|
Originally Posted by madmax757
(Post 4012240)
Also a member on Alaska airline BOD is former Boeing ceo. They get sweet Boeing pricing . It will be 787s , 737s in less than 3 years. As far as Amazon contract who knows. How much do you really make doing Amazon ?
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012308)
The fixes in and of themselves are costly and disruptive, especially if it involves actually holding IR territory. Which is why I certainly never advocated for any of this.
|
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 4012348)
You finally got to the point, but I think you overestimate how much of a 'wad' is required.
But the system will adapt, one way or another, if this drags out. They're already talking about it in the biz media... https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com...-critical-oil/ It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk. It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping... we did it to the IR Navy, but of course we have multiple CSG's, surface combatants, subs, and numerous land-based tacair in theater. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012232)
I did not close the other thread. The only time I get the "last word" is if I'm explaining why a thread got closed.
.......THIS VVVVVVV
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4012220)
I find it amazing you get the last word in the other threads before you close them out. And now new rules of no partisan politics on why it started or whether it should have started. It’s here so let’s discuss that reality, I agree. But that conversation should have a portion which is why we got here to begin with. Because those are some ugly answers.
Originally Posted by Midsomer
(Post 4012255)
Protest is banned and only cheerleading allowed is how I read that statement. Doesn’t seem very “fair and balanced”. Not that I am surprised it’s just the quiet part out loud.
And you removed the post, and others, that WERE FLAME. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
On Day Zero, it doesn't take much at all... underwriters get spooked, ships drop anchor.
But the system will adapt, one way or another, if this drags out. They're already talking about it in the biz media... https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com...-critical-oil/ It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk. It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping... we did it to the IR Navy, but of course we have multiple CSG's, surface combatants, subs, and numerous land-based tacair in theater. What This Means for Britain — and Europe For the UK, the implications are uncomfortable. Lloyd’s withdrawal was not an act of strategic calculation — it was a risk management decision made under acute commercial pressure. But the consequence is a permanent reduction in British financial infrastructure’s role in the most strategically important shipping corridor on earth. The long-term consequences for European financial influence in global energy markets are significant and largely unexamined in the current coverage of the conflict. Europe, which imports a substantial proportion of its energy through Gulf routes, now finds itself doubly dependent on American goodwill — for both the physical security of those routes and the financial infrastructure that makes commercial shipping through them viable. That dependency has always existed in military terms. It now exists in financial terms too. The 300-year empire died in 48 hours. And the nation that replaced it did not fire a single additional shot to do it. FAQ Q: Why did Lloyd’s of London pull maritime insurance from Gulf shipping?Iran’s attacks on Gulf shipping caused maritime insurance rates to spike by 400% in a very short period, creating commercially unacceptable risk exposure for Lloyd’s underwriters. The withdrawal was a risk management decision rather than a strategic one — but its geopolitical consequences have been profound, opening a vacuum that American insurers and the US Navy moved to fill within 48 hours. Q: What does America’s takeover of Gulf maritime insurance mean for global oil markets? America now controls both the physical escort corridor through the Strait of Hormuz and the financial infrastructure — insurance — that makes commercial oil shipping through it viable. This gives the United States structural leverage over the global energy supply chain that extends well beyond the current conflict. Nations that depend on Gulf energy imports are now operationally dependent on American financial and military infrastructure in a way that has no modern precedent. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping...
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk.
Asymmetrical. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012153)
Re-opening this discussion, no partisan politics or discussion as to why the war started or whether it should have started.
It's here, lets just discuss that reality. All the threads that have started here recently including two by me that deal in principle with the conflicts ancillary impact on our careers and/or career progression……have been swiftly shut down by fangs. Every time an important topic gets shut down this is what comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ame0j8jbMY4 It is not that I am advocating for discussing politics, it’s just that a discussion like this thread will be impossible without some subjective input that won’t be shared by all users…so maybe just a little tolerance. In addition your website has always been a place for (atleast me) to gauge insight on important things that may be seen as inappropriate or uncomfortable for the flight deck. |
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 4012365)
You had it right before.
Iran can lay low for a while, and when the traffic starts flowing drop a few mines and send a few drones. All they need is one burning tanker or even the threat of one in the SOH. The US DOE Sec already said no escorts until next month at the earliest and I don't think escorts will be close to 100% effective. Asymmetrical. |
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/13/mar...-us-deployment
One has to wonder if these people are Kharg Island bound. While I don’t necessarily think US BOG is a good idea, putting them on an island 18 miles off the coast of Iran that controls 90% of Iran’s oil exports is probably the least bad idea of BOG options. And I can’t think what else they may be going in for. While the escorts add add marginally to anti drone/missile capability, the Tripoli is a big high value target with a lot of concentrated personnel on board that I’d keep out of drone range unless I actually planned to use the 2200 Marines for an amphibious assault. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4012368)
...
All the threads that have started here recently including two by me that deal in principle with the conflicts ancillary impact on our careers and/or career progression……have been swiftly shut down by fangs. ... When threads veer off into repeated violations of the posted Forum Rules, despite repeated warnings to abide by said rules, they get shut down. Per the TOS. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:55 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands