3 ms·

Now i wonder who in Delta management were willing to put the plane, never mind the crew, on the line for this flight. It if was totaled by the hurricane it wou

Now i wonder who in Delta management were willing to put the plane, never mind the crew, on the line for this flight. It if was totaled by the hurricane it would not have looked good on the company books.

joering2 9y ago
Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no - if it wouldnt take off that minute, you are talking about wreck taken off the books.
- whack 9y ago
  The optimist in me would like to believe that Delta took this risk, because they considered their humanitarian mission more important that the mechanical integrity of one plane. I would encourage each and every company I own stocks in, to prioritize their goals similarly.
- Reason077 9y ago
  As explained by omegant in the post above, lives were not at risk here. The risk was to the aircraft: if it had been delayed on the ground at SJU for any reason, it might not have be able to depart before the storm hit and would likely have suffered severe damage.
  - mmirate 9y ago
    Normally I would think that > hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock would refer to the aircraft ... except that's a nearly 1-order-of-magnitude overestimate of it's value (a single $100M, not multiple).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- _jal 9y ago
  Every situation is going to look different. But if I found out a company I was invested in had an opportunity to save lives at a reasonable risk[1] and chose not to due to concerns about whiny shareholders and PR, I'd dump them and write comments about their shitty morals on message boards. [1] Whatever that means. And I have no personal opinion about the risk involved in what Delta did, because I'm not qualified to form one. Edited to add: it is nice to be able to applaud an airline for a change. Yay, Delta.
- tempestn 9y ago
  Given that lives were not in fact at significant risk, it's conceivable to me that they considered the amount of free publicity this would likely get. Given that, and the relatively small chance of serious damage or loss of the plane, and it could be a decision with positive financial expected value. Plus, of course, there is the humanitarian benefit.

joering2 9y ago

Very good question. Whether Im stockholder or shareholder in this position I want to know why and why is risking hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock not to mention lost lives and PR disaster. Honestly there is NO reasonable explanation. But wait few days to find out there was some high ranking company member or CEO/C level exec or his/her family stuck over there and thats why they send a plane. And no - if it wouldnt take off that minute, you are talking about wreck taken off the books.

whack 9y ago
The optimist in me would like to believe that Delta took this risk, because they considered their humanitarian mission more important that the mechanical integrity of one plane. I would encourage each and every company I own stocks in, to prioritize their goals similarly.
Reason077 9y ago
As explained by omegant in the post above, lives were not at risk here. The risk was to the aircraft: if it had been delayed on the ground at SJU for any reason, it might not have be able to depart before the storm hit and would likely have suffered severe damage.
- mmirate 9y ago
  Normally I would think that > hundreds of millions of dollars in my rolling stock would refer to the aircraft ... except that's a nearly 1-order-of-magnitude overestimate of it's value (a single $100M, not multiple).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
_jal 9y ago
Every situation is going to look different. But if I found out a company I was invested in had an opportunity to save lives at a reasonable risk[1] and chose not to due to concerns about whiny shareholders and PR, I'd dump them and write comments about their shitty morals on message boards. [1] Whatever that means. And I have no personal opinion about the risk involved in what Delta did, because I'm not qualified to form one. Edited to add: it is nice to be able to applaud an airline for a change. Yay, Delta.
tempestn 9y ago
Given that lives were not in fact at significant risk, it's conceivable to me that they considered the amount of free publicity this would likely get. Given that, and the relatively small chance of serious damage or loss of the plane, and it could be a decision with positive financial expected value. Plus, of course, there is the humanitarian benefit.