Originally Posted by
iahphx
Actually, any plausible reading of my posts indicates that I believe the exact reverse: I think EK is heavily subsidized, but I think the "safety issue" is a red herring in this discussion.
Speaking of red herrings, Ted Reed, the excellent USA aviation reporter, today totally demolishes the silly argument that the subsidies provided by the Gulf airlines "are just like" what the USA gov't has done for the USA airlines.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/...rtner=yahootix
This is the biggest pile of bovine manure I have read so far.
Checking out the facts seems something that you don't care to do. The first sign that someone is full of it, is when they pomp a person's non-verifiable and irrelevant credentials, as if that's going to make their words more believable. We're in 2015, not 1965.
The mandated excise taxes collected by the AATF and used to support back the industry are subsidies that could have been appropriated for other matters, after all it's an Act not carved in stone.
These monies are NOT donations handed out by airlines/users.
That writer seems to only read half of what he claims he did, then writes half the fact, the half that serves whatever agenda he's been paid to push.