5/19 I understand the US concern for EU to give loans to airbus, but
didn't we gave billions to help United so they won't go
bankrupt? Isn't it the same thing?
\_ airline providing service versus company providing product?
\_ US just a crying baby, I mean it.
\_ I think it's the same thing, but one could argue that the United
situation is a result of a terrorist strike.
\_ if that is the case, then, Southwest Airline must be aiding
the terrorist organization. How else would you explain that
Southwest is making profit in the midst of terrorist attack
and rising fuel cost?
\_ Southwest used their massive cash hoard to hedge fuel up
the wazoo, they are paying $30/barrel for their fuel still.
\_ No, actually we didn't give billions to United.
\_ According to Rumsfeld, if you can't prove that it didn't
happen, then we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Then
we should send in the marines and cluster bombs. Fucking
United won't know what hit them.
\_ Hahahaha, that's a good one! ;)
\_ They, like other airlines, pay little (or no?) tax on kerosene.
Likewise, I seem to recall they've received pretty lenient
treatment in terms of bankruptcy protection, but you should check
your own facts on that. The US does give pretty preferential
treatment to Boeing & other aerospace companies though, in terms
of contracts, sharing of research paid for by tax money, etc.--
beyond that, both Airbus & Boeing engage in enormously dodgy
tactics to secure deals. It's a thoroughly cutthroat industry, and
both the EU and US are right about the other side being a bunch
of protectionist lying shitbags. As for sending in the marines,
when's the last time you flew United? Notice the battleaxes they
have as stewardesses? Those chicks have hair on their teeth;
they'd eat those poor bastards up alive. -John
\_ rofl!! |