Checkmate

[funguy2]

Whoa, there, Nelly. Reread what I said. It's a question of degree, not a binary condition. It's all a question of perspective...and if you ask ten people how to tax fairly, you'll get twelve responses.

[post="246083"][/post]​

Fair enough... I am telling you what I think is fair, as opposed to recognizing that different people will have different views. However, this is wandering off topic, which is not necessarily bad.

Getting back to the "equal" bit. You said that a $10/head additional tax would affect the airlines "roughly equally". I maintain that your statement is untrue, as we know the added cost of the tax will alter demand, or more likely simply reduce revenue for each ticket sold. Some airlines can compensate for this. Some have enough cash to live with it and hope for better times, some carriers are already in BK and cannot withstand another blow to revenue.

Furthermore, you state that airline services are not "heavily taxed". Diesel_8 provided some pretty significant data refuting you, and your did not respond. 7.5% tax is comparable to sales tax in most places, and that's before adding on the fixed amount per segment for segment tax, security tax, and PFC's. And then there is a fuel tax added on to one of the airlines' costs. I can think of a few industries which have significant tax burdens, such as gasoline or the "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcahol... But what other service industries are subject to such a high tax rate on their consumers? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[mweiss]

Again, it depends on one's perspective. Should a use fee constitute a tax? Does your answer depend on how the money is earmarked? I ask because many of those taxes and fees are use fees. When you go into a restaurant, the cost of the facilities is included in the price of the food and service. Not entirely so when you buy an airline ticket. The infrastructure doesn't belong to the airlines, and the fees are broken out from the fare, rather than baked in as it would be in other industries.

So, is it fair to directly compare the 15% tax on airline to the 8% tax on your dinner? It's all a question of perspective. My perspective says that it's not.

 

[Boomer]

Had a dearly departed relative intimately involved with spurious attempts at revitalization of the ATC; problem was that every time an RFP was let out, the civilian side would spend enormous sums in due diligence studies only to have the RFP changed midstream: leading to another futile attempt to respond to the the RFP before the specifications were again changed.

Many firms are awaiting a leveling of the technological field before bidding a set of movable goalposts. We have seen Microwave come and go while GPS is being done without being "certified" as the standard due to DOD concerns.

Privatization of the ATC is needed in the same way that ARINC was needed and formed by those primarily utilizing the resources. The DHS proposal fee should be allocated on an "all departure" basis from controlled airfields in the same way that controlled airspace should be "billed by the mile", due to requirements for flight following and airspace allocation, existing regardless of the ASM count.

The principle remains the same: the DHS is tasked with the prevention of Domestic Terrorism by whatever means the terrorist chooses.

The Lear or the Boeing consitute an assault and must be guarded against. By leavying the same fee on a departure basis, we insure that only those flights meeting an internal economic metric of the firm requesting them actually occur.

We further reduce the congestion by charging an ASM cost for ATC handling, en route, increasing the performance of the same function. Fewer flights with higher density leads to less airspace congestion, greater control, and focus on measures consistent with increased security.

TBL, we use capitalism to self ration the airspace based on the cost considerations inherent in the safe movement of any aircraft between points A & B; reducing the elements needed for securing said proportioning in exponential measure yielding a greater savings to the US Taxpayer.

The LCCs' gain a benny, the Legacies are forced to tighten operations and reconsider the HUB mentality.

C'est la vie.

 

[WNrforlife]

Why do you guys let WNforlife play y'all like a chess game? He's in it for a rise and you suckers go for it every time. He's a troll and I don't think he is even employeed by WN, if he is then I think Im going to hurl.....he,he,he.

[post="245356"][/post]​

Whatcha talkin about Jetdoc? I'm not bashing our airline here, only the legacy carriers. If I was in this to stir the pot, I would be posting on USAirways or UAL's site. We're all "WNr's" here!!

 

[mweiss]

You mean like this? Or this? Maybe you meant this instead? <_< Or is it not stirring the pot to gloat over the possibility of DL's bankruptcy?

 

[funguy2]

Again, it depends on one's perspective. Should a use fee constitute a tax? Does your answer depend on how the money is earmarked? I ask because many of those taxes and fees are use fees. When you go into a restaurant, the cost of the facilities is included in the price of the food and service. Not entirely so when you buy an airline ticket. The infrastructure doesn't belong to the airlines, and the fees are broken out from the fare, rather than baked in as it would be in other industries.

So, is it fair to directly compare the 15% tax on airline to the 8% tax on your dinner? It's all a question of perspective. My perspective says that it's not.

[post="246152"][/post]​

Mweiss, I have to very strongly disagree with you. The airlines do not get free use of facilities. Granted, they are developed differently, with some level of government involvement, but the last time I checked, airlines lease terminal facilites and pay a landing fee for every aircraft that comes and goes. The taxes and fees already paid by consumers already pays for ATC.

The additional "security" fee, if approved, will be paid by airline passengers, but help protect all Americans. When security was for the purpose of preventing hijackings and on-board violence, I would agree that it should be paid by the passengers. However, now that air security is a national defense issue, it should be paid for the same as any other national defense program.

 

[mweiss]

The airlines do not get free use of facilities.

Where did I say that they did? Are you meaning to suggest that PFCs don't go to the airports? I can show you the airports' annual reports if you need the proof.

Are you meaning to suggest that the airlines are paying for the TSA? Speaking of which, I didn't notice any fare drops corresponding to the sudden financial windfall of not paying for the security checkpoints anymore. Why not?

