American Airlines - Last one standing

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 121...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote
None of what I posted in anyway said that SW was a major in 1979 and
the part you quoted above was in response to a statement that if an
airline didn't have international routes it isn't a major and that's
just silly.

Definitions have changed from time to time, but currently, the US
Government defines "Major", "National", "Large Regional", and
"Medium Regional" air carriers. The difference is solely based on
annual revenue except in the case of the "Medium Regional" where
there is a cutoff of 30 seat a/c as I recall. There are other
definitions such as Domestic/Flag and Scheduled/Supplemental.

Bob Moore

Which pretty much poo-poos the poster I was replying to's idea that you had
to have a counter in Japan to be US major.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific Air
Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.

Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in that
livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

May be possible,
There was a place in Athens, GA that restored several DC-3's, but I am not
sure of the earliest project. Used most for frieght haulers, but it is
possible they restored one to look like it?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:9YCWe.31$265.16@trndny07...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Southwest Airways routes definitely did not extend to Atlanta. Southwest
ceased using DC-3s around 1955 and in 1958 changed it's name to Pacific
Air Lines, so I don't see how you could have seen Southwest Airways DC-3s
serving Hartsfield in the late 70s.

Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

("George Patterson" wrote)
Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.


George, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yeasterday. :-)


Montblack

Montblack wrote:

George, I can't remember what I had for breakfast yeasterday. :-)

Yeah, I'm having that problem too. But it's not every day that you get assigned
to flag traffic crossing a main taxiway of an international airport.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

ire.net...
On 2005-09-16, Icebound wrote:

That is exactly how it *is* "relevant". Your example has added 12USD of
taxes to the consumer. If that 12USD was not collected from the
consumer,
the equivalent would have to be collected from the workers. You have
changed the distribution of the taxation load.

Your thesis presumes workers are not consumers.

I operate a one man business. Is this a corporation? Yes, Do I/we pay
taxes? Yes. Do I work? Yes. Do I consume? Yes.

You are a corporation, but you are also a "small" business... this is a very
different issue than that of my reference. I made it pretty clear in an
earlier post that where the worker, shareholder, consumer were pretty much
the same population, it does not much matter how the government gets its
revenue.

But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different population
than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or tax
sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax the
worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.

I am not arguing taxing one as opposed to the other as being good or bad....
just that it makes a difference as to how the two populations share the
total tax burden.




Governments know that if all your taxes (income, property, consumption,
excise, et al) were bundled on a single bill that there *would* be a
tax revolt. Decentralization of collection is key to maximum
extraction.

Your presumption that "...would have to be collected..." presumes
society is better off with government consuming substantial fractions of
the workers production.

No. What it *does* presume is that there is no difference in the revenue
stream to the government. Whether the government actually *needs* that
revenue stream was not the point of the discussion.

On 2005-09-16, Icebound wrote:

But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different population
than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or tax
sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax the
worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.

Not in actual practice. Increased corporate tax burdens are passed on
the consumer, not the shareholder. Return on invested capital is very
constant through periods of varying tax rates.

You can't protect the poor slob at the end of the line by raising
corporate tax rates; he just pays more for his products. Reducing
government revenue demand is by far the best way to lower the net burden
on labor.

If you are worried about the little guy getting hosed then fight to
simplify the tax code so that congress has less opportunity to funnel
vast sums to their friends for unnecessary projects at the direct
expense of the consumer. This would have a much greater effect on the
bottom line.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:9YCWe.31$265.16@trndny07...

Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
that livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.


I don't recall any fitting that description. Was it at an airline terminal?

"George Patterson" wrote

Perhaps a privately owned restoration? I definitely saw a pristine DC-3 in
that
livery taxi by at Hartsfield in '78 or '79.

Piedmont (US Air) has an old DC-3 that still goes around to shows.
--
Jim in NC

"Doug Carter" wrote in message
ire.net...
On 2005-09-16, Icebound wrote:

But if the shareholders are a substantially large and different
population
than the workers, for example: if the shareholders were foreigners (or
tax
sheltered entities), then it makes a great *deal* of difference as to
whether we tax the corporation's pre-dividend profits, or whether we tax
the
worker's wages, to get the same level of government revenue.

Not in actual practice. Increased corporate tax burdens are passed on
the consumer, not the shareholder. Return on invested capital is very
constant through periods of varying tax rates.

Interesting. That must mean large corporations are operating in a monopoly
position, because in a free market, increased prices would probably be
accompanied by reduced volume.



You can't protect the poor slob at the end of the line by raising
corporate tax rates; he just pays more for his products. Reducing
government revenue demand is by far the best way to lower the net burden
on labor.

If you are worried about the little guy getting hosed then fight to
simplify the tax code so that congress has less opportunity to funnel
vast sums to their friends for unnecessary projects at the direct
expense of the consumer. This would have a much greater effect on the
bottom line.

Efficiency is a whole other issue :-)

As far as "protecting the poor slob", I am personally intrigued by the
various proposals that call for elimination of all current forms of tax, and
replacing them a single tax-on-fund-transfers sort of approach.
http://users.ixpres.com/~concepts/ for one example.
Implementation might be a bitch, or not. But the simplicity and inherent
fairness is intriguing.

Another proposal is Linders Bill:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/taxes/a/aafairtax.htm
which *does* put it all explicitly consumer's head. If that bill ever sees
the light of day, it will interesting to hear the debate.