Originally Posted by captiveguru

I am always disappointed when companies take a political stance, especially when there is controversy. I want to buy your product/service without having to worry if I am enabling activities with which I disagree.

I do not have a problem with executives expressing their personal viewpoints, but please do not commit the organization to a particular position.

Originally Posted by houserulz77

I understand your point, but what exactly constitutes a political stance?

Companies, Delta included (emphasis added to make our MODs happy!!), lobby, write position papers, and actively participate in discussion around issues before all branches, and at all levels of government. To some extent, advocating for an LGA/DCA slot swap is just as political as expressing a company opinion on immigration.

Certainly individuals are welcome to critique these positions, and are welcome to avoid doing business with a company when they disagree; but there is more than enough data to suggest that these "boycotts" seldom have an effect.

I think it's also important to remember that while many of us, as individuals, often view even complex issues in black-and-white, larger entities cannot afford to do so.

For example, Delta has been critical of some TSA policies seen as overbearing, while at the same time openly opposing the policy change that allows small knives to be brought on board. Delta also openly opposed arming pilots, although I doubt many upper management folks for an Atlanta-base company would call themselves anti-2nd Amendment.

I know I for one could stand to allow for a little more nuance in my political positions....

Originally Posted by captiveguru

Why did Delta feel a need to endorse this action? What "economic development opportunities" is Delta expecting to benefit from?

The more I read it the madder I get.

Can someone tell me how legal immigration was "streamlined" by the President's actions? More importantly, how does streamlining immigration benefit Delta?

How did the president's actions "crack down on illegal immigration at the border?" And again, how does this benefit Delta?

Originally Posted by captiveguru

Every example you cite directly affects Delta's business and I have no problem with a corporation lobbying for its own interest. But the statement on Delta's website was this:

“Delta Air Lines applauds the steps announced this week to enact much-needed reforms to the nation’s immigration system,” said Joanne Smith, Delta’s Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer. “The President’s actions will provide economic development opportunities and enhance public safety by streamlining legal immigration while cracking down on illegal immigration at the border and focusing on deporting felons rather than families.”

There are a significant number of people who feel "the steps announced this week," are illegal, thus the controversy.

Why did Delta feel a need to endorse this action? What "economic development opportunities" is Delta expecting to benefit from?

The more I read it the madder I get.

Can someone tell me how legal immigration was "streamlined" by the President's actions? More importantly, how does streamlining immigration benefit Delta?

How did the president's actions "crack down on illegal immigration at the border?" And again, how does this benefit Delta?

Originally Posted by dilbertsdaddy

Whatever your stance on the issue, this was a really dumb thing for DL to do. Alienate 50% of your customers for no reason. Wow.

An airline should take a stance on political matters such as US energy policy or funding of NextGen ATC. But immigration? Really stupid.

Originally Posted by houserulz77

I don't want, nor do I think the MODs will permit, me to engage in a political debate with you on the subject. The point I was making is that just because Delta's stance on this issue angers you, doesn't make it more or less political.

I know for a fact that there were some very angry individuals, organizations, and companies who felt that the DL/NW merger was illegal as a matter of anti-trust law.

You certainly have the right to be mad, and to stop giving Delta your business. But at the same time, I think your insinuation that this particular issues is more or less political than another issue is based more on your beliefs on the matter than anything else (which by the way is fine).

Originally Posted by captiveguru

Sorry I got carried away... The point is this; Why stir this pot? Who is going to object if Delta makes no comment on the President's action, which is what most companies have done? Why is this issue so compelling that is requires an unsolicited statement of support?

Originally Posted by captiveguru

the point is this; why stir this pot?

Originally Posted by dilbertsdaddy

An airline should take a stance on political matters such as US energy policy or funding of NextGen ATC. But immigration? Really stupid.

Originally Posted by TravellingSalesman

That's not a point, that's a list of questions. The answer to which you will only be able to get from somebody fairly high up in Delta management, not from an internet forum.

Originally Posted by dilbertsdaddy

ding ding

how dare common sense enter this room

Originally Posted by captiveguru

Sorry counselor. Let me rephrase:

The point is this; There is no reason to stir this pot. There is no reason to comment on the President's action and risk alienating customers. No one will object to saying nothing.