dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
You haven't posted any facts. Just misinformation as you usually do.
DL adopts Saudi "No-Jew" Policy
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
You haven't posted any facts. Just misinformation as you usually do.
xUT
Veteran
signals
Veteran
LH basically did the same thing in a more subtle way. This is all about Mecca traffic, regardless what you have us believe. DL cut to the chase, and LH brought Air Egypt into the Star Alliance through negotiatians with an Italian regional airline.
In a round about way DL did the right thing!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #34
As you well know, Eric, A is one of my favorite letters.
IN addition to anonymity, there are two other A's that matter. The first is accuracy and the second is amateur.
It is a GIVEN that if anyone wishes to make comments they will be held to a standard of accuracy. It is a regular occurrence on this board - which is a microcosm of the world - that posters are corrected for inaccurate statements they make. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is held to any lesser standard and no one else asks for it.
When you make statements such as
Accuracy is recognizing the issues involved and not mixing in concepts that aren't.
Accuracy is understanding that "other airlines" does not mean "all other" or "some other" or "no other"... absent a qualifier, it simply means that there are "other" airlines which do not provide this resource. The fact that two other airlines link to the Dept. of State which by your own admission is not ideal for non-US passport holders demonstrates that not all US airlines with int'l operations offer the same service; because as we all know, the US Government's first responsibility is to Americans.
Accuracy.
I might add that I would have never joined this thread if I didn't have to jump in and correct the inaccuracies that you were propogating.
.
Second is amateur. This board and other aviation chat boards exist for amateurs. It is a place for people to come and shoot the breeze about whatever they want to discuss - mostly related to aviation. Very few people participate on the basis of their professional credentials. Those who claim to be professionals are held to a higher standard - but no one is else held to a lesser standard when it comes to accuracy.
And my third A is anonymous. You see there are people here who want to come on and tell everyone on the web how bad their boss is.. they want to rip their company for how badly they treat the employees, how bad the strategic decisions are that they make, etc.... Unless they disclose their identity, they choose to participate anonymously. While you choose to reveal your identity and discuss your professional accomplishments and business travels, others do not. Your continued participation in this discussion - and in staying out of legal problems - is dependent on you understanding this concept.
Three As and they ALL matter.
That's the reality in this part of the world.
....
Instead of using force, how about you focus on the As, esp. about accurately speaking on the topics at hand... and all of the rest of the stuff will fall away as immaterial... and I will have no need to jump into the conversation.
IN addition to anonymity, there are two other A's that matter. The first is accuracy and the second is amateur.
It is a GIVEN that if anyone wishes to make comments they will be held to a standard of accuracy. It is a regular occurrence on this board - which is a microcosm of the world - that posters are corrected for inaccurate statements they make. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE is held to any lesser standard and no one else asks for it.
When you make statements such as
you have confused the notion of nationality and religion. The only documentable information that SA or any country can check is your nationality... and your rights to enter a country are dictated by your nationality. Everyone who lives in that country is affected regardless of whether they have the same religion, hair color, or any other characteristic.
Accuracy is recognizing the issues involved and not mixing in concepts that aren't.
Accuracy is understanding that "other airlines" does not mean "all other" or "some other" or "no other"... absent a qualifier, it simply means that there are "other" airlines which do not provide this resource. The fact that two other airlines link to the Dept. of State which by your own admission is not ideal for non-US passport holders demonstrates that not all US airlines with int'l operations offer the same service; because as we all know, the US Government's first responsibility is to Americans.
Accuracy.
I might add that I would have never joined this thread if I didn't have to jump in and correct the inaccuracies that you were propogating.
.
Second is amateur. This board and other aviation chat boards exist for amateurs. It is a place for people to come and shoot the breeze about whatever they want to discuss - mostly related to aviation. Very few people participate on the basis of their professional credentials. Those who claim to be professionals are held to a higher standard - but no one is else held to a lesser standard when it comes to accuracy.
And my third A is anonymous. You see there are people here who want to come on and tell everyone on the web how bad their boss is.. they want to rip their company for how badly they treat the employees, how bad the strategic decisions are that they make, etc.... Unless they disclose their identity, they choose to participate anonymously. While you choose to reveal your identity and discuss your professional accomplishments and business travels, others do not. Your continued participation in this discussion - and in staying out of legal problems - is dependent on you understanding this concept.
