Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : WOW Collapses. NAI next?


TexBubba
03-28-2019, 12:00 PM
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/707553739/wow-indeed-wow-air-ceases-operations-stranding-travelers

Maybe NAI next?


Rmk1991
03-28-2019, 01:43 PM
Good on Icelandair for at least offering something to the people who were stranded that had WOW travel plans. Who knows about NAI though. Every time I think they're about to go down they manage to pull through. I think they're getting hit hard by the 737MAX issues though.

SilentLurker
03-28-2019, 04:07 PM
I think they're getting hit hard by the 737MAX issues though.


Blessing from the aviation God above perhaps?


MaxQ
03-28-2019, 05:44 PM
Good on Icelandair for at least offering something to the people who were stranded that had WOW travel plans. Who knows about NAI though. Every time I think they're about to go down they manage to pull through. I think they're getting hit hard by the 737MAX issues though.

How many WOW (Ex-)employees are unemployed today?

How many stranded a continent away from home?


While my sympathies don't pay their bills, or help them get home, I've been there a few times and it really is a bad time in their lives.
Good luck to them all.

captjns
03-28-2019, 06:07 PM
How many WOW (Ex-)employees are unemployed today?

How many stranded a continent away from home?

While my sympathies don't pay their bills, or help them get home, I've been there a few times and it really is a bad time in their lives.
Good luck to them all.

XL Airlines went bust in 2009. The UK went all out to get their citizens, stranded overseas, home. Ranging from charting airlines, to ships. Of course the airlines have to contribute money to a fund for the “just in case factor”, to fund the “GET ME HOME” program.

Qotsaautopilot
03-29-2019, 08:49 AM
How many WOW (Ex-)employees are unemployed today?

How many stranded a continent away from home?


While my sympathies don't pay their bills, or help them get home, I've been there a few times and it really is a bad time in their lives.
Good luck to them all.

They’re not stranded. No one is immune from buying themselves a ticket home.

ChecklistMonkey
03-29-2019, 09:09 AM
They’re not stranded. No one is immune from buying themselves a ticket home.

Don't be obtuse. Buying a full fare, next day one way ticket from Europe to the US is going to cost upwards of $2-3 thousand per person. And that is on top of the money they haven't yet been refunded by WoW. If you have a family of 4, that's putting you in the zone of being stranded.

ShyGuy
03-29-2019, 02:53 PM
Blessing from the aviation God above perhaps?

Yeah. God blessed them by making sure to crash 2 MAXs killing 346 people so Norwegian’s operation could be screwed. :rolleyes:

SilentLurker
03-29-2019, 03:04 PM
Yeah. God blessed them by making sure to crash 2 MAXs killing 346 people so Norwegian’s operation could be screwed. :rolleyes:



So your saying WOW crashed two B737 MAX’s.... and 346 people died??? Is that why WOW is going out of business? Is WOW also the reason Norwegian’s operation could be screwed?


Wow that’s interesting, I did not realize. [emoji57]sarcasm.

Not being sarcastic with this here... WOW was in serious decline prior to Ethiopian Air’s MAX accident. RIP to all the great people and the best of humanity who lost their lives.

ShyGuy
03-29-2019, 03:21 PM
So your saying WOW crashed two B737 MAX’s.... and 346 people died??? Is that why WOW is going out of business? Is WOW also the reason Norwegian’s operation could be screwed?


Wow that’s interesting, I did not realize. [emoji57]sarcasm.

Not being sarcastic with this here... WOW was in serious decline prior to Ethiopian Air’s MAX accident. RIP to all the great people and the best of humanity who lost their lives.

You really that obtuse? OP said is NAI potentially next, another guy below said Norwegian seems to pull through but they are being affected by the MaX issue. And that’s when you wrote it’s a blessing from God’s above.

Andy
03-30-2019, 03:24 AM
How many WOW (Ex-)employees are unemployed today?

How many stranded a continent away from home?

While my sympathies don't pay their bills, or help them get home, I've been there a few times and it really is a bad time in their lives.
Good luck to them all.

If they didn't see this coming and make contingency plans well before the final shutdown, that's on them. Several WoW jets were repossessed prior to WoW shutting down operations and WoW had stopped paying almost all of their bills by February. There were plenty of clues that WoW was the walking dead.

Cheddar
03-31-2019, 02:14 AM
If they didn't see this coming and make contingency plans well before the final shutdown, that's on them. Several WoW jets were repossessed prior to WoW shutting down operations and WoW had stopped paying almost all of their bills by February. There were plenty of clues that WoW was the walking dead.



