During the good or bad years? I'm concerned by menus memos released by the Heritage Foundation that essentially say NAI is good for the economy. I'd imagine she had some say in those releases.

 

I'm not panicking. I'm asking questions that we should all be asking. And yes, the SoT is the one who approves foreign carrier permits so, technically, she could allow the flag of convenience model.

Finally, she is known to leave organizations she doesn't agree with, for example she left a group that invested in a cause that supported clean energy because it hurt the coal industry. She is/was fellow at the HF. Having expertise as former SoL and under Sec of transportation, you can bet that anything that is published regarding labor and transportation was probably run by her desk. To think otherwise is naïve. She was chosen by Trump specifically and I would bet she wants and believes that NAI is good for the economy.

 

The bad years! She is a free trade type not fair trade...She is bad for working USA...rhetoric one way actions equal "you can't give away an American job fast enough"

 

911 was responsible for a very heavy drop-off in flying customers. It is the paying customer who pays our wages and paid for our pension. When they stopped coming, the money airlines used to pay our wages dried up. It wasn't George Bush or any of his "misguided" policies, it was simply airlines going in survivor mode and peeling back their overhead. The PBGC aggravated our situation because they demanded the company "hand over" our pensions and after some foot dragging, they got all our pension money. Federal law (Bankruptcy) allowed our "underfunded" pension to be "unloaded" by the airlines. It was tragic what happen to us and a double-wammy, when you consider our ESOP stock loss.

 

Well then according to that logic since the airlines are making money hand over fist we'll all be pensioned soon. Right? Trying not to be facetious but 9/11 wasn't the reason. It certainly helped with their justification for doing it.

 

Agreed.


Maybe so. However, the question at hand is not what is good for the economy per se, but what is best for the American worker, the vast middle class that elected Trump.

If Trump were inexperienced as was his predecessor, I would be very concerned he might make the mistake you are worried about. But he is a businessman first and foremost. He understands the issues of flags-of-convenience instinctively, and his core campaign promise was to say NO to issues and deals that were unfair to American workers.

My point is that it isn't what the new SoT thinks is best, but what her boss thinks is best. And he...unlike her...has a promise to keep. And importantly, not just to red state America, but to the blue state workers who voted in their millions for him, as they did for Reagan.

You raise an important issue. Let's see what happens. I think Trump is sincere. Like he says....he didn't need the job, or the headaches that come with it. He was already set for life. Let's give him a chance to put his newly-given clout where his mouth has been. If he reneges on his promise...specifically as concerns NAI...I will join you in condemning him. It's a prefect issue to test his sincerity, and there is little doubt that Doug Parker and Co. will have their chance to bend his ear on the matter. Moreover, cheap international air travel is not of paramount concern to the well-being of the American economy. Good paying jobs that keep the consumer-based economy afloat are far more important than cheap cost of international travel. Trump will understand that without lengthy explanation.

Let's see what happens first and not read too much into a(ny) cabinet appointment. If we know anything about Trump, it is that HE calls the shots, not those under him. Like I said, he has decades of experience as a CEO. Let's see how he leads before throwing him under the bus.

That is, unless one happens to be part of the extremist fringe the American electorate has thrown back into obscurity for at least the next several years, at a minimum. For those, there is nothing he can do that will not be met with cries of faux outrage and hair-pulling, drama-queens to the last.

 

In essence, yes. Instead of the defined benefit plans, airlines are compensating you at the same rate, if not better, with a defined contribution plan. What's is up to now? Sixteen percent?

 

Who really cares if the temperature goes up 1 or 2 degress C in a hundred years anyway? It would be nice to have winters a little warmer. If the cavemen could handle the end of the ice age I think we're fine. And by the way since when was engineering the same as a climatology or meteorology degree? That is like saying someone with a CDL is qualified to fly an airliner.

 

I remember seeing $1200 one ways turn into $400 round trips in 6 months. The Internet and an oversupply of seats let it happen fast. Well funded startups (jet blue) bled the legacys dry.

 

So New York, Miami, Los Angeles all being underwater will be good for the economy huh?