Three As and they ALL matter.
That's the reality in this part of the world.
....
Instead of using force, how about you focus on the As, esp. about accurately speaking on the topics at hand... and all of the rest of the stuff will fall away as immaterial... and I will have no need to jump into the conversation.
xUT
Veteran
No, you confused the notion of nationality and religion as seen through Saudi interpretation.
Eric is spot on in his assessments, but you, not so much.
FYI, to be a SA national, Muslim religion is compulsory. Not Muslim, not Saudi, plain and simple.
SA will not allow Israel people (Passport Holders) into SA because:
#1 'ALL' Israelis are considered Jewish (even though Israel has many religions, including Muslim)
#2 SA does not recognize Israel as a state (see #1)
"Document-able Information" is to appease the public. What they actually do is quite different.
One of my coworkers had textbooks from a Christian Theology School, every face page had a cross on it. Books were confiscated and returned with 'every' cross blotted out.
Why don't you do a test run?
Fly to Jeddah (hopefully during Haj or Ramadon...
) Wear a Star of David, on your entry card: write down your religion as JEWISH and carry a Tanakh.
When they put your butt in holding, give them a copy of your documentation...
DOH!
B) xUT
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,916
- 9,360
You can threaten legal action for being teased on the Internet all you want... When you abused the cloak of anonymity, you made your own bed. Someone at DL HQ ratted you out. They didn't appreciate how you pretend to represent Delta. Their words, not mine..
And you're wrong about these forums being for amateurs. Just about everyone on the forums is a professional, and most work in the industry. Amateurs are over at Airliners.net...
Have fun, I'm done with you.
And you're wrong about these forums being for amateurs. Just about everyone on the forums is a professional, and most work in the industry. Amateurs are over at Airliners.net...
Have fun, I'm done with you.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #37
xUt,
I agree with you on all points after your first paragraph.
.
SA like some other countries does not recognize Israel as a state because it is a Jewish state.
But China does not recognize Taiwan as a separate state either and it has nothing to do with religion. While Israel and Saudi Arabia are religious states, the process of nationality is the link or lack thereof that connects countries in the world. If they choose to establish or not esablish that link based on religion, so be it.
.
There are other countries that ban the propoganda of religion, including China.
.
Just as in SA, as you cite, China and other countries, do not allow distribution of religious materials and they have confiscated those materials from outsiders (or their own citizens returning from outside of the country).
.
Which brings us to the fourth A in my sermon of three As.
.
And that is association. Religion is defined by ASSOCIATION outside of countries that link religion to national identity. No one knows what religion you practice unless you choose to disclose it. Outside of Israel, Jews are known as Jews only by association - or through tracing of family lines to someone who has disclosed it.
There are many Jews as well as members of other religion who choose not to practice the faith of their ^fathers^ and that is THEIR choice.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is NOT a requirement of Israel to be a Jew which makes Israel’s stance different from Saudi Arabia’s and that of other countries.
.
ASSOCIATION also comes into bear in the discussion I am having with EOlesen.
Every person on this forum participates based on the ASSOCIATIONS that they have chosen to form.
Some people disclose that they work for an airline but do not reveal their name.
Others say they are customers and whether they are or not is immaterial because we have to accept what they say based on the type of disclosure they make.
Then there are people who choose to make no association.
Then there are people who choose to disclose their name and their professional credentials.
Each person participates on this and other forums based on the level of association and disclosure that they choose to reveal.
Although EOlesen has chosen to reveal his actual name and provides direct links to information containing his professional credentials, addresses, and Twitter accounts, others have chosen not to do so. E’s posts on here are read through the lens of the professional credentials he has revealed.
Why E feels that he cannot communicate with others based solely on the level of association that each person in the conversation establishes is beyond me.
There are plenty of people on here who disagree with each other but they manage to have their discussions within the context of the information they choose to reveal.
I know nothing about you, xUT. And that is just fine. I am debating your IDEAS. I agree with some of what you post, I disagree with others.
