is silly and childish. Delta has nothing to do with the NRA they only were trying to gain a few customers.

Whats even funnier is that people and politicians are calling it an attack on conservatives. It's not like they went and endorsed a bunch of liberal groups afterward.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

The golden rule is;
- if it's tax breaks for a US company (Delta, Boeing) it's legal
- if it's any other kind of subsidy for someone else (ME3, Airbus, Bombardier) it's unfair and totally wrong.
Simples.

And "EAS is a burden we have to take on, totally not subsidies"

stl07 wrote:

kiowa wrote:

Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

Or the millions they get for each TATL they start from a non hub. Or the airlines in Chica they cuddle up with. They want a "level playing field" in which they win every time. Honestly though they did the right thing with the NRA business wise. Like it or not ultraconservatives, but the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

Business wise it’s insanty. By taking any political stance on an issue a business is justifiably criticized on any and all business it now does. Do business with a Saudi carrier? Why do you support their stance on women’s and gay rights Delta?

The appropriate response would be to simply drop any discount program for anyone but frequent flyers. Or do nothing. What they did means I am justified to be critical of everything they do from a political standpoint.

neomax wrote:

The management is incompetent beyond belief.

But Delta totally deserved it.

It's not their stance on the NRA that matters; its the fact that they made the insanely short sighted mistake of putting out a lengthy and extremely controversial statement to substantiate the ideal neutral original statement.

PR 101: Keep it short and simple. Delta failed in every way in this regard. Instead of stopping at their original statement, they went on to defend it which only fueled the fire. If they had the sense to stop at the original statement, it would not have been out of line or unusual compared to any one of the dozens of other companies that cut ties with the NRA with nearly identical statements.

Idiots.

How was that statement "extremely controversial"? I read the statement. It was pretty bog standard corporate PR rhetoric aimed at trying to thread between both sides. Self serving, yes. "Extremely controversial" is hyperbole. And it's not like the other firms that cut ties with the NRA faced this kind of immediate legislative backlash so of course it warranted some kind of response. They'd be doing their shareholders and employees a disservice if they sat on their hands while a state government tries to influence who they offer discounts to.

exFWAOONW wrote:

the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. DL pissed off the older and more middle of the road generation with the money to fly....on someone else.

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is absolutely no justification for a 19 year old civilian to own an assault rifle. When was the 2nd amendment written? Long before assault rifles were even a word.

The tax breaks were went to keep ALL airlines from startng service at other airports that don't tax fuel. I would love to see DL start their next several long haul international flights frofm anything other than ATL. Georgia has more to lose then DL.

kiowa wrote:

Why would they be getting this legislation for one airline to begin with? How different does that make delta from the ME3?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/de ... 65f5997dbb

As I said in the first thread, forget politics. It's an airline. Don't waste your political capital weighing in on these social issues. I have no idea why they do that. It hurts their earnings when it irks politicians.

jumbojet wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. DL pissed off the older and more middle of the road generation with the money to fly....on someone else.

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Oh really, how so? I realize everyone wants to try and blame it on something, but do you blame the car when a drunk driver kills someone? No. Do you blame Tide when some idiot chews on a Tide Pod and permanently scars their stomach lining? No. The NRAs sole purpose is to promote gun safety, and to protect and preserve the 2nd amendment, which so many seem to wanna do away with. For any company to come out and pick sides on such a controversial political issue, just seems foolish to me. And for the record, I don't agree with the state of Georgia punishing Delta either. That is a slippery slope to go down.

P.s. - long time no hear. Where have you been?

Ridiculous people in charge of state government lobbying a company to support the NRA. This is a violation of First Amendment rights of Delta. A mild political statement made has totally shaken an insecure NRA and a state rep. Delta can give the bird to the Georgia state government. Their Finance guru's can find a way to offset that tax benefit if it's taken away and make it work in the P&L. State reps that vote against Delta can fly Southwest or other airlines. They thought the US curling team had it bad. No upgrades for government people!

