Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Delta Air Lines' started by 700UW, Nov 6, 2015.
interesting they are trying to avoid paying US taxes - many companies are moving where a company is domiciled - its sad congress can't fix this and all the cash trapped overseas
Maybe instead of dodging paying taxes in the U.S., they could advocate for a fair rate. Maybe join a lobbying group?
Seriously though, were this to occur, what happens to JV's? Bilateral agreements?
How easy (or rather, easier) would/will it be for DL to outsource international flying for F/As?
If the only goal was only to pay the lower tax rate, why not set up "DL Ireland" or "DL any other EU country but France"?
Might be more cooking here and involve not just DL, but also AF/KL, skyteam and a British slut (I mean VS )
Why Delta Amsterdam? Delta Dubai would be able to use the same rules they say EK is using unfairly.
Plus, it's corporate tax free for the time being (they're toying with a corporate tax to make up for the shortfalls in oil revenue).
Delta Amsterdam doesn't seem to be a nice place for executives. The maximum income tax rate is 52%! I'm assuming, of course, that the current executives in ATL responsible for the departments being shipped overseas will be moving to AMS. Surely, DL wouldn't make a move that would cause executives to lose their jobs, would they?
And, what about the line employees like pilots, flight attendants, rampers and mechanics? What happens to their jobs? Oh wait, they don't need to worry. They've got profit sharing.
yes, because in the 75 years of having Delta Flight Attendants, Delta has a history of outsourcing intl flight attendants and pissing off their workers....
and since we acquired NW, Delta has been cleaning up their mess of OUTSOURCING F/A's and been INSOURCING MORE jobs.
JV with VS, AM, and others,cutting DL metal flying International is sure insourcing work.
I see you had your DL koolade this morning for breakfast.
How about all those RJs flying for DL with non-DL FAs?
How is that protecting work?
All well and good, but that's an answer to a question I didn't ask. I wasn't asking if it would happen, I was asking if this could make it easier... Do you know?
Yep, wouldn't want to make the U.S. ,company friendly,by lowering tax rates and encouraging growth.....would we?
I know, I know....doesn't quite fit into the Socialist Doctrine!
And, don't forget, when you move the flying to a foreign subsidiary based in another country, that country has its own labor laws that might require hiring its citizens. Why do you think AA has a flight attendant base in Bogota, Colombia staffed entirely with citizens of Colombia? And, we had to do that just to be awarded the right to fly to Colombia. (Well, actually it was Eastern or Pan Am, but we had to agree to maintain the base when AA went to the yard sale of the original airline.)
Kevin, one of the major advantages of moving to foreign subsidiaries is the argument,,,"Our hands were tied. The <fill in the blank with the name of the country> labor laws required that their citizens get the jobs."
Id be willing to bet the IRS would not be too terribly happy!!
Depending on the country, it was either Braniff or Panagra (who was an international subsidiary jointly owned by Pan Am and Braniff, and then Braniff bought Pan Am out)
As profitable as DL is, I just don't their creating an offshore subsidiary would be very high on the IRS's radar.
All in all, over $2T is parked offshore, including some staggering amounts by a handful of tech and manufacturing firms.