EOlesen’s attempts to “out” my identity have already become illegal. There is a difference between privileged, personal conversations that are carried on offline and those that are posted publicly. There is also a difference between information which a person has chosen to reveal and that which someone has obtained through potentially illegal means and/or propogated without the knowledge of the person who either gave the information or the consent of the information to whom the information belongs.
In the United States and in most developed countries, there are strict laws of privacy that prohibit someone from revealing personal information about another person without their consent.
It is only because I am not vindictive that I have not already started legal proceedings against EOlesen for his actions but that could change. The moderators who are constantly removing information which I have chosen not to reveal could be replaced by a judge with a court order.
Then you can really talk about the damage to one’s professional reputation.
If, as of Saturday June 25, 2011, he doesn’t immediately cease and desist of his practice of posting personal information about me or anyone else without their consent, I WILL – that is not a threat, but a promise – begin legal proceedings against him or anyone else who uses or reveals my name or any form of it including age, marital status, profession – past or present, religion, in short ANY information that I have not chosen to reveal about myself publicly on this forum or in any public forum and which I have authorized to be linked to this forum.
Based on Saudi Arabia’s dismal record on human rights which extends not just to religion but also gender (note that some women in SA are bravely fighting for the right to drive, something women in mos parts of the world do freely, )I personally stand with those who argue that Delta should not develop any relationship with Saudi Arabian Airlines above the standard interlining agreements that exist between many global airlines. And perhaps it would even be appropriate for the US to require that there be NO commercial relationships between US airlines, including standard interlining, until SA improve its human rights, including the freedom for people to ASSOCIATE as they choose, not on the basis of any other characteristic.
Each of us as adults should be able to stand on the basis of our own lives and the associations we choose to make.
EOlesen can choose to live within these principles of modern, western society – which are espoused by this forum – or he can face the consequence of the legal system to enforce it.
In so much as Saudi Arabia wishes to interact with western companies, they should be held to the same standard.
Let me add, E, that the personal spat between you and I on this forum has been an unwelcome and noisy distraction which only a few blood thirsty bystanders could enjoy. I would be delighted to be able to re-establish offline personal conversations and resolve whatever differences we have in that manner, not on the public forum. I attempted to do that several times but you cut off personal messaging between us and chose to take it on the forum.
In addition to people about whom I know nothing and don't interact outside of the replies to each others' posts, I have discussions with other people on this forum offline and have met some of them in person. It is entirely possible to have civil relationships with each other either here or offline.
I would enjoy the opportunity to interact with you offline if you so choose, but whether you or do not, I hope you recognize that there standards of conduct regarding the handling and propogation of personal information through public channels that I intend to vigorously protect.
I agree with you on all points after your first paragraph.
.
SA like some other countries does not recognize Israel as a state because it is a Jewish state.
But China does not recognize Taiwan as a separate state either and it has nothing to do with religion. While Israel and Saudi Arabia are religious states, the process of nationality is the link or lack thereof that connects countries in the world. If they choose to establish or not esablish that link based on religion, so be it.
.
There are other countries that ban the propoganda of religion, including China.
.
Just as in SA, as you cite, China and other countries, do not allow distribution of religious materials and they have confiscated those materials from outsiders (or their own citizens returning from outside of the country).
.
Which brings us to the fourth A in my sermon of three As.
.
And that is association. Religion is defined by ASSOCIATION outside of countries that link religion to national identity. No one knows what religion you practice unless you choose to disclose it. Outside of Israel, Jews are known as Jews only by association - or through tracing of family lines to someone who has disclosed it.
There are many Jews as well as members of other religion who choose not to practice the faith of their ^fathers^ and that is THEIR choice.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it is NOT a requirement of Israel to be a Jew which makes Israel’s stance different from Saudi Arabia’s and that of other countries.
.
ASSOCIATION also comes into bear in the discussion I am having with EOlesen.
Every person on this forum participates based on the ASSOCIATIONS that they have chosen to form.
Some people disclose that they work for an airline but do not reveal their name.
Others say they are customers and whether they are or not is immaterial because we have to accept what they say based on the type of disclosure they make.
Then there are people who choose to make no association.
Then there are people who choose to disclose their name and their professional credentials.
Each person participates on this and other forums based on the level of association and disclosure that they choose to reveal.
Although EOlesen has chosen to reveal his actual name and provides direct links to information containing his professional credentials, addresses, and Twitter accounts, others have chosen not to do so. E’s posts on here are read through the lens of the professional credentials he has revealed.
Why E feels that he cannot communicate with others based solely on the level of association that each person in the conversation establishes is beyond me.
There are plenty of people on here who disagree with each other but they manage to have their discussions within the context of the information they choose to reveal.
I know nothing about you, xUT. And that is just fine. I am debating your IDEAS. I agree with some of what you post, I disagree with others.
EOlesen’s attempts to “out” my identity have already become illegal. There is a difference between privileged, personal conversations that are carried on offline and those that are posted publicly. There is also a difference between information which a person has chosen to reveal and that which someone has obtained through potentially illegal means and/or propogated without the knowledge of the person who either gave the information or the consent of the information to whom the information belongs.
In the United States and in most developed countries, there are strict laws of privacy that prohibit someone from revealing personal information about another person without their consent.
It is only because I am not vindictive that I have not already started legal proceedings against EOlesen for his actions but that could change. The moderators who are constantly removing information which I have chosen not to reveal could be replaced by a judge with a court order.
Then you can really talk about the damage to one’s professional reputation.
If, as of Saturday June 25, 2011, he doesn’t immediately cease and desist of his practice of posting personal information about me or anyone else without their consent, I WILL – that is not a threat, but a promise – begin legal proceedings against him or anyone else who uses or reveals my name or any form of it including age, marital status, profession – past or present, religion, in short ANY information that I have not chosen to reveal about myself publicly on this forum or in any public forum and which I have authorized to be linked to this forum.
Based on Saudi Arabia’s dismal record on human rights which extends not just to religion but also gender (note that some women in SA are bravely fighting for the right to drive, something women in mos parts of the world do freely, )I personally stand with those who argue that Delta should not develop any relationship with Saudi Arabian Airlines above the standard interlining agreements that exist between many global airlines. And perhaps it would even be appropriate for the US to require that there be NO commercial relationships between US airlines, including standard interlining, until SA improve its human rights, including the freedom for people to ASSOCIATE as they choose, not on the basis of any other characteristic.
Each of us as adults should be able to stand on the basis of our own lives and the associations we choose to make.
EOlesen can choose to live within these principles of modern, western society – which are espoused by this forum – or he can face the consequence of the legal system to enforce it.
In so much as Saudi Arabia wishes to interact with western companies, they should be held to the same standard.
Let me add, E, that the personal spat between you and I on this forum has been an unwelcome and noisy distraction which only a few blood thirsty bystanders could enjoy. I would be delighted to be able to re-establish offline personal conversations and resolve whatever differences we have in that manner, not on the public forum. I attempted to do that several times but you cut off personal messaging between us and chose to take it on the forum.
In addition to people about whom I know nothing and don't interact outside of the replies to each others' posts, I have discussions with other people on this forum offline and have met some of them in person. It is entirely possible to have civil relationships with each other either here or offline.
I would enjoy the opportunity to interact with you offline if you so choose, but whether you or do not, I hope you recognize that there standards of conduct regarding the handling and propogation of personal information through public channels that I intend to vigorously protect.
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Even the Uber left Daily Kos admits this is much to do about....nothing.
It goes to show the monumental misunderstanding the media has with this agreement. They took this byte and painted a picture of Delta reps turning away Jews at the departing gate dressed in Nazi uniforms. That’s clearly not the case.
Per Delta's News Release:
It goes to show the monumental misunderstanding the media has with this agreement. They took this byte and painted a picture of Delta reps turning away Jews at the departing gate dressed in Nazi uniforms. That’s clearly not the case.
Per Delta's News Release:
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Major media outlets across the United States are publishing stories that say the Internet and mainstream coverage about Saudi Arabia travel policies included unfair criticism of airlines.