The fact that this is even a situation that is happening is ridiculous. Also speaks to the insane grip that the NRA has on this country.

stl07 wrote:

travaz wrote:

Delta's mistake was even saying they even had a discount with the NRA. I am a life member of the NRA never even knew there was some deal from delta. I bet if you asked 1000 Delta customers maybe a handful knew they had a discount with the NRA. I looked on Delta's website and cant find a list of organizations that have a discount. I bet I could find 1 or 2 with companies or organizations I didn't like. This whole "Outrage" mentality is silly and childish. Delta has nothing to do with the NRA they only were trying to gain a few customers.

Whats even funnier is that people and politicians are calling it an attack on conservatives. It's not like they went and endorsed a bunch of liberal groups afterward.

Actually, it's even dumber. It was a discounted fare to the NRA convention. I don't think that airlines should be in the business of picking and choosing which group discounts go to which groups on the basis of anything but volume. They're a freakin' common carrier, for goodness sake. The NRA is engaged in legal activity, and whatever New York/California media/liberals think, it has millions of law-abiding members in this country. I occasionally agree with its positions and sometimes I don't. The NRA certainly is responsible for a wide range of free/inexpensive gun safety education.

But the bottom line is that it is engaged in entirely-legal activity, and not advocating or defending any kind of illegal activity. So on what basis would a Common Carrier inject itself into these politics?

What's next? Picking and choosing which religious group, pro-or-con abortion group, Republican/Democrat Convention, etc., to offer discounts to? Because that's the next step.

Delta adds so much to the Georgia economy. They have options for moving seats, the state should appreciate what delta brings.

Will Delta leave ATL , no way. It will always be a huge delta hub. Can delta move the headquarters to a super business friendly state like Utah and save alot , yes. MSP I am sure would love to offer a fantastic package to bring in the headquarters. You can't take them for granted they need delta more than they need them. Delta is not optionless they can move high paying jobs anywhere they want.

jumbojet wrote:

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is absolutely no justification for a 19 year old civilian to own an assault rifle. When was the 2nd amendment written? Long before assault rifles were even a word.

Especially since an "assault rifle" is just a loaded, poll-tested, this-century monicker designed for political effect, not a real description.

It's a rifle. It doesn't fire any faster than any other self-chambering rifle. It's not a machine gun. It's not a machine pistol like a MAC10. It is a really-good rife, but it's just a rifle. It's an easy rifle to learn to shoot accurately, but isn't that an indication of a good product?

A kid with a Glock pistol is able to shoot other kids just as dead as a kid with an AR-15. Actually probably more kids: a rifle is an illogical weapon, frankly, to use for close-quarters combat like a school shooting. How about a shotgun?

Hey, the British are now thinking of banning knives. Just regular old knives. Because in Britain, that's what killers use, and there are lots of killings there with knives. And explosive devices.

It's all equally-horrible, whether it's a mass killing or a husband killing a wife, and whether bare hands or a knife or a machine gun are used to accomplish the evil result.

Oh, and by the way, 19 is plenty old to responsibly own any legal weapon. It's the person that's the problem, not the age.

Bottom line is that we are much better off addressing why in this country it is so difficult to do anything for/with people who are clearly exhibiting symptoms of mental illness and/or aggression. School shootings make the papers because they are so rare, but a lot more than 17 lives would be saved every year if government were more proactive about dealing with the abusive/mentally-ill. But, gee, that's an actual, nuanced, hard problem, whereas banning the instrumentality is a feel-good solution that will accomplish almost nothing.

My issue with Delta is that as a common carrier it should be totally neutral when offering group discounts, at least as long as the group is engaged in legal activity, especially political activity. I would be just as concerned if it were revoking a discount normally offered to members of Planned Parenthood or a religious group.