But you should feel sorry for the family that paid less than $800 total for round trip tickets across the Atlantic. What could possibly go wrong when the paid less than half price of another flag carrier?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ChecklistMonkey
03-31-2019, 03:58 AM
But you should feel sorry for the family that paid less than $800 total for round trip tickets across the Atlantic. What could possibly go wrong when the paid less than half price of another flag carrier?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's flawed logic. If I go to the store and get a TV at 50% off, I expect it to work. Airlines always have varying fares. If I can buy a ticket on American for half the price as Delta, I have a reasonable expectation of completing my trip. One of the most profitable airlines in US history offers $49 one way tickets routinely. Are you saying that Southwest passengers should expect the company go bankrupt?

captjns
03-31-2019, 06:28 AM
That's flawed logic. If I go to the store and get a TV at 50% off, I expect it to work. Airlines always have varying fares. If I can buy a ticket on American for half the price as Delta, I have a reasonable expectation of completing my trip. One of the most profitable airlines in US history offers $49 one way tickets routinely. Are you saying that Southwest passengers should expect the company go bankrupt?

Travelers are consumers... searching for the lowest price. Nothing wrong with the philosophy. However, many consumers, when purchasing a TV for example, research the manufacturer of the guts of the product. Why pay more money for a named brand when they can purchase the same product for half the price for a no-named brand? Too bad those consumers, ie, the traveling public don’t conduct research of a no name carrier, to see their current status... service, delays, and financial situation.

Tour operators will use the cheapest form of transportation possible to maximize their profits. Again, the traveling public have the tools available to obtain information including, but not limited to the quality of carriers, hotels, feed back from previous travelers.

The public does have the expectation to receiving services/goods for payment made.

As Sy Syms said, “Our best consumer is an educated consumer.”.

Cheddar
03-31-2019, 07:25 AM
That's flawed logic. If I go to the store and get a TV at 50% off, I expect it to work. Airlines always have varying fares. If I can buy a ticket on American for half the price as Delta, I have a reasonable expectation of completing my trip. One of the most profitable airlines in US history offers $49 one way tickets routinely. Are you saying that Southwest passengers should expect the company go bankrupt?



My response was a bit tongue in cheek but here goes:

Captnjs said it best about the TVs. WOW is like a cheap tv manufacturer that constantly has recalls and horrible reviews online about their warranty and customer service ratings. Yet you say “well dang Edna, it is $1000 cheaper than that there Vizio and $1200 cheaper than the Samsung...” Two weeks later they are on hold with a computer trying to return their tv cause it sucks.

As for your SWA analogy - they have some of the highest rates in certain markets, even when where they compete with legacies. Their business model is different than say AA/DAL, and they can afford to sell tickets cheaper on some routes than others. Spirit is different from them, but they have a niche market and very good analysis of routes that can be cherry picked.

Wow was none of these. They had a multi aircraft fleet with a horrible reputation in the last year and zero economy of scale wrt aircraft type. They were purposefully trying to destabilize the transatlantic market with flag of convenience schemes and got kilt... NAI is probably next. Good. Effing. Riddance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NEDude
03-31-2019, 07:48 AM
My response was a bit tongue in cheek but here goes:

Captnjs said it best about the TVs. WOW is like a cheap tv manufacturer that constantly has recalls and horrible reviews online about their warranty and customer service ratings. Yet you say “well dang Edna, it is $1000 cheaper than that there Vizio and $1200 cheaper than the Samsung...” Two weeks later they are on hold with a computer trying to return their tv cause it sucks.

As for your SWA analogy - they have some of the highest rates in certain markets, even when where they compete with legacies. Their business model is different than say AA/DAL, and they can afford to sell tickets cheaper on some routes than others. Spirit is different from them, but they have a niche market and very good analysis of routes that can be cherry picked.

Wow was none of these. They had a multi aircraft fleet with a horrible reputation in the last year and zero economy of scale wrt aircraft type. They were purposefully trying to destabilize the transatlantic market with flag of convenience schemes and got kilt... NAI is probably next. Good. Effing. Riddance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How on earth was WOW Air a flag of convenience in any sense?! An Icelandic company, with an Icelandic AOC, with crew working on Icelandic contracts, based in Iceland. Even ALPA couldn't spin that as a flag of convenience.

Cheddar
03-31-2019, 08:04 AM
I read somewhere that they were. If not, apologizes to the Icelandic flag carrier formerly known as WOW.

Now, were they not fare dumping across the Atlantic trying to destabilize the transatlantic market?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy
03-31-2019, 03:37 PM
That's flawed logic. If I go to the store and get a TV at 50% off, I expect it to work. Airlines always have varying fares. If I can buy a ticket on American for half the price as Delta, I have a reasonable expectation of completing my trip. One of the most profitable airlines in US history offers $49 one way tickets routinely. Are you saying that Southwest passengers should expect the company go bankrupt?

If you buy a TV for half off, it's going to have issues. It's, at a minimum, going to be open box with missing parts. Likely no warranty.

