Antarius wrote:MSPNWA wrote:Antarius wrote:Actually no. The burden of proof lies with you, not someone asserting that someone who bought planes intends to use them.
Save for a lessor, that's true basically 100% of the time. So the absence of evidence does not need justification. Your theory does.
The old "burden of proof" diversion. First, I've already supported my argument to call the status quo into question and sent the ball into the other court. Second, the burden of proof here should be with those under a false premise that because DL agreed to purchase the airplanes, it means that they intended to operate them. Obviously that is not the only reason to acquire airplanes, particularly when engaging in an equity stake in a new partner under duress. So what we have here is a belief that has been turned into a pseudo-fact without the external supporting evidence to do so. So let's see your evidence supporting the belief that DL intended to operate them, and let's measure the two sides up.
Yes, the burden of proof argument. What stops us from just saying anything. For example, if I claimed you were Ted Bundy, wouldn't I need to prove it?
Please cite examples of non lessors who bought airplanes and did not operate them and never intended to. I can bury you in lists of people who did operate their purchases.
Your move, Ted.
While I do agree with you that DL intended to operate the used A350s, Delta has actually “bought” brand new 737-800s and used E190s that they never actually operated (in both cases planes were immediately sold to someone else after contractual delivery and never painted in DL livery). Delta also assumed the leases of some of Gol‘s 767 with no plan to use them (they were just parked for remainder of lease term) and have bought various airplanes solely for parts.