Wonder how many people here taking issue with Deltas stance withdrawing the NRA discount shop at hobby lobby or eat at Chic FIl A. Corporations are free to do what they please, customers can go elsewhere and shareholders can sell their stock. $40mm to delta is absolutely chump change. What’s most upsetting to me frankly is that these enormously profitable companies with ridiculous executive perks and salaries get tax breaks in the first place beyond what the average GA taxpayer gets.

wjcandee wrote:

stl07 wrote:

travaz wrote:

Delta's mistake was even saying they even had a discount with the NRA. I am a life member of the NRA never even knew there was some deal from delta. I bet if you asked 1000 Delta customers maybe a handful knew they had a discount with the NRA. I looked on Delta's website and cant find a list of organizations that have a discount. I bet I could find 1 or 2 with companies or organizations I didn't like. This whole "Outrage" mentality is silly and childish. Delta has nothing to do with the NRA they only were trying to gain a few customers.

Whats even funnier is that people and politicians are calling it an attack on conservatives. It's not like they went and endorsed a bunch of liberal groups afterward.

Actually, it's even dumber. It was a discounted fare to the NRA convention. I don't think that airlines should be in the business of picking and choosing which group discounts go to which groups on the basis of anything but volume. They're a freakin' common carrier, for goodness sake. The NRA is engaged in legal activity, and whatever New York/California media/liberals think, it has millions of law-abiding members in this country. I occasionally agree with its positions and sometimes I don't. The NRA certainly is responsible for a wide range of free/inexpensive gun safety education.

But the bottom line is that it is engaged in entirely-legal activity, and not advocating or defending any kind of illegal activity. So on what basis would a Common Carrier inject itself into these politics.

What's next? Picking and choosing which religious group, pro-or-con abortion group, Republican/Democrat Convention, etc., to offer discounts to? Because that's the next step.

That's the thing, though. Have you ever been to the NRA convention? It draws a lot of traffic both from the political side and from the gun industry. Airlines offer these kinds of benefits literally all the time for large events. It isn't a political statement any more than offering a discount for E3 or the American Medical Association is some kind of endoresement. Hell, airlines would be remiss if they didn't offer one for the DNC and RNC.

ual763 wrote:

The NRAs sole purpose is to promote gun safety, and to protect and preserve the 2nd amendment, which so many seem to wanna do away with. For any company to come out and pick sides on such a controversial political issue, just seems foolish to me. And for the record, I don't agree with the state of Georgia punishing Delta either. That is a slippery slope to go down.

Unfortunately, that is no longer true. I hate to repeat a post I already made (on the different thread), but this is my observation:

"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."

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned...this is a play for the future.

As a company focused on cementing it's international presence, Delta was forward-thinking enough to cut ties with the NRA in a public way. They knew the risks, for sure. They wagered that the positive feedback and increased business from travelers world-wide who vehemently oppose the NRA and the gun lobby in general would be worth far more than losing the business of those who side with the NRA. As others have posted, the next generation will not be kind to the NRA and gun lobby...and Delta played their hand accordingly.

What was stupid about this whole incident is that it's completely unnecessary. Corporations don't have opinions, people do. I guarantee you that for every person who thought this was a good idea in Delta, there was a person who disagreed with it. Delta shouldn't have said a thing, and if they were asked about it, responded similar to the way FedEx did: "We offer discounts and other pricing incentives to any legal organization, where it makes business sense. We take no position on what are strongly held feelings about political issues."

For those interested in an unbelievably informative history of the NRA I recommend listening to the “More Perfect” podcast on the topic, released a couple months ago. The organization was started by a NYT reporter interested in promoting gun safety especially for youths. I’ll just say it evolved from there— the how and when and why makes for gripping radio.

I listen to tons of podcasts and More Perfect is the top of the heap. The NRA story is more nuanced than what’s reflected here.

This can be played with a profitable endgame if Delta makes the right moves. This stance could be spun by DL as part of a "Family Friendly" policy and position DL as the Family Airline for making a stand against excessive gun ownership.