As for WoW, a cursory search on google would have told people that WoW was in deep trouble well before last Christmas. There were articles of WoW's partially failed bond offering, then there were articles of WoW courting white knights (Icelandair, Indigo Partners), then there were articles right after Christmas of WoW not paying their airport fees, then a couple of articles of WoW getting a couple of planes repossessed.

WoW was selling round trip tickets from the US to Iceland for $99 each way. It's one thing to fly domestically for cheap on a carrier whose name you're not real familiar with - at least you can find a way home by plane train or auto. But international is a totally different story.

So many red flags out there.

As for Southwest $49 fares, it's still offseason. Where can you fly for $49 one way?

As for WoW, they definitely were NOT a flag of convenience. They were flagged, owned (by Skuli Mogensen) and operated out of Iceland. In no way a flag of convenience.

dera
03-31-2019, 05:28 PM
I read somewhere that they were. If not, apologizes to the Icelandic flag carrier formerly known as WOW.

Now, were they not fare dumping across the Atlantic trying to destabilize the transatlantic market?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The cheapest flight I ever bought TATL was 388USD return.

That was with Lufthansa.

WOW wasn't price dumping or anything. They just had a really sh*tty product with nowhere near enough capacity to ever be profitable.
They just failed on their business plan and execution, it had nothing to do with price dumping, flag of convenience, or anything else that any US based carrier should be even remotely concerned of.

Typhoonpilot
03-31-2019, 07:00 PM
To answer the original question, Jet Airways and Hong Kong Airlines are next. Both in deep financial trouble. Numerous articles in the trade papers talking about their financial woes.

captjns
03-31-2019, 08:25 PM
To answer the original question, Jet Airways and Hong Kong Airlines are next. Both in deep financial trouble. Numerous articles in the trade papers talking about their financial woes.

Jet has been in financial straights for the past 8 years... and then some. Ethihad was a temporary respite from the inevitable.

NEDude
04-01-2019, 02:30 AM
I read somewhere that they were. If not, apologizes to the Icelandic flag carrier formerly known as WOW.

Now, were they not fare dumping across the Atlantic trying to destabilize the transatlantic market?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since 1978, every single U.S. airline is guilty of fare dumping at one point or another, EVERY SINGLE ONE. Yes, including yours. If your airline is not fare dumping today, they certainly did it yesterday and will do it again tomorrow. And no, the goal is not to "destabilize the market", it is to gain publicity by raising brand awareness, gain some market share, or to stimulate a specific market. At the end of the day WOW Air was a tiny airline and very minor player in the trans-Atlantic market. Their ability to manipulate and affect the market was extremely minute.

Cheddar
04-01-2019, 06:28 AM
I happily rescind any criticism of WOW. You guys are all right and we should be lamenting the demise of such a noble and distinguished brand.

“Ultra-budget carrier Wow Air...known for for its $99 airfares” - LA Times(Dec 2018)

Yep, Every US legacy airline was known for their industry stabilization strategy of $99 transatlantic fares.

Anyway, it does suck for the employees, but I have little sympathy for the people paying $99 expecting SFO-AMS with a quick stop in KEF.
Caveat Emptor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GogglesPisano
04-01-2019, 07:51 AM
There's nothing wrong with "fare dumping" and selling below cost -- as long as there's no government subsidy.

The market will take care of aberrations in the long term -- exhibit A: WOW.

Andy
04-03-2019, 03:26 AM
To answer the original question, Jet Airways and Hong Kong Airlines are next. Both in deep financial trouble. Numerous articles in the trade papers talking about their financial woes.

I don't think the question was meant to count every airline worldwide, but if that's the case, California Pacific is likely next. They've only suspended operations with an 'intent' to restart service.

Asiana's also got its share of financial issues.
French Bee probably isn't going to be alive much longer.
I'm sure if one looked around, they'd find more than a few others among the walking dead.

NEDude
04-04-2019, 07:35 AM
Mixed bag of news for Norwegian today. Yield per passenger is lower than expected, but load factor is higher.

Also of note is this from a company called Pareto Securities (never heard of them or have any idea what their track record is):

"While the yield lagged expectations, the higher load factor helped compensate the shortfall, said brokerage Pareto Securities, which has a buy recommendation on Norwegian’s stock. The carrier’s first-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation will likely swing to a profit of about 600 million Norwegian crowns ($69.93 million) from a year-ago loss of 880 million, Pareto added."

https://www.reuters.com/article/norwegian-air-traffic/update-2-norwegian-air-passenger-income-growth-misses-expectations-in-march-idUSL8N21M0WL

Andy
04-06-2019, 01:13 PM
Mixed bag of news for Norwegian today. Yield per passenger is lower than expected, but load factor is higher.

