Also:

321T will be gone soon

 

That’s not a very good article and it fails to mention that those routes will be flown by brand new aircraft.

The new interiors will be nicer. They are being replaced with 321XLR which will have the Flagship Suite (20) cabin along with Premium Economy (12) and Economy (123).

 

Yeah, should have looked better. Somewhat surprised no 2+2 section anymore, but I am not a revenue specialist obviously.

 

Unlikely the poor become more poor when the incentives (handouts) to be poor are taken away. We’ll probably see an increase of the middle class—decrease in poverty levels.

Do I see more first class seats being installed? Yeah, thanks to inflation which shrunk the middle class the last four years and made the rich even richer.

American is doing the opposite of creating lower income seating. They’ve made a few announcements of upgrading their first class product to “flagship suites”. They’re also adding more first class seats to their old 319’s and 320’s.

 

This is not a snark question.
Are you willing to expand on your reasoning and thought process regarding your first paragraph?

 

Welfare programs— particularly those with high benefit levels and/or complex eligibility rules create a disincentive to work because it creates a fear of losing benefits. We called it the "benefits cliff" where I grew up. It basically traps people into a cycle of poverty. There are certain types of aid that will foster dependence on government assistance. It does make it difficult for individuals to achieve self-sufficiency and climb out of poverty.

Welfare programs also have negative consequences on family structure, such as discouraging marriage or incentivizing single parenthood, which can, in turn, contribute to poverty. My cousin chose that route. She’s a “single mom” with 4 kids who’s been living off welfare since she was 22.

Cash Assistance Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which provide direct cash assistance, creating a disincentive to work. The most detrimental programs are those with “stiff eligibility cliffs”— substantial reductions in benefits as income rises, such as some housing assistance or childcare subsidies, which absolutely discourages people from taking on better-paying jobs or more hours. My Aunt (who just retired) chose that route. She intentionally worked 30 something hours a week as a cashier at a grocery store that kept her within an income bracket to collect direct cash payments from the government. She’d paint houses on the side for cash (off the books). My uncle collected unemployment for years while he worked full time as a ticket scalper.

Another well known ‘off the record’ cash transaction side hustle is selling illegal narcotics. Drug dealer receives welfare check. Drug dealer takes gov assistance cash to sell dope on their ‘off the record—cash only’ side hustle. Drug dealer eventually gets caught and receives a felony conviction. Drug dealer is now unemployable for the remainder of any potential career those welfare checks were supposedly going to “lift” them into.

 

Thanks for the reply.
I follow the reasoning. I question how pervasive it is, but don't have the knowledge to support my questioning it.
One side note. You mention a relative on unemployment for years. In my career I drew unemployment on 3 separate occasions. They all had a limit that was determined by how much had been paid into ones unemployment insurance account, with a cap at 6 months. These insurance payouts were from 2 different states. I suspect that the rules would be different for the other 48 states.

But a small quibble. Your reply was thoughtful and appreciated.

 

Canada flights have been cut. But when they become 51 then the international statistics won’t apply.