The additional "security" fee, if approved, will be paid by airline passengers, but help protect all Americans.

Yes. Where did I say that I support this use of the funds?

My point is that you cannot compare the tax structure of other industries to that of airlines without doing much more complicated mathematics than a simple percentage tax comparison.

 

[WNrforlife]

You mean like this? Or this? Maybe you meant this instead? <_< Or is it not stirring the pot to gloat over the possibility of DL's bankruptcy?

[post="246239"][/post]​

That wasn't gloating. I was merely pointing out that time was running out for them to settle the pilots contract, and that they were no longer the highest paid employees in the industry.
The last one was just the posting of an article. Gimme a break. :huh: :huh:

 

[mweiss]

The last one wasn't about the article. It was the at the end. Perhaps you can explain to us what you found so funny about the Motley Fool's analysis?

 

[WNjetdoc]

Whatcha talkin about Jetdoc? I'm not bashing our airline here, only the legacy carriers. If I was in this to stir the pot, I would be posting on USAirways or UAL's site. We're all "WNr's" here!!

[post="246228"][/post]​

I know you're not talking about our airline dude, it just seems you try to stir the pot. Im not saying that some of the stuff you post isn't true, its just in the face of the folks at the other airlines. I know some of them are jerks, but most are good people just trying to do their jobs, so I try to save my "heat" posts for the nitwits that attack us directly.

WNrforlife, have you ever heard of a AMT with the nickname of, "Monkeyboy"? Just curious.

 

[WNrforlife]

WNrforlife, have you ever heard of a AMT with the nickname of, "Monkeyboy"? Just curious.

[post="246286"][/post]​

No, haven't heard of Monkeyboy.

 

[WNjetdoc]

No, haven't heard of Monkeyboy.

[post="246331"][/post]​

Ok, thats cool.

 

[WNrforlife]

The airline industry also reminds me of the "reality" show "Survivor"

Southwest is like the team that keeps winning all of the reward and immunity challenges.

The "legacy" carriers are like the teams that keep losing the challenges and are getting weaker and smaller with each passing day.

Just an observation that I wanted to share.

 

[ramper_in_las]

You're kidding, right? Fuel Hedges? That's the only thing we have going for us?
What about one of the highest productivity rates in the industry? What about one of the lowest CSMs, without taking into account the fuel hedges? You see, our fleet commonality is just one of the many things that keep our costs down, something AA and the boys don't have.

[post="245181"][/post]​

Everyone is forgetting WN has a multifacetted plan to keep the company profitable. Here is a couple of reasons why we are able to keep our ticket prices low:

1. We bid extremely high for the new US postal service contract. In fact we are the most expensive carrier out there. Southwest management came up with a plan to create better peformance in getting US mail to its final destination. Airlines are awarded mail based on their performance. Last I heard we are getting 90% of our mail scanned and to its destination. This has made WN the best mail carrier out there. And because UA, NW, US can not get their act together they have totally given up hauling US MAIL.

2.

Southwest has been named “Airline of the Yearâ€￾ for Cargo by the Express Delivery and Logistics Association (XLA), formerly the Air Courier Conference of America (ACCA).

I dont know about other WN cities but in LAS on light passenger days we make up for it buy filling up our planes with freight. Thus in turn keeping WN profitable.

Passengers and freight are only part of the Southwest machine. It is also because of well thought out mangerial decisions and dedicated employees all working as a team to get the job done a a daily basis. Thats my two cents...

 

[AviationNewbie]

Fair enough... I am telling you what I think is fair, as opposed to recognizing that different people will have different views. However, this is wandering off topic, which is not necessarily bad.

Getting back to the "equal" bit. You said that a $10/head additional tax would affect the airlines "roughly equally". I maintain that your statement is untrue, as we know the added cost of the tax will alter demand, or more likely simply reduce revenue for each ticket sold. Some airlines can compensate for this. Some have enough cash to live with it and hope for better times, some carriers are already in BK and cannot withstand another blow to revenue.

Furthermore, you state that airline services are not "heavily taxed". Diesel_8 provided some pretty significant data refuting you, and your did not respond. 7.5% tax is comparable to sales tax in most places, and that's before adding on the fixed amount per segment for segment tax, security tax, and PFC's. And then there is a fuel tax added on to one of the airlines' costs. I can think of a few industries which have significant tax burdens, such as gasoline or the "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcahol... But what other service industries are subject to such a high tax rate on their consumers? Inquiring minds want to know!

[post="246115"][/post]​

Most travel or trouism based businesses have some sort of tax or fees associated with them. Hotels will almost always have a state lodging tax added on top of the sales tax, which in most places will be roughly equal to the sales tax. On top of that you can add tourism and marketing taxes that are piled onto hotels and tour operators by states and local governments to offset the cost of advertising.

As for how with additional taxes or fees affect sales and demand, I would venture to guess the airlines will lower prices to try to lessen the notice to the customers. The majority of my clients, who are business travelers, will jump from one airline to another over a few dollars. The leisure travlers are very sensitive to cost and the difference between $400 and $410, in somecases will determine if someone can aford to take their family on a trip or not (nothing we haven't all seen before). I suspect, even if the majority of airlines raise prices by the same amount, there will be one who will hold out and the other carries, will end up dropping their prices, to match to keep from loosing too much market share.