In a congressional environment that is very anti-business did RA's letter, which I think was necessary and well said, just make Delta a target?

And before the moderators shut this threat down on account of me, I do think it matters. I don't want to be Ford right now if the government and UAW could possibly be getting 51% and 39% control (90% combined) of GM. I feel that when your competitor is owned by the regulators and auditors thats not good for you despite your politics. And any further down turn in the economy could see airlines being labeled too big to fail and therein nationalized to some degree like GM.

I mean say there is a crisis and lets say multiple airlines would go into Chapter 11 again, whats to say a favorite wouldn't be chosen out of the lot? Reuters had an article on today that said this: On the corporate front, the federal government's pumping of billions of dollars in bailout money into banks and auto companies has given Obama the power to force an overhaul in those industries, a remarkable intervention in capitalist industries by the state.

So say the chosen carrier is... United, a Chicago based airline. Then, you could have a situation in which UAL gets an unfair advantage, or a merger is forced upon CAL and the other carriers like DAL, AMR and SWA have stricter oversight while UAL gets less, etc. And the more you complain, the more life becomes difficult.

I am happy RA wrote the letter, I just wonder if we have a new and large D.C. based political dynamic to deal with out there that we haven't had to calculate into our industry before and so do you think its possible we could have a situation like GM occur to one of the Legacy carriers?