![]() |
Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky
(Post 3192992)
|
Originally Posted by WhiskyWhisky
(Post 3192867)
How long before the headline reads:
United Airlines to retire entire CRJ-200 fleet in Mayhttps://thepointsguy.com/news/americ...s-embraer-140/Inevitable...welcome to the Biden era. |
Originally Posted by Fox51
(Post 3192887)
You are an embroiled, festering imbecile.
|
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?
|
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?
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by pangolin
(Post 3193108)
Because airplanes were not designed or intended to kill. Guns are.
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! |
Originally Posted by Escargot
(Post 3193150)
Both of these suits are asinine. Your logic is good, but the premise is ridiculous.
|
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! |
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