Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Air Wisconsin (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/)
-   -   Moving Forward (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/131992-moving-forward.html)

3rdtimesacharm 02-09-2021 06:18 PM


Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky (Post 3192992)

In this thread, yes, it seems that way

TransWorld 02-09-2021 09:32 PM


Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky (Post 3192867)
How long before the headline reads:

United Airlines to retire entire CRJ-200 fleet in May

https://thepointsguy.com/news/americ...s-embraer-140/

Inevitable...welcome to the Biden era.

What the post does not say is Envoy will continue to fly the E-145s. I believe Envoy was the only regional to be flying the E-140. If I recall, the E-140s were all pulled out of the desert when Envoy moved a lot of E-145s to Piedmont, as they transitioned off turboprops. The E-140s pulled from the desert were always meant to be an interim step. Puts a whole different light on it.

Escargot 02-10-2021 05:15 AM


Originally Posted by Fox51 (Post 3192887)
You are an embroiled, festering imbecile.

That's enough pedantic pandering to sesquipedalians, fustian Pharisee.

pangolin 02-10-2021 05:34 AM


Originally Posted by 3rdtimesacharm (Post 3192879)
If a victim of 9/11 can sue American Airlines for being hinacked, why shouldn't a victim of gun violence be able to sue the manufacturer of a gun designed to kill?

Because airplanes were not designed or intended to kill. Guns are.

Escargot 02-10-2021 06:47 AM


Originally Posted by 3rdtimesacharm (Post 3192879)
If a victim of 9/11 can sue American Airlines for being hinacked, why shouldn't a victim of gun violence be able to sue the manufacturer of a gun designed to kill?

Both of these suits are asinine. Your logic is good, but the premise is ridiculous.

WhiskyWhisky 02-10-2021 07:06 AM

How are the new jackets working out? I see a lot of you with them on now in the ORD halls. I'm on the fence.

acecrackshot 02-10-2021 07:09 AM


Originally Posted by pangolin (Post 3193108)
Because airplanes were not designed or intended to kill. Guns are.

So? Its a legal product. Killing isn't always unlawful. I mean, if the whole goal is disarm people in the face of their Constitutional rights, why not just be honest about it, rather than retreating behind poor thought out semantics?

I guess we need to pull them off of all the police officers, then. We can give them Stun Sticks and harsh language.

If you want to kill industries via massive liability costs, I guess we can see General Aviation as a prime victim of that.

Certainly made lots of PI attorneys wealthy, though. Won't someone think of the poor PI attorneys!

3rdtimesacharm 02-10-2021 08:34 AM


Originally Posted by Escargot (Post 3193150)
Both of these suits are asinine. Your logic is good, but the premise is ridiculous.

I agree that both are asinine. But then that is fortunately the litigious nature of this country.

pangolin 02-10-2021 09:10 AM


Originally Posted by acecrackshot (Post 3193164)
So? Its a legal product. Killing isn't always unlawful. I mean, if the whole goal is disarm people in the face of their Constitutional rights, why not just be honest about it, rather than retreating behind poor thought out semantics?

I guess we need to pull them off of all the police officers, then. We can give them Stun Sticks and harsh language.

If you want to kill industries via massive liability costs, I guess we can see General Aviation as a prime victim of that.

Certainly made lots of PI attorneys wealthy, though. Won't someone think of the poor PI attorneys!

You absolutely assumed the opposite of my intent. You can sue someone - ie an airline - for killing someone when their promise is safety. A gun is by design a killing machine. I said nothing about legality or worth or right vs wrong. Only that it’s silly to sue over something that functioned correctly as opposed to the airplane which didn’t.

RabidW0mbat 02-10-2021 09:13 AM

Back to the topic at hand, as pointed out on the G7 threads, G7 named by Mesa as getting more 700’s (550’s) on an 8 year deal. Not sure what ATW expects from us when they put out zero communication. Last email from CEO was over a month ago, starting to feel like the AA wind down all over again...though this time there’s not a magic savior at the end of the tunnel. I’ve tried really hard to be optimistic, but the companies actions don’t show us to much to be optimistic over. 700/900 additions were 5 years too late.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:07 PM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands