Delta supports illegal immigration-Boycott Delta...

[WorldTraveler]

we are in agreement. The American people do respect laws and want a country built around them.

I am neither supporting or condemning the President's action... but let's not kid ourselves that this is an issue that has been getting worse and worse for decades and Washington has not dealt with it.

combine that with a very ideological President who is determined to reshape much of the fabric of America - again, right or wrong is not my point, but something was going to happen.

the issue now is how it all plays out. it is far from a done deal.

and what benefit the airline industry gets out of ANY immigration reform will be very hard to gauge.

 

[topDawg]

uh... Exim.

increased aviation taxes.

a few minutes on the news section of Deltanet should answer that question.

uh what exactly does ExIm have to do with Obama?
 
you know that Congress is going to be the one who kills the bank, and Delta just pissed off a majority controlled congress of Republicans. 
 
Reallllllllllll logical. This is an issue Delta shouldn't have said a single world about. Lot of employees are pissed about it to. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

employees in YOUR neck of the woods, perhaps.

I would agree that saying nothing might have been better - but the motive is about revenue growth, exactly what DL has done better than anyone else.

Given that DL's growth of its Latin America system - the US' largest segment of immigrants - is the largest of the US carriers, perhaps Mr. Anderson will have the last laugh on earnings day.

 

[eolesen]

uh what exactly does ExIm have to do with Obama?
 
you know that Congress is going to be the one who kills the bank, and Delta just pissed off a majority controlled congress of Republicans. 
 
Reallllllllllll logical. This is an issue Delta shouldn't have said a single world about. Lot of employees are pissed about it to.

Exactly the point I was making about the whole Paulding issue. The company should stay out of politics as far as the public is concerned. If they want to quietly lobby, that's another story, but going this public never really ends well. Not only do you alienate employees, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some travelers react. I purposely avoid certain retailers and even entertainers because of some of public positions they've taken on certain political or social issues.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and there are undoubtedly people who WILL support DL because of their stance on this issue....

there is no way to know what the cost or benefit to DL will be but it is far more likely that DL will gain passengers instead of lose them.

Even when Chick-Fil-A's founder made their statements that angered a whole lot of people, they ended up gaining far more sales. the whole boycott backfired big time.

Every issue that is offensive to some people has people who support it

 

[eolesen]

I suspect the value of gaining a hundred pro-amnesty customers who will travel twice a year won't come close to replacing the value of a handful of diehard conservatives who travel weekly on business.

But again, you miss the point. Taking a stand on politically charged issues rarely ends well for companies. Most companies stay passionately neutral to avoid the risks.

 

[WorldTraveler]

maybe but probably not.

and the hypocrisy is that it is ok for you to go off on all kinds of political issues here and it is supposed to be ok for you.

and as much as you would like to think it doesn't count, you probably missed that Apple's CEO just came out and said he is gay... I suppose you would argue he should have just stayed in the closet.

 

[Kev3188]

Oh cool; I didn't realize you were a gay rights advocate. That's a happy surprise...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I simply noted that the CEO of one of the world's most successful companies took what many would say is a very personal issue and made it very private.

I suspect that you might find a lot to like if the stereotypes were replaced with reality and a face.

 

[Kev3188]

I simply noted that the CEO of one of the world's most successful companies took what many would say is a very personal issue and made it very private.

I would say he made it quite public. Good for him.

So you're for or against LGBT rights?

 

[eolesen]

maybe but probably not.

and the hypocrisy is that it is ok for you to go off on all kinds of political issues here and it is supposed to be ok for you.

and as much as you would like to think it doesn't count, you probably missed that Apple's CEO just came out and said he is gay... I suppose you would argue he should have just stayed in the closet.

There's no comparison between individuals expressing their personal views with that of public statement issued by the Corp Comm department of Delta.

Last I checked, the orientation of the CEO wasn't a matter of corporate policy. It's also not something that affects me directly or even indirectly, so why would I care if he was in or out of the closet?...

 

[swamt]

Exactly the point I was making about the whole Paulding issue. The company should stay out of politics as far as the public is concerned. If they want to quietly lobby, that's another story, but going this public never really ends well. Not only do you alienate employees, but it wouldn't surprise me to see some travelers react. I purposely avoid certain retailers and even entertainers because of some of public positions they've taken on certain political or social issues.

Agreed.  And I see you get it...
 

I suspect the value of gaining a hundred pro-amnesty customers who will travel twice a year won't come close to replacing the value of a handful of diehard conservatives who travel weekly on business.

But again, you miss the point. Taking a stand on politically charged issues rarely ends well for companies. Most companies stay passionately neutral to avoid the risks.

He never gets it...

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course for E, having the CEO be who he is in public - and people should be transparent and real - doesn't reflect on the company but for everyone else, it is an absolute reflection of the company.

Richard Anderson's statement in my mind - and others will take it differently - reflects the need to make legal immigration in the US work again.

I am not saying I agree with everything Obama is doing on the subject but I do believe the issue - just like health care - needs to be fixed.

Hiding in the corner on these and other issues and refusing to have dialogue that leads to change is not the answer.

 

[eolesen]

I know this will come as a shock to you, but companies are larger than just one person. Making an issue about the CEO's gender, religion, or sexual preference is just fluff.

What we're discussing here is whether or not it's wise for a company to take such a visible position on a divisive issue.

You can try to deflect and argue that LGBT issues are still divisive, and there are certainly extremists on both sides that will try to make it so (e.g. Westboro and GLAAD), but I don't think the vast majority really see it that way anymore. Gay marriage is settled case law.

Immigration? It's a far more complex issue, and clearly polarizing. It's a third-rail issue to many people, and having Delta taking a stance on it has a lot more risk in my opinion than it does reward.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I know this will come as a shock to you but if DL discovered a means to turn used engine oil into gold, you would find it unacceptable.

unlike my statements about AA's actual FINANCIAL performance that is easily verifiable by fact, you make your statements based solely on emotion.

you know what? we don't really care what you think about DL's statement about immigration.

further, as much as you like or dislike what Obama is doing or how he does it, immigration reform will happen in one form or another - just like health care reform came.

I don't have to endorse what he is doing in order to recognize that sitting on the sidelines isn't an option any more.

meanwhile, we'll add this as one more item about DL that you have been as wrong as the day is long (in the Southern Hemisphere)