Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1113988)

Guys,

Anyone noticing picture posts are being pulled? CNI posted a couple yesterday and I challenge you to find them.

If we're going back to the bad old days, just say so and we'll just keep everything PG-13.

Originally Posted by dragon (Post 1113996)

Thanks for the quick reply.

Now back to rumors which is what we're really here for.

What's the latest on the gate situation in ATL? Saw lots of emptiness on D and I'm hearing we're only getting 7 of 12 (or is it 14) on F.

Originally Posted by Herman (Post 1114130)

I've been home for so long that my wife started a blog to ***** about it... feel free to share it with your ladies at my expense. angrypilotwife

Originally Posted by newKnow (Post 1114089)

Tell me about it. I was infracted (with no warning) for the first time ever. :eek:

I'll probably get in trouble for this. post. :D


New K Now <----- (Trouble-maker)

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1114134)

I get that C2K didn't single handedly create the current state of outsourcing from a previous outsource-free lockbox. But C2K was largely focused on "United plus" payrates. Scope was a huge issue then as 50 seaters were being delivered limited only by factory production lines but that's all that was being outsourced. The Bach/Avro jets were gone and the 70 seat CRJ was in its final testing phases with none on property yet, the 90 seat CRJ was a couple years away and any EMB over 50 seats was even further from reality. It was the perfect time to lock that in but instead the direction chosen was to focus on pay rates and call it a victory when they were achieved. What little negotiating capital that was spent on scope was largely wasted worrying about what "stage lengths" and "hub to hub" the soon to be obselete 50 seaters could do. Had more attention been paid to scope, we would likely have a DC-9 replacement jet at mailine by now. Then again as recently as the CPZ divesture, that language was given away faster than 3.b.6 (the "hammer") was for "United plus".

Originally Posted by acl65pilot (Post 1114147)

FYI, some got that and a warning that if it continued they would get a ban. We will see how this progresses on the mod forums.

Originally Posted by Ferd149 (Post 1114127)

Really? YGBSM Someone tell him we are all friends here and have been even before our SUCCESSFUL merger.

Hey UAL guy, go moderate your own forum:D. But, I do like your avatar:cool:

Ferd <------trouble-maker's wingman

Originally Posted by alfaromeo (Post 1114083)

The most dangerous thing you can do is try to look at a complicated system and make simplistic conclusions. We had prosperity after WW II mainly because most of the industrial base of the rest of world had been blown up, much of it courtesy of the US industrial base that was never touched during the war. It sure is easy to be a manufacturing powerhouse when the rest of the world has been destroyed.

Go back and look at the Marshall Plan and the size of that stimulus plan for Europe. Adjust it for inflation, let me know what you think.

By the way, I am pretty sure the top marginal tax rate back then was 91%. That is not a misprint, 91%. Maybe you think high tax rates cause prosperity.

There is no simple answer to derive from a complicated system. The biggest problem we have in our country right now is that the problems are big and people keep trying to come up with simplistic solutions. As people become entrenched in these simplistic little bubbles, they no longer become interested in complicated solutions which is what is required by complicated problems.

Our current economy is hit by a dramatic drop in demand. People aren't buying things like they were, especially houses, and that has slowed the economy down. Businesses are flush with cash and are ready to hire and produce goods as long as someone will buy them. Talking about supply side economics is insane now, it is demand that is the problem. You can't push a rope.

There are two ways for the government to stimulate demand, the first is to give tax cuts, especially general tax cuts that hit the lower 75% of the economic spectrum. Virtually all of this money is spent and therefore will drive up demand. Sounds like we need to extend the payroll tax cut for at least another year, let's hope Congress agrees.

The other way to stimulate demand is by increasing government spending. The depression did not occur with the stock market crash. The depression happened when Hoover cut back government spending (demand) at the same time that the public was cutting back spending (demand). No demand, no economy, no jobs, etc. That is why the stimulus program was exactly the right thing to do back in 2009. It was completely counter cyclical to the drop in consumer demand. The stimulus program was about equal parts general tax cuts, aid to state and local governments, and public works projects. They probably should have spent more on public works projects because the reduced public demand drove down prices and the government was able to accomplish about 20% more than they originally estimated due to the low bids.

Cutting government spending will occur over the long run. It is not a panacea for all economic problems. If you cut too much now, then you will surely spark a new recession. In the end, to balance our budget we will have to have more growth, higher tax revenues, and dramatically reduce entitlement spending, especially Medicare and Social Security. All are very tough things to do, but simplistic answers will just keep us mired in this hole we are in.