Also of note is this from a company called Pareto Securities (never heard of them or have any idea what their track record is):

"While the yield lagged expectations, the higher load factor helped compensate the shortfall, said brokerage Pareto Securities, which has a buy recommendation on Norwegian’s stock. The carrier’s first-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation will likely swing to a profit of about 600 million Norwegian crowns ($69.93 million) from a year-ago loss of 880 million, Pareto added."

Pareto Securities is a Norwegian investment bank. Their forecast is possible if they include one time credits for fuel hedges and the sale of a couple of 737s. I very much doubt that Norwegian was profitable if one excludes non-recurring items.

Pareto Asset Management is one of the top ten holders of Norwegian Air stock.

Andy
04-10-2019, 12:39 PM
Norwegian postpones Airbus deliveries. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norweg-air-shut-airbus/norwegian-air-postpones-airbus-aircraft-delivery-to-cut-costs-idUSKCN1RM28J

Joachim
04-11-2019, 07:49 AM
I think Norwegian as an airline would fold. Not just the Irish AOC. Most of you haven’t figured this out yet...

Half wing
04-12-2019, 08:03 PM
I think Norwegian as an airline would fold. Not just the Irish AOC. Most of you haven’t figured this out yet...

Thanks. You are correct that Norwegian will fold as an an airline. That’s what we are all predicting and hoping for.

Andy
04-24-2019, 11:05 PM
Mixed bag of news for Norwegian today. Yield per passenger is lower than expected, but load factor is higher.

Also of note is this from a company called Pareto Securities (never heard of them or have any idea what their track record is):

"While the yield lagged expectations, the higher load factor helped compensate the shortfall, said brokerage Pareto Securities, which has a buy recommendation on Norwegian’s stock. The carrier’s first-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation will likely swing to a profit of about 600 million Norwegian crowns ($69.93 million) from a year-ago loss of 880 million, Pareto added."

https://www.reuters.com/article/norwegian-air-traffic/update-2-norwegian-air-passenger-income-growth-misses-expectations-in-march-idUSL8N21M0WL

Pareto's estimate was close. Norwegian's EBITDAR was +87.8 million NOK. Of course that counted one time gains. Toss in interest, depreciation, taxes, and amortization and Norwegian had a net loss of 1.489 billion NOK.

Typhoonpilot
04-26-2019, 02:34 AM
Asiana's also got its share of financial issues.
I'm sure if one looked around, they'd find more than a few others among the walking dead.

Outrage from ALPA and the U.S. CEOs in 3-2-1...…….;)


Seoul mandates massive credit package for Asiana

23 April, 2019 SOURCE: Flight Dashboard BY: Greg Waldron Singapore

Asiana Airlines appears set to receive a liquidity injection of W1.6 trillion ($1.4 billion) from creditors, led by state-run Korea Development Bank (KDB).

Korea’s Ministry of Economy and Finance confirms that creditors plan to buy W500 billion in Asiana perpetual bonds, and extend the embattled carrier a KRW800 billion credit line.

Plans appear to be at a preliminary stage. It is not yet clear where the additional W300 billion will come from.

The airline initially declined to comment on the news.

The ministry’s announcement follows news on 15 April that Kumho Industrial will sell its 33% stake in Asiana Airlines as it seeks to shore up its finances.

The sale decision was made by Kumho’s board on 15 April, a stock exchange disclosure stated, but no timeline for the sale nor the likely price were set.

Kumho Industrial is the holding company of the Kumho Asiana Group, which has been seeking around W500 billion in emergency loans from KDB its largest creditor.

NEDude
04-26-2019, 07:48 AM
Outrage from ALPA and the U.S. CEOs in 3-2-1...…….;)




It really is a shame U.S. airlines can't get any sort of government lifeline...

captjns
04-26-2019, 08:08 AM
It really is a shame U.S. airlines can't get any sort of government lifeline...

They did... Airline Bailout from 9/11... funded by taxpayers. Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans at the cost of the employees of their respective airlines retirement benefits.

Packrat
04-26-2019, 08:47 AM
They did... Airline Bailout from 9/11... funded by taxpayers. Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans at the cost of the employees of their respective airlines retirement benefits.

I'd LOL if it wasn't true. I still feel sorry for the DAL/UAL pilots that got screwed by this.

NEDude
04-26-2019, 09:43 AM
They did... Airline Bailout from 9/11... funded by taxpayers. Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans at the cost of the employees of their respective airlines retirement benefits.

I forgot to include the sarcasm button. U.S. airlines get billions in government subsidies, and protections. They are the recipients of at least $1 Billion in subsidiaries annually in the form of tax breaks. Plus Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code allows failing U.S. airlines a lifeline that does not exists for non-U.S. carriers.

Andy
04-26-2019, 11:25 AM
I forgot to include the sarcasm button. U.S. airlines get billions in government subsidies, and protections. They are the recipients of at least $1 Billion in subsidiaries annually in the form of tax breaks. Plus Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code allows failing U.S. airlines a lifeline that does not exists for non-U.S. carriers.