"‘Delta has been unfairly singled out,’ says travel expert Henry Harteveldt, a Jewish American and a vice president of Forrester Research. ‘We may find a lot of Saudi Arabia's policies unpleasant and not agree with them, but any airline flying into any country is obliged to act by the rules of that country,’" USA Today reported.
Joe Brancatelli, a business travel columnist for Portfolio.com, said in the same story that “criticism of Delta's SkyTeam relationship with Saudi Arabian Airlines may have been blown out of proportion, and Delta may have been the victim of misinformation.”
The headline to Scott McCartney’s blog in The Wall Street Journalsaid “Blame Saudi Arabia, Not Delta.”
“There have been so many stories running around websites accusing Delta Air Lines of banning Jews from flights to Saudi Arabia that it’s worth clarifying. … ” McCartney said in his “Middle Seat” column. “It would be the same on Lufthansa or British Airways or Air France flights to Riyadh, or for that matter on their U.S. code-sharing partners – United, US Airways or American. Without a visa, American won’t board you for a flight to London if your ticket connects you to Saudi Arabia. In terms of airline policy, there’s nothing new.”
A story by The Associated Press offered a similar explanation.
“Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn't, not the airlines. Delta doesn't even fly there. Because Saudi Arabian Airlines is becoming a member of SkyTeam, Delta was singled out in reports that ran Thursday and were passed around social media. U.S. carriers already partner with other airlines that fly to Saudi Arabia, including Air France and the German airline Lufthansa.”
"‘Delta has been unfairly singled out,’ says travel expert Henry Harteveldt, a Jewish American and a vice president of Forrester Research. ‘We may find a lot of Saudi Arabia's policies unpleasant and not agree with them, but any airline flying into any country is obliged to act by the rules of that country,’" USA Today reported.
Joe Brancatelli, a business travel columnist for Portfolio.com, said in the same story that “criticism of Delta's SkyTeam relationship with Saudi Arabian Airlines may have been blown out of proportion, and Delta may have been the victim of misinformation.”
The headline to Scott McCartney’s blog in The Wall Street Journalsaid “Blame Saudi Arabia, Not Delta.”
“There have been so many stories running around websites accusing Delta Air Lines of banning Jews from flights to Saudi Arabia that it’s worth clarifying. … ” McCartney said in his “Middle Seat” column. “It would be the same on Lufthansa or British Airways or Air France flights to Riyadh, or for that matter on their U.S. code-sharing partners – United, US Airways or American. Without a visa, American won’t board you for a flight to London if your ticket connects you to Saudi Arabia. In terms of airline policy, there’s nothing new.”
A story by The Associated Press offered a similar explanation.
“Saudi Arabia decides who gets in the country and who doesn't, not the airlines. Delta doesn't even fly there. Because Saudi Arabian Airlines is becoming a member of SkyTeam, Delta was singled out in reports that ran Thursday and were passed around social media. U.S. carriers already partner with other airlines that fly to Saudi Arabia, including Air France and the German airline Lufthansa.”
I'm an Anerican Jew and have seen the press related to DLs partnership and SkyTeam admittance of SA. It's really much a do about nothing regarding the entry requirements. As a global airline, DL is bound by KSAs visa/entry requirements.
I travel to Israel several times per year and have an Israeli passport. I am not interested in visiting Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Middle East. To me, the larger issue here is whether US based companies should conduct business with such an anti-American and openly anti-Semitic goverment (SA is wholly government owned). Other alliances and carriers have DIRECT service to KSA that myself and many others patronize. It's both primitive and non-sensical to suggest not flying DL to avoid Saudi exposure as any airline travel is bound to have some between the fuel, potential aircraft financing arrangements, and other partnerships in place.
I have Platinum Medallion status and while I'm troubled by SkyTeams admittance of SA I'm not going to boycott DL as a result. There are likely other factors at play that we don't know about regarding the alliance and JBV. It's not reasonable to expect DL to leave SkyTeam but I wouldn't mind seeing SAs pending admittance rescinded.
Again I don't think DL is anti-Semitic and there are far greater threats and serious issues facing the Jews today than a policy forbidding travel to Saudi Arabia.
