In Flagrant Abuse of Power, Georgia Lt. Gov Casey Cagle‏ Threatens Delta to Revenge NRA

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Basically, he was saying, "If they would just think right, then they won't be punished."

If Delta could move I'd love the schadenfreude of sticking it back to the government.

It truly is scary when people are so entrenched in their politics that they cheer for weaponized government.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I believe that Hartsfield Taylor will be a better Int'l Hub airport, if Delta, is pushed to the back row, there. Maybe it's time to rethink Hubs, anyway. They think that they own the place, so the flying public suffers. Bastion's days at Delta are numbered. $50 Million lost to fuel taxes, vs. 13 discounted NRA members' traveling to their Nat'l Convention on Delta.

Probably a lot more NRA members traveled using Corporate Plastic, and/or discounts, but Delta can't do anything to them. We have a right to fly on any airline to get somewhere and then do what we want, not only what Delta thinks is P.C.

Just as the NRA cannot argue with Delta's decision, " Bastion's ", now Delta cannot argue with Georgia over what they decide are the correct taxes on fuel pumped into aircraft, on their airfields. Both of these are voluntary discounts, Bastion's one is for a few hundred bucks and the Georgia Statehouse's is for $50,000,000. I think Bastion is history.

originally posted by: carpooler
Maybe it's time to rethink Hubs, anyway.

Hubs aren't going anywhere, if anything the airlines are retrenching at their hubs.

We have a right to fly on any airline to get somewhere...

You do? I must have missed that Constitutional amendment.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hartsfield Taylor is stretched out in almost a straight line with departure gates sprouting at right angles to it's concourses. Delta Int'l arrivals and departures are at one end of this "TREE" and their domestic cross country arrivals and departures, SLC, in my case, are at this TREE's farthest end. So I had to drag my carry on's onto #1 of their robot trolley train, and ride it all the way to #5, when I returned from South Africa. Each stop along that track soaks up precious time.

This is what I meant by re-thinking Hubs. Delta had no intention to hold things up for a couple of minutes, at their SLC gate, for me to make this ridiculous connection. Coming home from Europe in the Summer of 2016, four years later, I found Sea Tac Int'l arrivals to be even worse. So it's not only Hartsfield Taylor, but probably any really large Hubs, where U.S. Customs calls the shots, for Int'l arrivals.

Maybe Delta will leave Georgia for somewhere inland, to re-locate their Southern Hub. I just hope US Customs, and ICE, stays in Georgia, so passengers can deal with their Int'l arrivals, one choke point, at a time.

But here's my own prediction, losing Delta's Atlanta Hub, will help, not hinder, it's Int'l arrivals and departures. It will let U.S. Customs do their jobs more efficiently. The two longest flights in commercial aviation fly from Atlanta. One goes to Jo'berg, RSA, (my round trip flight), and the longest, by about twenty minutes, goes more Northerly across Africa, and reaches the Coast of Australia. Both of these are only possible with Boeing Triple Seven E.R. aircraft.

Flying from Seattle or Vancouver, CA, also uses the Great Circle routes, to reach London's airfields, even back in the 707 jetliner days. Even with bulkhead economy comfort seats, it's still too d#$mn far. The First Class pods on the other hand----.

So, FWIW, my wife and I will do the next overseas trip with a weekend stop over on our East Coast, probably Down East, in Portland, Me. If you can read these tea leaves, you'll see that we're now steering clear of the giant hubs, like Chicago's O'Hare, and Atlanta's H.T. And there's always the Cannucks to fall back on!

a reply to: carpooler


I fly every week, don't like short connection times? Don't make them.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Basically, he was saying, "If they would just think right, then they won't be punished."

If Delta could move I'd love the schadenfreude of sticking it back to the government.

It truly is scary when people are so entrenched in their politics that they cheer for weaponized government.

I like it when they go after the right people for a change, you know, people who attack others only because they support our freedoms and rights. You will never see government doing that for it's citizenry in China, for example.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I like it when they go after the right people for a change, you know, people who attack others only because they support our freedoms and rights. You will never see government doing that for it's citizenry in China, for example.

When they targeted conservative groups via the IRS were you cool with that?

Rhetorical, of course you weren't. There are no 'right people' for the government to target, it's always wrong. It's truly appaliling that people want to see the government weaponized just because someone else has a different opinion.

Oh, and speaking of China, maybe you should go there before making a comment. When you do get back we can compare notes on what internet sites you weren't able to access becasue, you know, censorship. Good ol' China, keeping an eye out for it's loved citizens. Jesus Christ, what a terrible comparision to make.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carpooler
Maybe it's time to rethink Hubs, anyway.