You might want to look into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its money from aviation taxes and funds all of those 'subsidies'. Most of the money that goes into the AATF is from taxes on airline passenger tickets.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.

In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.

But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative. :rolleyes:

MaxQ
04-26-2019, 06:42 PM
You might want to look into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its money from aviation taxes and funds all of those 'subsidies'. Most of the money that goes into the AATF is from taxes on airline passenger tickets.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.

In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.

But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative. :rolleyes:

Taxes on the tickets passengers buy is separate from the various subsidies the airlines themselves get.
The aviation trust fund is funded by the passengers, not the airlines.

(and no, if the tax were eliminated the airlines would not pass the savings along to the passengers, or the extra money earned to the employees, they would just pocket it and all the employees would jump up and down with glee at the record profits their employer was making)

Andy
04-26-2019, 08:04 PM
Taxes on the tickets passengers buy is separate from the various subsidies the airlines themselves get.
The aviation trust fund is funded by the passengers, not the airlines.

(and no, if the tax were eliminated the airlines would not pass the savings along to the passengers, or the extra money earned to the employees, they would just pocket it and all the employees would jump up and down with glee at the record profits their employer was making)

Seriously? Live much in the real world?

You think that taxes/fees don't impact the airlines? If taxes weren't an issue, people who have a choice wouldn't be fleeing high tax states for low tax states.

You also think that airlines aren't a commodity business where Spirit/Frontier/Southwest/Allegiant/etc won't drive prices down if taxes were stripped away from ticket prices?

Awesome; keep living in your world.

NEDude
04-26-2019, 10:44 PM
You might want to look into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its money from aviation taxes and funds all of those 'subsidies'. Most of the money that goes into the AATF is from taxes on airline passenger tickets.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.

In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.

But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative. :rolleyes:

Most of the tax breaks come from State and local governments. For example United Airlines gets a $20 million annual tax break on fuel purchases from the State of New Jersey alone. In 2012 the State of New York subsidized airlines to the tune of $227 million in tax breaks. These are separate from the AATF you mention.

Speaking of the AATF, sorry, but that goes against you too. International flights are charged at $18.30 (FY 2018) per person, per segment, and provide about $3.9 Billion of the $15 Billion in revenue collected. According to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2018 foreign carriers accounted for 52.4% of international passenger traffic to and from the U.S. and about 12.1% of total passengers in the U.S. air transportation system. Foreign airlines paid approximately $2.04 Billion of the $15 Billion raised by the AATF. So foreign carriers are contributing 13.6% of the funds for the AATF, but only carrying 12.1% of the passengers taxed by the fund, meaning foreign carriers are getting hit harder by the AATF than U.S. carriers are. Looks like U.S. airlines are getting subsidized by foreign carriers...

Regarding federal taxes, airlines have benefited greatly from the recent federal tax reform. In January 2018 Southwest airlines alone reported a $1.4 Billion benefit from federal tax reform. JetBlue reported $504 million in tax savings in Q4 2017. United's tax bill in Q4 2017 fell 95.9%.

That, my friend, is the "real world" which you talk about. Not this fantasy ALPA/A4A world you seem to be convinced is reality. So yes, I am sticking with that subsidy narrative. Still waiting to hear how you think chapter 11, which allows financially insolvent U.S. airlines to continue operating, shed their debts, and destroy their employment contracts, is not an unfair advantage to U.S. airlines.

Andy
04-27-2019, 08:50 AM
Most of the tax breaks come from State and local governments. For example United Airlines gets a $20 million annual tax break on fuel purchases from the State of New Jersey alone. In 2012 the State of New York subsidized airlines to the tune of $227 million in tax breaks. These are separate from the AATF you mention.

Speaking of the AATF, sorry, but that goes against you too. International flights are charged at $18.30 (FY 2018) per person, per segment, and provide about $3.9 Billion of the $15 Billion in revenue collected. According to the DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2018 foreign carriers accounted for 52.4% of international passenger traffic to and from the U.S. and about 12.1% of total passengers in the U.S. air transportation system. Foreign airlines paid approximately $2.04 Billion of the $15 Billion raised by the AATF. So foreign carriers are contributing 13.6% of the funds for the AATF, but only carrying 12.1% of the passengers taxed by the fund, meaning foreign carriers are getting hit harder by the AATF than U.S. carriers are. Looks like U.S. airlines are getting subsidized by foreign carriers...

Regarding federal taxes, airlines have benefited greatly from the recent federal tax reform. In January 2018 Southwest airlines alone reported a $1.4 Billion benefit from federal tax reform. JetBlue reported $504 million in tax savings in Q4 2017. United's tax bill in Q4 2017 fell 95.9%.