Josh
I travel to Israel several times per year and have an Israeli passport. I am not interested in visiting Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Middle East. To me, the larger issue here is whether US based companies should conduct business with such an anti-American and openly anti-Semitic goverment (SA is wholly government owned). Other alliances and carriers have DIRECT service to KSA that myself and many others patronize. It's both primitive and non-sensical to suggest not flying DL to avoid Saudi exposure as any airline travel is bound to have some between the fuel, potential aircraft financing arrangements, and other partnerships in place.
I have Platinum Medallion status and while I'm troubled by SkyTeams admittance of SA I'm not going to boycott DL as a result. There are likely other factors at play that we don't know about regarding the alliance and JBV. It's not reasonable to expect DL to leave SkyTeam but I wouldn't mind seeing SAs pending admittance rescinded.
Again I don't think DL is anti-Semitic and there are far greater threats and serious issues facing the Jews today than a policy forbidding travel to Saudi Arabia.
Josh
What? Can you do brisket and baby back ribs over mesquite? That would be a huge marketing tool for Delta to lure the Texas rig roughnecks traveling over to work the fields...
dapoes
Veteran
- May 17, 2008
- 3,543
- 2,716
Err, Delta does not operate service to Saudi Arabia. You do know what an interline agreement is right?
Dont call me Shirley
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,270
- 306
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/saudi-arabia-denies-discriminating-against-jewish-passengers-1.369733
Saudi Arabia denies discriminating against Jewish passengers
Delta Air Lines and the Saudi Embassy in Washington deny rumors that spread via the Internet last week, claiming Delta and Saudi Arabian Air Lines discriminate against Jewish passengers.......
Saudi Arabia denies discriminating against Jewish passengers
Delta Air Lines and the Saudi Embassy in Washington deny rumors that spread via the Internet last week, claiming Delta and Saudi Arabian Air Lines discriminate against Jewish passengers.......
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,916
- 9,360
The comments about "shunning" Saudi reminds me how hard it was for South African Airways because of national policy. Apartheid didn't stop airlines like BA from flying to JNB, but there certainly was a growing stigma attached to companies doing business there prior to 1990. SAA was banned outright from flying to the US and Australia, and few countries would allow them to overfly their airspace. There was also the partial economic embargo from the Reagan era (the Republican led Senate overrode his veto) they were banned from flying to the US, but apparently working with Boeing was OK....
Had de Klerk not started the moves to abolishing apartheid, SAA would have never been able to grow to the stature they are today, or partner with AA and Delta during the 1990's when they were allowed to start flying to the US again. Just as questionable is whether or not they could have been admitted into Star Alliance?..
-----
So... a question to ponder...
I seriously doubt anyone in Congress will be moved to try stand up to Saudi Arabia because of oil, sadly, but in all the debate over whether or not DL is in the wrong, I still think there's an underlying issue being ignored. There's no such thing as freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia.
Are there ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed when creating cross-border business partnerships? Isn't freedom of religion one of those?
To be clear -- I'm not intersted in anyone continuing to bash DL or any other airline.... just more interested in getting some opinions....
We and other countries openly shunned South Africa's abhorrent government policies to the extent that they were ultimately reversed. With religious freedom being one of the main reasons this country was first settled, and a core principle in our Constitution, should we not also be standing a little firmer for something the Founding Fathers believed in?...
Had de Klerk not started the moves to abolishing apartheid, SAA would have never been able to grow to the stature they are today, or partner with AA and Delta during the 1990's when they were allowed to start flying to the US again. Just as questionable is whether or not they could have been admitted into Star Alliance?..
-----
So... a question to ponder...
I seriously doubt anyone in Congress will be moved to try stand up to Saudi Arabia because of oil, sadly, but in all the debate over whether or not DL is in the wrong, I still think there's an underlying issue being ignored. There's no such thing as freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia.
Are there ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed when creating cross-border business partnerships? Isn't freedom of religion one of those?
To be clear -- I'm not intersted in anyone continuing to bash DL or any other airline.... just more interested in getting some opinions....
We and other countries openly shunned South Africa's abhorrent government policies to the extent that they were ultimately reversed. With religious freedom being one of the main reasons this country was first settled, and a core principle in our Constitution, should we not also be standing a little firmer for something the Founding Fathers believed in?...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #45
excellent questions, E.