The positive effect could make that money lost indeed look like chump change.

It's all about the optics. Not every flyer is flying on the cheapest tickets. Many passengers flying for VFR will potentially be swayed to DL for that. After all the NRA is only 5m members against up to 70m Americans who own guns.

jumbojet wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. DL pissed off the older and more middle of the road generation with the money to fly....on someone else.

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it.

NRA literally has nothing to do with this shooting.

19-year mental case and incompetent Sheriff's office and FBI that missed warning signs have everything to do with it.

awhorto1 wrote:

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned...this is a play for the future.

As a company focused on cementing it's international presence, Delta was forward-thinking enough to cut ties with the NRA in a public way. They knew the risks, for sure. They wagered that the positive feedback and increased business from travelers world-wide who vehemently oppose the NRA.

I heard that person already booked on EK...

Delta wanted to make a statement and now they face backlash. They could have quietly ended the very small and pointless discount program, but wanted to be public about it. When companies play politics, they pay the price.

I think giving the specific discount was dumb in the first place. Granted, each year the NRA like any other organization could contact DL to negotiate a discount for a large event, and nobody would care. But having a standing directive to offer the discount makes it seem like DL is a "partner" of the NRA.

wjcandee wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is absolutely no justification for a 19 year old civilian to own an assault rifle. When was the 2nd amendment written? Long before assault rifles were even a word.

Especially since an "assault rifle" is just a loaded, poll-tested, this-century monicker designed for political effect, not a real description.

It's a rifle. It doesn't fire any faster than any other self-chambering rifle. It's not a machine gun. It's not a machine pistol like a MAC10. It is a really-good rife, but it's just a rifle. It's an easy rifle to learn to shoot accurately, but isn't that an indication of a good product?

A kid with a Glock pistol is able to shoot other kids just as dead as a kid with an AR-15. Actually probably more kids: a rifle is an illogical weapon, frankly, to use for close-quarters combat like a school shooting. How about a shotgun?

Hey, the British are now thinking of banning knives. Just regular old knives. Because in Britain, that's what killers use, and there are lots of killings there with knives. And explosive devices.

It's all equally-horrible, whether it's a mass killing or a husband killing a wife, and whether bare hands or a knife or a machine gun are used to accomplish the evil result.

Oh, and by the way, 19 is plenty old to responsibly own any legal weapon. It's the person that's the problem, not the age.

Yeah it's so hypocritical isn't it....

Not all 19 year olds have the same maturity or mentality to be responsible, in most gun crimes it usually turns out to be the total opposite as we've recently witnessed.

For a start the purchase of a gun should only be allowed by law to over 21yo's and anyone under that age who desire using a gun should think about joining the armed forces, and all this crap about having a gun saves lives by protecting yourself doesn't wash with me.

In the USA a 19yo can legally purchase a gun over the counter but can't legally buy and consume alcohol until they are 21yo, it's absolutely ridiculous!

How do conservatives reconcile that the government is using tax dollars to influence a private company, but for a cause they approve? Presumably if you're for limited government you should be outraged at this gross overreach of the GA state government.

ual763 wrote:

[
P.s. - long time no hear. Where have you been?

Rehab.

exFWAOONW wrote:

the next generation is anti-nra. DL just won them over.

And yet, the NRA had nothing to do with the shooting. But, liberals needed a scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. DL pissed off the older and more middle of the road generation with the money to fly....on someone else.

The NRA had everything to do with the shooting. They ensured the weapon used would be freely available to the shooter.

Cunard wrote:

wjcandee wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is absolutely no justification for a 19 year old civilian to own an assault rifle. When was the 2nd amendment written? Long before assault rifles were even a word.

Especially since an "assault rifle" is just a loaded, poll-tested, this-century monicker designed for political effect, not a real description.