Ah, NY/NJ - a couple of high tax states I was referring to. The tax breaks you mention are merely a small portion of the taxes paid to those states by airlines.
NY even had to offer a $3B tax/grant package to AMZN to entice them to move there. But NY socialists, seeing less money in state coffers, chased away AMZN.

You speak of taxes on international passengers to the US, but fail to mention that foreign countries also have entry/exit taxes/fees on passengers to/from the US, many of which are higher than US fees/taxes (see UK for an example) so that's not a one sided item. Those taxes/fees paid to foreign governments are included in the price of a ticket on an American carrier and are opaque to the customer.

As for federal taxes, I'm glad to see that tax rates have been reduced. The federal government is far too large and needs to be downsized. The US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

From some of your previous posts, I know you like government handouts but I vehemently oppose them. It produces a slothful society, as can be seen in GDP growth (or lack thereof) as countries move toward/away from mass government handouts.

NEDude
04-27-2019, 10:02 AM
Ah, NY/NJ - a couple of high tax states I was referring to. The tax breaks you mention are merely a small portion of the taxes paid to those states by airlines.
NY even had to offer a $3B tax/grant package to AMZN to entice them to move there. But NY socialists, seeing less money in state coffers, chased away AMZN.

You speak of taxes on international passengers to the US, but fail to mention that foreign countries also have entry/exit taxes/fees on passengers to/from the US, many of which are higher than US fees/taxes (see UK for an example) so that's not a one sided item. Those taxes/fees paid to foreign governments are included in the price of a ticket on an American carrier and are opaque to the customer.

As for federal taxes, I'm glad to see that tax rates have been reduced. The federal government is far too large and needs to be downsized. The US government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

From some of your previous posts, I know you like government handouts but I vehemently oppose them. It produces a slothful society, as can be seen in GDP growth (or lack thereof) as countries move toward/away from mass government handouts.

I am a believer in the Nordic model. The World Bank would disagree with your statement. From 1960 through 2016 the average GDP growth rate among the Nordic countries (with the exception of Denmark) exceeds that of the United States. The Nordic countries historically have lower rates of unemployment too. Yep, pretty slothful...

Your "real world" needs a broader perspective.

BobZ
04-27-2019, 09:24 PM
Thats hilarious.

Nordic model? You mean the one wher the US subsidized and protected those nations military defense at a cost of trillions for half a century?

Get real.

NEDude
04-28-2019, 12:00 AM
Thats hilarious.

Nordic model? You mean the one wher the US subsidized and protected those nations military defense at a cost of trillions for half a century?

Get real.

You want to get real, then let's get real. First of all please provide a source for your claims of "Trillions" spent on the defense of the five Nordic countries, two of which are non-NATO, and one of which has a robust defense industry which makes top end fourth generation fighter aircraft and has developed some of the most advanced non-nuclear submarines in service today.

I will not contest the argument that the U.S. has spent a lot of money in the defense of the Nordic countries over the past 70 years. But don't pretend that it has been in the "Trillions" or even remotely close. Do not overlook the Billions of dollars the Nordic countries have also invested in the U.S. military industrial complex by purchasing F-16s, F/A-18s, F-35s and C-130s (Denmark's F-35 order alone was $3 Billion - https://www.f35.com/news/detail/danish-government-oks-3-billion-purchase-of-27-f-35-fighter-jets) when they could very well have invested that money with Sweden or other European countries. Also do not overlook the massive benefit U.S. corporations have received from the U.S. influence in the Nordic countries and Europe itself.

Lastly, please provide some sort of proof that the Nordic model would not be possible without the United States providing "Trillions" in military defense to the Nordic countries. Some conservative U.S. think tanks have tried to make the connection between the two, but beyond making the claim, they have not provided any data or other evidence that the two are somehow connected, or that the Nordic model would not be possible without U.S. military aid.

BobZ
04-28-2019, 12:15 AM
Absent the US military industrial complex....those nordic countries would all be speaking Russian.

Or maybe German.

Thats real.

Hey....they cuda made those 130s f18s and all the other hardware in house. Of course that would have cost billions to acconmplish. All that money diverted from what was otherwise directrd to developing the non military econmy.

They bought the stuff from US....because it was cheaper to do so. And because the hardware dovetailed to the common defense cartel...nato. Also ovetwhelmingly paid for by the US.

In the military i trained nordic country pilots.....so it was apparently more cost effective to have US not only develop and build their hardware...but also train the personnel? :)

Fredturbo
04-28-2019, 10:31 AM
Thats hilarious.

Nordic model? You mean the one wher the US subsidized and protected those nations military defense at a cost of trillions for half a century?

Get real.

Yep. Mod-please lock the thread now that the discussion is finished.

atpcliff
04-28-2019, 03:07 PM
I was reading here about a US pilot and his white-collar employed wife and 3 kids who are moving from the US to Denmark.