Hubs aren't going anywhere, if anything the airlines are retrenching at their hubs.

We have a right to fly on any airline to get somewhere...

You do? I must have missed that Constitutional amendment.

No constitutional amendment is needed. The company themselves, as it pertains to government rules and regulations, can't discriminate against people and so must take all paying customers.

Imagine at the boarding gate some company person pulling people aside and denying service based upon their own preference. "Sir you can't board this plane because you look like the wrong kind for our airline"

Didn't Adolph Hitler and all his men try that once? You know how that worked out.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
No constitutional amendment is needed. The company themselves, as it pertains to government rules and regulations, can't discriminate against people and so must take all paying customers.

Show me where in the Constitution it says anything about private businesses needing to sell anyone firearms. I'll wait.

Didn't Adolph Hitler and all his men try that once? You know how that worked out.

Hitler did it to the Jews based on religion. This is not a religious move by Dick's or Walmart. Hitler was also the government, Dick's and Walmart are not.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I like it when they go after the right people for a change, you know, people who attack others only because they support our freedoms and rights. You will never see government doing that for it's citizenry in China, for example.

When they targeted conservative groups via the IRS were you cool with that?

Rhetorical, of course you weren't. There are no 'right people' for the government to target, it's always wrong. It's truly appaliling that people want to see the government weaponized just because someone else has a different opinion.

Oh, and speaking of China, maybe you should go there before making a comment. When you do get back we can compare notes on what internet sites you weren't able to access becasue, you know, censorship. Good ol' China, keeping an eye out for it's loved citizens. Jesus Christ, what a terrible comparision to make.

I have already been to China 4 times. I know all about China.

And when Obama used the IRS to target conservatives is not the same as an official pulling your tax break because you attacked the second amendment or punished people who support the second amendment.

Government protecting our rights is good. Obama never did that. Obama attacked everyone's rights and freedoms and he used the power of government to deny freedom.

Finally we have someone in government protecting freedoms and you are complaining?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


Still confused on how that whole Constitution thingy works, aren't you? Using the government to target people you disagree with is wrong whether it's Obama or the Georgia legislature or governor. They aren't protecting anything, they are in fact hurting you via higher taxes since corportations only pass those on to the end user: you.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

What freedoms? the freedom to get a discount?..lmao. Has your right to bear or be a member of the NRA been changed, let me guess..you joined the NRA to get a discount from Delta

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

What freedoms? the freedom to get a discount?..lmao. Has your right to bear or be a member of the NRA been changed, let me guess..you joined the NRA to get a discount from Delta

Delta got involved politically and punished people who support the second amendment and now they are having the same thing done to them.

I think it is hilarious.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Delta got involved politically and punished people who support the second amendment and now they are having the same thing done to them.

I think it is hilarious.

How did they get punished? Who is going to pay those higher fuel taxes? Do you think it will be them? Think again.

When it comes to a business, and one that is publicly traded, there are 2 other things that weight heavily. One is the consumer, if the consumers who use this airlines do not like such, they would go with Delta's competition, affecting the bottom line. The other factor would be the stock holders. If the CEO makes a decision, and the public agrees with such, then the company will not change its policy. if the public does not, then that CEO could lose his job, as the stock holders would not stand for losing money.

I am confused as to how voting down a tax break to a single corporate entity constitutes "flagrant abuse of power". If anything, the "flagrant abuse of power" would be giving that corporate entity special treatment in your laws over other corporate entities in the first place.

Given their platform, dems should be ALL FOR Cagle and others voting this down. That is, IF they really believed in their own principles and not just some stupid blue team versus red team b.s.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Delta got involved politically and punished people who support the second amendment and now they are having the same thing done to them.

I think it is hilarious.

How did they get punished? Who is going to pay those higher fuel taxes? Do you think it will be them? Think again.

You think freedom doesn't cost anything? We all have to make sacrifices in America to preserve freedom. Weren't you aware of that?
And yes it will be them that pays. If they raise their prices people can book elsewhere.
Get real

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
You think freedom doesn't cost anything? We all have to make sacrifices in America to preserve freedom. Weren't you aware of that?

What freedoms did you lose from Delta?

And yes it will be them that pays. If they raise their prices people can book elsewhere.
Get real

Actually, because it's a hub your choices are limited and I have yet to see one corporation pay taxes. They just collect it from the end user to pass to the government.