.
I agree that the US should step up the pressure harder on regimes that deny so much of the human freedoms that we in the west value.
.
I don't think it is inappropriate at all to be asking the question of whether US airlines should have a more distant relationship with airlines such as Saudi Arabia.... but there are some considerations that need to be brought into the equation.
1. Although Saudi Arabia consistenly ranks among the worst countries in the world regarding human rights, there is no line below which you can say a country just doesn't cut it; and it should also be noted that the US is dinged by other western countries for some of its human rights positions, including still having the death penalty. You have to be careful about judging someone else on a subject when the reality is no one is completely free of some blame.
2. Aviation has long been one of the first tools used to accomplish foreign policy as well as other governmental issues... and that should not happen. Airlines are businesses that CONNECT the world, not divide them. Punishing airlines for what foreign service officials cannot do seems like a sad alternative.
3. The politics of the middle east will always be volatile and the US' traditional support for Israel and the largest Jewish population and power base in the US makes it even more of a target. While there is always room for improvement, it doesn't take much change to the current balance between Jewish and Arab interests to create real havoc in US foreign policy. Again, airlines should not be a part of the swing in those policies.
4. Finally, it should once again be noted that DL has no more of a relationship with Saudi Arabian airlines than other US airlines have - other than the Skyteam membership which DL is keeping the DL-SV relationship at the apparent lowest possible level of cooperation. I'm still not sure what started this whole furor but DL has not changed any policy other than to communicate what the entry requirements of the countries and nationalities involved.
I have a feeling this whole experience will serve to put a giant CHILL on any thoughts DL MIGHT have had about developing further commercial relationships with SV - and make EVERY US airline think twice about its alliances in that part of the region.... but AA's much deeper relationship with Royal Jordanian shows that not all airlines or countries in the middle east are judged in the same light.
.
It is very likely that all this furor will die down soon... whether anything changes with this - any more than it did w/ military bags remains to be seen.....I'm not personally expecting much of a change in the status quo, though.
.
good to be able to return to healthy discussion.
.
I agree that the US should step up the pressure harder on regimes that deny so much of the human freedoms that we in the west value.
.
I don't think it is inappropriate at all to be asking the question of whether US airlines should have a more distant relationship with airlines such as Saudi Arabia.... but there are some considerations that need to be brought into the equation.
1. Although Saudi Arabia consistenly ranks among the worst countries in the world regarding human rights, there is no line below which you can say a country just doesn't cut it; and it should also be noted that the US is dinged by other western countries for some of its human rights positions, including still having the death penalty. You have to be careful about judging someone else on a subject when the reality is no one is completely free of some blame.
2. Aviation has long been one of the first tools used to accomplish foreign policy as well as other governmental issues... and that should not happen. Airlines are businesses that CONNECT the world, not divide them. Punishing airlines for what foreign service officials cannot do seems like a sad alternative.
3. The politics of the middle east will always be volatile and the US' traditional support for Israel and the largest Jewish population and power base in the US makes it even more of a target. While there is always room for improvement, it doesn't take much change to the current balance between Jewish and Arab interests to create real havoc in US foreign policy. Again, airlines should not be a part of the swing in those policies.
4. Finally, it should once again be noted that DL has no more of a relationship with Saudi Arabian airlines than other US airlines have - other than the Skyteam membership which DL is keeping the DL-SV relationship at the apparent lowest possible level of cooperation. I'm still not sure what started this whole furor but DL has not changed any policy other than to communicate what the entry requirements of the countries and nationalities involved.
I have a feeling this whole experience will serve to put a giant CHILL on any thoughts DL MIGHT have had about developing further commercial relationships with SV - and make EVERY US airline think twice about its alliances in that part of the region.... but AA's much deeper relationship with Royal Jordanian shows that not all airlines or countries in the middle east are judged in the same light.
.
It is very likely that all this furor will die down soon... whether anything changes with this - any more than it did w/ military bags remains to be seen.....I'm not personally expecting much of a change in the status quo, though.
.
good to be able to return to healthy discussion.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Investor looking for serious changes at Southwest- Latest: Jalsporteam
-
-