They will have MUCH MORE disposable income living and working in Denmark, than they have now living and working in the US. AND, they will have better quality health care. AND, their three kids will graduate from university with ZERO debt, vs the high debt they would have acquired from their US university programs.

atpcliff
04-28-2019, 03:10 PM
You might want to look into the Airport and Aviation Trust Fund, which gets its money from aviation taxes and funds all of those 'subsidies'. Most of the money that goes into the AATF is from taxes on airline passenger tickets.
Air travel is one of the most heavily taxed purchases one can make in the US.
The AATF also funds more than 80% of the FAA budget.

In FY2017, the AATF collected more than $15B in taxes.

But sure, stick with that 'subsidy' narrative. :rolleyes:

Jet fuel (as is gasoline) is heavily subsidized. ATC is heavily subsidized. Airports are heavily subsidized. Aircraft actually cost about TWICE what airlines pay to buy the aircraft from Boeing/Airbus. The roads that bring in airline passengers and crew are heavily subsidized.

EVERYTHING related to transportation, worldwide, is heavily subsidized, including trucking, rail, seaports, etc., etc.

dera
04-28-2019, 08:22 PM
Absent the US military industrial complex....those nordic countries would all be speaking Russian.

Or maybe German.

Thats real.



You need to go back to school and retake some history classes.
US did pretty much nothing for Finland (Sweden and Norway didn't really take part) during Winter- and Continuation wars.

That's real.

NEDude
04-29-2019, 04:00 AM
Absent the US military industrial complex....those nordic countries would all be speaking Russian.

Or maybe German.

Thats real.

Hey....they cuda made those 130s f18s and all the other hardware in house. Of course that would have cost billions to acconmplish. All that money diverted from what was otherwise directrd to developing the non military econmy.

They bought the stuff from US....because it was cheaper to do so. And because the hardware dovetailed to the common defense cartel...nato. Also ovetwhelmingly paid for by the US.

In the military i trained nordic country pilots.....so it was apparently more cost effective to have US not only develop and build their hardware...but also train the personnel? :)

You seem to ignore the Swedes in your equation. They are a non-aligned country and have developed and built top of the line fighter aircraft in house, as well as top end submarines, and yet still have the ability to have a successful "Nordic Model". The other Nordic countries could very well have purchased Gripen's, Typhoon's, or Rafael's, all of which are NATO developed or NATO compatible.

As for speaking German without the help of the United States...most historians would disagree with you. While there is no doubt the United States played a crucial role in ultimately winning the war in Europe, most historians will tell you that the tide had already turned against Germany by the time the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. The Battle of Moscow in October 1941 through January 1942 is widely considered to be the turning point of the war, with the Soviet counteroffensive starting on December 5 often pointed to as the single most important event, when even German generals began to concede that Germany would ultimately lose the war.

BobZ
04-29-2019, 04:27 AM
Sure thing. Just because u think thats the way it happened doesnt mean it did.

Tide turned? Uhh must be a nordic history book ur getting that bad info from. U suppose the french were gona stopgap the soviets at the border? Instead of just eastern europe more likely all western europe nordic included would hav been included in the soviet bloc.

Absent the US presence and led invasion in western france the soviets would hav been compelled to advance through western europe to defeat the nazi forces.

Btw....who do you think was keeping the soviets supplied in the fight on the eastetn front?

The second neutral state players status did not suit the nazi or soviets it would have been all over.

Or were you sleeping when russia recently occuopied crimea?

The only nordic model i can apply to ww2 is while the world burned down around them they were apparently too busy smoking fish and making chewy candy ones to bother with getting involved. :)

NEDude
04-29-2019, 06:39 AM
Sure thing. Just because u think thats the way it happened doesnt mean it did.

Tide turned? Uhh must be a nordic history book ur getting that bad info from. U suppose the french were gona stopgap the soviets at the border? Instead of just eastern europe more likely all western europe nordic included would hav been included in the soviet bloc.

Absent the US presence and led invasion in western france the soviets would hav been compelled to advance through western europe to defeat the nazi forces.

Btw....who do you think was keeping the soviets supplied in the fight on the eastetn front?

The second neutral state players status did not suit the nazi or soviets it would have been all over.

Or were you sleeping when russia recently occuopied crimea?

The only nordic model i can apply to ww2 is while the world burned down around them they were apparently too busy smoking fish and making chewy candy ones to bother with getting involved. :)

Umm no, not a Nordic history book, but the opinion of the majority of American, Canadian, British, French, German and Russian historians. As far as keeping the Soviets supplied on the eastern front, that would be both the United States AND the United Kingdom and the OVERWHELMING majority of U.S. aid (97.9%) came after 1942, after the turning points of 1941.

And while the Germans were marching across Europe for two and a half years, and the Japanese were marching across much of Asia and the Pacific during that same time period, the U.S. sat by and watched, not bothering to get involved.

