|
Originally Posted by kingairfun
(Post 2594898)
then why would anyone give a **** about 120 minute ETOPS?:)
Maybe because ETOPS 120 covers North Atlantic... |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 2594931)
Maybe because ETOPS 120 covers North Atlantic...
I'm sure that the 737MAX will be 180 ETOPS, until then SWA has plenty of 180min 800s too launch HI service. We are still getting 800s, they will be part of the fleet for a long time. |
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
(Post 2594485)
Who? I’d like to hear.
The MAX received ETOPS certification in September of last year. https://www.boeing.com/features/2017...tes-09-17.page *The Boeing 737 MAX 8 is certified for 180-Extended Operations, or ETOPS. This means 737 MAX operators can conduct flights on routes that are three hours from alternate airports. |
Originally Posted by 4thLevel
(Post 2595537)
Norwegian, LOT and Air Canada to name a few.
The MAX received ETOPS certification in September of last year. https://www.boeing.com/features/2017...tes-09-17.page Just because Boeing says it is doesn't make it so. Operators get the certifications. I'll stand by the 180 min ETOPS cert. for the MAX. No doubt it is coming. |
Originally Posted by HalinTexas
(Post 2596002)
The only one of your suggestions that can be proven is Norwegian. They file for 60 minutes but occasionally get 120. That's probably because they were the first to get the type.
Just because Boeing says it is doesn't make it so. Operators get the certifications. I'll stand by the 180 min ETOPS cert. for the MAX. No doubt it is coming. Proven???? A quote from Boeing, a picture of our ETOPS aircraft and a list of current operators isn't enough for you I guess. Dude, you're a piece of work. This all stemmed from that completely inaccurate statement of yours - quoted below. A statement you have continued to walk backwards, as I showed information to the contrary. But I give up, you're 100% right. Originally Posted by HalinTexas No MAXs, anywhere, are ETOPS ready. Not sure when they will be delivered. Wait and see. They will be integrated eventually. Boeing and the airlines that operate them, clearly have no idea what they're talking about. |
United is in for a surprise when they find out they - or their MAX's - don't have 180 min ETOPS.
MAXimum Comfort, MAXimum Efficiency United Airlines to Start Boeing 737 MAX 9 Service New aircraft to initially operate from carrier's Houston and Los Angeles hubs February 19, 2018 CHICAGO, Feb. 19, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- United Airlines today announced it has added its newest aircraft type, the Boeing 737 MAX 9, to its domestic flight schedules. The MAX 9 features Boeing's Advanced Technology winglets and fuel efficient engines providing a quieter ride and the ability to fly farther on less fuel. United expects to begin operating MAX 9 aircraft on June 7, between its hub at Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport and five cities. Beginning June 29, United expects to add additional MAX 9 flights from its Houston and Los Angeles hubs including service between Los Angeles and Honolulu. "The addition of the MAX 9 furthers our efforts to become a more efficient and productive airline. It has better fuel efficiency, lower maintenance costs and does all of this while maximizing customer comfort," said United's Chief Financial Officer Andrew Levy. This year, United will receive 10 new MAX 9 aircraft from Boeing and will continue to add service from its hubs to cities throughout the United States. |
Etops class going in school house
|
Originally Posted by BizPilot
(Post 2593032)
Cost of living in Hawaii -
Gallon of milk $8.00 Dozen eggs $7.00 Cheeseburger and fries at Waikiki $24.00 (beverage is extra) 1 bedroom studio apartment $1800/month. |
250K?
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 2572518)
CA state income tax is really not as bad as some people make it out to be. If you are married, the first $537,500 of your income is taxed at a marginal tax rate of 9.3%. However, California's income tax is highly progressive. The first $105,224 is taxed at an effective tax rate of only 4.4%. That's actually below average for many states. Even if you make 250k a year, your effective tax rate is 7.2% (Before any write-off's) For comparison, 43 out of 50 states charge state income tax, and the average effective state income tax rate is 5%.