It's a rifle. It doesn't fire any faster than any other self-chambering rifle. It's not a machine gun. It's not a machine pistol like a MAC10. It is a really-good rife, but it's just a rifle. It's an easy rifle to learn to shoot accurately, but isn't that an indication of a good product?

A kid with a Glock pistol is able to shoot other kids just as dead as a kid with an AR-15. Actually probably more kids: a rifle is an illogical weapon, frankly, to use for close-quarters combat like a school shooting. How about a shotgun?

Hey, the British are now thinking of banning knives. Just regular old knives. Because in Britain, that's what killers use, and there are lots of killings there with knives. And explosive devices.

It's all equally-horrible, whether it's a mass killing or a husband killing a wife, and whether bare hands or a knife or a machine gun are used to accomplish the evil result.

Oh, and by the way, 19 is plenty old to responsibly own any legal weapon. It's the person that's the problem, not the age.

Yeah it's so hypocritical isn't it....

Not all 19 year olds have the same maturity or mentality to be responsible, in most gun crimes it usually turns out to be the total opposite as we've recently witnessed.

For a start the purchase of a gun should only be allowed by law to over 21yo's and anyone under that age who desire using a gun should think about joining the armed forces, and all this crap about having a gun saves lives by protecting yourself doesn't wash with me.

In the USA a 19yo can legally purchase a gun over the counter but can't legally buy and consume alcohol until they are 21yo, it's absolutely ridiculous!

If you think 19 is too ear;y to buy a gun, you may think it is too early to get a gun in any other way. Enlistment age is 18, or even 17 with parental consent... And those folks get M16's, not AR-15s...
And some numbers more relevant to the forum - US ATP age is 23, restricted ATP is 21. EASA is cool with 19 year old copilots...

wjcandee wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Your wrong. The NRA has EVERYTHING to do with it. There is absolutely no justification for a 19 year old civilian to own an assault rifle. When was the 2nd amendment written? Long before assault rifles were even a word.

Especially since an "assault rifle" is just a loaded, poll-tested, this-century monicker designed for political effect, not a real description.

It's a rifle. It doesn't fire any faster than any other self-chambering rifle. It's not a machine gun. It's not a machine pistol like a MAC10. It is a really-good rife, but it's just a rifle. It's an easy rifle to learn to shoot accurately, but isn't that an indication of a good product?

A kid with a Glock pistol is able to shoot other kids just as dead as a kid with an AR-15. Actually probably more kids: a rifle is an illogical weapon, frankly, to use for close-quarters combat like a school shooting. How about a shotgun?

Hey, the British are now thinking of banning knives. Just regular old knives. Because in Britain, that's what killers use, and there are lots of killings there with knives. And explosive devices.

It's all equally-horrible, whether it's a mass killing or a husband killing a wife, and whether bare hands or a knife or a machine gun are used to accomplish the evil result.

Oh, and by the way, 19 is plenty old to responsibly own any legal weapon. It's the person that's the problem, not the age.

Bottom line is that we are much better off addressing why in this country it is so difficult to do anything for/with people who are clearly exhibiting symptoms of mental illness and/or aggression. School shootings make the papers because they are so rare, but a lot more than 17 lives would be saved every year if government were more proactive about dealing with the abusive/mentally-ill. But, gee, that's an actual, nuanced, hard problem, whereas banning the instrumentality is a feel-good solution that will accomplish almost nothing.

My issue with Delta is that as a common carrier it should be totally neutral when offering group discounts, at least as long as the group is engaged in legal activity, especially political activity. I would be just as concerned if it were revoking a discount normally offered to members of Planned Parenthood or a religious group.

your not getting the point. The weaponry that was around when the 2nd amendment was created looks nothing like weapons that are available today, nearly 230 years later. The level of sophistication is insanely different as is the magnitude of the damage that can be done with today's choices. The killing machines that are around today and available to the general public were not around 230 years ago when the 2nd amendment was written

Now, to stay on topic, I don't necessarily agree with how Delta handled the matter but its to late to reverse what they have already done. I seriously doubt that it will cause any irreparable damage to the DL brand anyway. If they lose a 40 mil write off, so be it. They have lost more, most recently during the ATL power outage and the IT meltdown of last summer..

But the bottom line is that it is engaged in entirely-legal activity, and not advocating or defending any kind of illegal activity. So on what basis would a Common Carrier inject itself into these politics?

What's next? Picking and choosing which religious group, pro-or-con abortion group, Republican/Democrat Convention, etc., to offer discounts to? Because that's the next step.

This.

your not getting the point. The weaponry that was around when the 2nd amendment was created looks nothing like weapons that are available today, nearly 230 years later. The level of sophistication is insanely different as is the magnitude of the damage that can be done with today's choices. The killing machines that are around today and available to the general public were not around 230 years ago when the 2nd amendment was written

Actually, back then the local militia and even some private citizens owned their own cannon. In the Old West, many towns even owned their own Gatling guns. In a great many cases, the average frontiersman was far better armed than a soldier in the US Army. Not trying to pick a fight or take sides, merely pointing out that historically the 2nd Amendment has covered all sorts of military grade weapons, even well into the 19th and 20th centuries. Heck, you used to be able to buy fully auto Tommy guns mail order and from hardware stores before the mob got a hold of them in the 1920s. Now, whether the 2nd Amendment should cover such weapons is another debate, another discussion. But, historically it has covered such weapons.

And yet FedEx is facing backlash over their “neutral” statement. Delta is free to cut discounts however they see fit. Maybe the lot of you forgot Chick fil a’s stance on same sex marriage? Anyways, what I find shocking is that so far (haven’t checked recently) a government official was/is allowed to threaten/blackmail a public company...

Aptivaboy wrote:

[
Actually, back then the local militia and even some private citizens owned their own cannon. In the Old West, many towns even owned their own Gatling guns. In a great many cases, the average frontiersman was far better armed than a soldier in the US Army. Not trying to pick a fight or take sides, merely pointing out that historically the 2nd Amendment has covered all sorts of military grade weapons, even well into the 19th and 20th centuries. Heck, you used to be able to buy fully auto Tommy guns mail order and from hardware stores before the mob got a hold of them in the 1920s. Now, whether the 2nd Amendment should cover such weapons is another debate, another discussion. But, historically it has covered such weapons.

actually, your quite right. I just read what you posted on google. Somewhere along the way however, someone must have made it illegal for such weaponry that you posted above to be illegal to own.

Aside from the political views, which this thread is entirely about, I do concur that DL should have handled it differently. I also think that it will result in no real harm to the DL brand.

Aptivaboy: You beat me to it. The "the weapons are sooooo much more dangerous today" argument is historically inaccurate.

Amazing what people are being taught in school today.

Jumbo: Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Seriously. It's refreshing to see on "social media", and I salute you.

I'm sure local politicians tying tax breaks with who businesses partner with will help the bid for the new Amazon HQ.

wjcandee wrote:

Aptivaboy: You beat me to it. The "the weapons are sooooo much more dangerous today" argument is historically inaccurate.

Amazing what people are being taught in school today.

Jumbo: Thanks for the intellectual honesty! Seriously. It's refreshing to see on "social media", and I salute you.

As a Parkland parent put it, explain to me how a 17 year old with an assault rifle is a 'well regulated militia'.

It is state legislation and state tax that are in question. Surely, they can move to other states if the state they currently operate from no longer provide attractive tax rules?

It’ll all be okay. If DL is dead set on making a political statement, $40million should be well worth it for them.

c933103 wrote:

It is state legislation and state tax that are in question. Surely, they can move to other states if the state they currently operate from no longer provide attractive tax rules?

Can be a bit more difficult to move that big hub...

So....what a re the odds this actually is blocked? Or is it just posturing from a guy seeking reelection?