I am interested in how you draw the conclusion that the Soviets needed to be supplied in order to defend their front lines, but at the same time would have had the strength and manpower to then run roughshod all over Europe after sustaining massive casualties, as in around 27 million dead.

Of course none of this resolves the claim that the Nordic model would not be possible without U.S. military aid. Sweden sat directly on the front lines of the Cold War, not a member of NATO, and developed a robust home grown defense industry and weapons systems without the aid of the United States and NATO, while at the same time experiencing greater average GDP growth than the United States while simultaneously developing and maintaining the "Nordic Model".

BobZ
04-30-2019, 10:13 AM
You have a peculiar take on historical facts.

The invasion of Poland was sept. 1939. The initial US supply of England began in 1940.

In addition to war material and humanitarian support, in the time from 1939 to Dec 7 1941, hundreds of Americans volunteeered and joined the English forces to fight the Germans.

Likewise American volunteers were engaged well ahead of official entry to conflict in the pacific/asia.

I wonder how many nordic model volunteers showed up?

Sweden allowed the nazis to use their rail-transportation to move military units to fight the russians. I suppose in the cold war the soviets didnt invade sweden was the same reason they didnt invade mexico.

Half wing
04-30-2019, 11:15 AM
How has this thread become an argument about the Nordic countries being better than the USA. Who gives a crap about the Nordic countries and their almost negligible contribution to the World economy. The only thing worth keeping from the Nordic countries would be their women’s volleyball teams. NAI still sucks.

Half wing
04-30-2019, 12:46 PM
Also, Previous Wow pilots and NAI pilots can argue all they want how Nordic Countries are better than the US but their arguments carry little weight when their airlines fail and they don’t even make a paycheck. I’ll take my 250k/yr. job and pay for my own education and healthcare insurance over no paycheck and crappy socialized medicine. Nedude, weren’t you a Wow pilot?

BobZ
04-30-2019, 01:58 PM
If you arent catching....trolling with a cold beer in hand is next best. :)

NEDude
05-01-2019, 12:07 AM
You have a peculiar take on historical facts.

The invasion of Poland was sept. 1939. The initial US supply of England began in 1940.

In addition to war material and humanitarian support, in the time from 1939 to Dec 7 1941, hundreds of Americans volunteeered and joined the English forces to fight the Germans.

Likewise American volunteers were engaged well ahead of official entry to conflict in the pacific/asia.

I wonder how many nordic model volunteers showed up?

Sweden allowed the nazis to use their rail-transportation to move military units to fight the russians. I suppose in the cold war the soviets didnt invade sweden was the same reason they didnt invade mexico.

You are arguing all over the map here, and making no sense. You claimed it was the American supply of Russia that allowed Russia to withstand the Germans during the Battle of Moscow. You are also wrong in your claim that the United States began supplying England in 1940. The U.S. was bound by a policy of neutrality in the 1930s. In late 1940, the U.K. began inquiring about was to secure U.S. aid, but it was not until February 1941 that Congress began to debate ending its policy of neutrality and begin sending aid. The "Lend-Lease" policy, which was the policy of U.S. aid to allied countries, including the U.K., was signed into law on March 11, 1941. The first aid to the Soviet Union, using materials manufactured in and shipped by the U.K., with U.S. financing, did not begin until October 1, 1941. The vast majority of goods financed and/or supplied by the United States to the Soviet Union (97.9% based on tonnage) did not come until after the start of 1942, after the tide had turned against Germany.

Secondly, again, you have skirted the question as to how the modern "Nordic Model", which began well after WW2 ended, would not be possible without U.S. military aid when Sweden was able to develop it completely independent of any U.S. military aid or alliance.

You make an assumption, without any facts, about why the Soviet Union did not invade Sweden, and made an absolutely stupid comparison with Mexico. Sweden directly bumped up against the Soviet Union, separated only by a small stretch of the Baltic Sea from Soviet territory. Sweden also controlled(jointly with Denmark) the Soviet Union's naval access through the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Controlling Sweden would have given the Soviet Union a major strategic advantage in the Cold War. Mexico was an entirely different animal altogether, being across an ocean, significantly larger, and militarily aligned with the United States. So please provide some facts to back up your assertion that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not invade Sweden for the same reason it did not invade Mexico. I'll even settle for a somewhat reasonable logical argument for the reasons being the same now that you have received a bit of a geography lesson (I guess you did not pay enough for your education...)

Given the fallacy of your arguments and your inability to draw a logical conclusion, or answer a simple question, I would say you are spending a little too much of you $250k salary on beer and not enough on your education.

Yes, I did fly for WOW Air. Am I supposed to be embarrassed or ashamed by that? Please let me know if that is the case, and I will see if I can learn to feel that shame. I promise I will let you know if that happens.

Oh, and still no takers on the Chapter 11 question?