Topic: Isn’t it weird how PanAm
Anonymous A started this discussion 6 years ago #94,100
Makes its pilots use their own credit cards to refuel?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #1,064,295
The planes in Spain refuel from Chinese drains
Mr. Augustine David joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,296
It's also weird that it only costs $11000 to refuel a 747
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,300
@previous (Mr. Augustine David)
I'll say, considering it costs around $200,000 to refuel any other 747.
I'll say, considering it costs around $200,000 to refuel any other 747.
Pan Am financial department joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,301
@OP
> Makes its pilots use their own credit cards to refuel?
For insurance reasons, we are prohibited from allowing our passengers to foot our fuel bills. It is literally impossible that such a thing would ever happen because it would open up an absurd number of legal problems for us.
For that reason, major airlines and international airports have contracts regarding fuel costs, in order to prevent potential anarchy in very busy airports (for example a transatlantic 747 stuck on the tarmac because the pilot's special issue Pan Am debit card was rejected).
> Makes its pilots use their own credit cards to refuel?
For insurance reasons, we are prohibited from allowing our passengers to foot our fuel bills. It is literally impossible that such a thing would ever happen because it would open up an absurd number of legal problems for us.
For that reason, major airlines and international airports have contracts regarding fuel costs, in order to prevent potential anarchy in very busy airports (for example a transatlantic 747 stuck on the tarmac because the pilot's special issue Pan Am debit card was rejected).
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,302
It makes sense. It would simplify accounting a lot: the pilots rent the plane from Pan Am for a flat rate, pay for the fuel, and then charge passengers whatever the market will bear to try to make a profit on the flight. This way Pan Am doesn't have to worry about trying to collect fares or fuel planes.
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,304
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,306
@previous (Mr. Augustine David)
Because if you're smart you can get more money from passengers than you have to pay for the plane and fuel.
Because if you're smart you can get more money from passengers than you have to pay for the plane and fuel.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 15 seconds later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,307
@1,064,304 (Mr. Augustine David)
That way you can deal with the hassle of negotiating plane rentals with a conglomerate and then also be responsible for determining what the market will be for that particular flight at that particular time, then presumably compete with other flights for the gates? And runway times? Maybe you need a separate agreement with each airport you fly to. And then also do about twelve other things that distract you from mastering your craft of piloting an airplane. All to theoretically save eleven cents per ticket in a frictionless perfectly spherical free market model in a vacuum. Thanks.
That way you can deal with the hassle of negotiating plane rentals with a conglomerate and then also be responsible for determining what the market will be for that particular flight at that particular time, then presumably compete with other flights for the gates? And runway times? Maybe you need a separate agreement with each airport you fly to. And then also do about twelve other things that distract you from mastering your craft of piloting an airplane. All to theoretically save eleven cents per ticket in a frictionless perfectly spherical free market model in a vacuum. Thanks.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,308
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Exactly. It's like doing Uber with a rental car. Except with planes.
Exactly. It's like doing Uber with a rental car. Except with planes.
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,311
@1,064,306 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Right but now they don't need to invest hundreds of thousands euros per flight and also make money
Right but now they don't need to invest hundreds of thousands euros per flight and also make money
Mr. Augustine David double-posted this 6 years ago, 45 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,312
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,313
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,315
Would every pilot run a ticket agency and basically an entire airline except they don't get to own the airplanes because why??
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,316
@1,064,312 (Mr. Augustine David)No but having oobered before, many Uber drivers finance new cars through Uber which seems like a fucking train wreck waiting to happen considering their uh...challenges at turning a profit.
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,317
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,320
@previous (Mr. Augustine David)
Losing six billion dollars per quarter is a little bit of a special case of "not turning a profit" though.
Losing six billion dollars per quarter is a little bit of a special case of "not turning a profit" though.
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,321
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,324
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 6 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,329
@1,064,312 (Mr. Augustine David)
No because an automobile is affordable enough for Uber drivers. A decent low end car costs what, $15-20,000? A decent 747 probably costs a few zeroes more.
@1,064,313 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Too many regulations.
@1,064,320 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It really is like the late '90s tech bubble, but it never seems to burst. I mean Pets.com was 24 months from beginning to end. Uber has been going on for TEN YEARS.
No because an automobile is affordable enough for Uber drivers. A decent low end car costs what, $15-20,000? A decent 747 probably costs a few zeroes more.
@1,064,313 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Too many regulations.
@1,064,320 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It really is like the late '90s tech bubble, but it never seems to burst. I mean Pets.com was 24 months from beginning to end. Uber has been going on for TEN YEARS.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,330
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Incidentally that's about how long it's been since the last recession. When the next one hits we'll see how long these tech companies with zero ability to turn a profit yet huge valuations last.
Incidentally that's about how long it's been since the last recession. When the next one hits we'll see how long these tech companies with zero ability to turn a profit yet huge valuations last.
Mr. Augustine David replied with this 6 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,332
@1,064,329 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Ok so why would they rent an airplane instead of working for an airline
Ok so why would they rent an airplane instead of working for an airline
Anonymous E replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,353
@1,064,300 (D)
> I'll say, considering it costs around $200,000 to refuel any other 747.
Actually I'm beginning to think there might be truth to his story. In 1991 (when Syntax's tale begins), 11,000 bucks was the equivalent of 19,000 in today's money. That means Syntax's 747 would have crashed shortly after takeoff somewhere off the coast of Portugal. Didn't he once say he'd survived a couple of plane crashes? Maybe this was one of them. And when he finally made it back to California he was greeted at the airport by the Pan Am CEO with a check and some air miles for his inconvenience.
> I'll say, considering it costs around $200,000 to refuel any other 747.
Actually I'm beginning to think there might be truth to his story. In 1991 (when Syntax's tale begins), 11,000 bucks was the equivalent of 19,000 in today's money. That means Syntax's 747 would have crashed shortly after takeoff somewhere off the coast of Portugal. Didn't he once say he'd survived a couple of plane crashes? Maybe this was one of them. And when he finally made it back to California he was greeted at the airport by the Pan Am CEO with a check and some air miles for his inconvenience.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous E double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,354
Or, he may just be a chronic bullshitter, who knows.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,064,463
A plane crash was found to be caused in part by a pilot with a conflict of interest - he was part owner and the company was in some money trouble, enough to influence the pilot to take chances if it meant avoiding cost. He got killed in the crash like everybody else.