State income tax is deductible on your federal taxes if you itemize. So if you're in a ~30% federal tax bracket, you'll get to write-off 30% of that 7.2% you paid in state taxes on your federal tax return. So your effective state tax rate would be 5%. Throw in some other federal write-offs (mortgage interest, charity, etc...), and your true effective state tax rate gets into the mid 4% range, depending on your situation, for making 250k. California's property tax rate is also significantly lower than other states (Roughly 1% of the home value, and can not increase more than 2% annually). You'll find that owning property in California is also quite profitable. People get all worked up over CA state income tax, but ~4.5% of your income if you make 250k is a very small price to pay for living in CA. It's worth it for the weather, scenery, things to do, beaches, mountains, wineries, you name it. I hope what you are saying is true though, that they don't tax the way the feds do, where the higher percentage is retro to dollar one. |
Million dollar man
Originally Posted by UALfoLIFE
(Post 2572592)
Try 53 cents per gallon in CA.
Secondly the 13.3% bracket applies to those make more than 1 mil. No SWA pilot is making that on flying alone, nice try lol! |
Originally Posted by THEKERNALKLINK
(Post 2570250)
If your base of operations is out of a State, YOU PAY TAXES TO THE STATE THAT BASE IS IN.... I was ****ed when IL hiked up their rate, but it's still close to 1/3 of what CA is.
I mean we would all be claiming TX or NV residency if we could get away with it, but it's illegal! |
Misspoken
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2604195)
If you are a 737 CA and believe this is correct tax law you have a real mess to sort out with several tax authorities!
I don't think I can pull off avoiding CA taxes if based there because I have a home there. It's just not kosher. Even a little condo in a tax haven state wouldn't be enough. Like another poster stated, they will look at a lot of things. Where do you go to Church, where do you bank? Where do your kids go to school? In my case I don't have a tribe of midgets to give me away, but their are a lot of other things. Hell, your gym membership might be what causes you to be found guilty. I can just see myself sitting on the stand getting grilled. Yet if I legitimately commuted from NV or TX etc... the tables would be turned. I could show documented proof that I was commuting. Their is a paper trail. Being a commuter has never worked for me. My character is very strict, and if I could not secure a non rev flight by the time I'd have to leave in order to make it driving, then I'd be driving. That whole calling in thing just doesn't sit well with me, it's my responsibility to be at work on time if their is any way I can be. Commuting just leaves one spending half the day at the airport, then having to be fit to fly a full day. I question whether that is even possible, even though thousands do it every day. |
Originally Posted by THEKERNALKLINK
(Post 2604226)
I meant to say if you live in, AND are based in that state, you will pay taxes there. Like someone said earlier, they live in WI and pay WI taxes even they fly out of Midway in Chicago.
I don't think I can pull off avoiding CA taxes if based there because I have a home there. It's just not kosher. Even a little condo in a tax haven state wouldn't be enough. Like another poster stated, they will look at a lot of things. Where do you go to Church, where do you bank? Where do your kids go to school? In my case I don't have a tribe of midgets to give me away, but their are a lot of other things. Hell, your gym membership might be what causes you to be found guilty. I can just see myself sitting on the stand getting grilled. Yet if I legitimately commuted from NV or TX etc... the tables would be turned. I could show documented proof that I was commuting. Their is a paper trail. Being a commuter has never worked for me. My character is very strict, and if I could not secure a non rev flight by the time I'd have to leave in order to make it driving, then I'd be driving. That whole calling in thing just doesn't sit well with me, it's my responsibility to be at work on time if their is any way I can be. Commuting just leaves one spending half the day at the airport, then having to be fit to fly a full day. I question whether that is even possible, even though thousands do it every day. ........ |
Originally Posted by THEKERNALKLINK
(Post 2604176)
I hope what you are saying is true though, that they don't tax the way the feds do, where the higher percentage is retro to dollar one. |
You high earner guys in deep blue states do know that the new tax bill is going to limit your ability to offset state taxes by deducting them against your federal return right?
|
Originally Posted by Stitches
(Post 2605140)
You high earner guys in deep blue states do know that the new tax bill is going to limit your ability to offset state taxes by deducting them against your federal return right?
Cal resident, no kids, 26 yr Capt, Fed tax reduced by 4k next year. State reduced by 2k. You can't take one snapshot and assume it means a thing. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:44 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands