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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/10/united-airlines-orders-electric-vertical-aircraft-invests-in-urban-air-mobility-spac.html

I’m just going to leave this right here. Not going to speculate, but this backs up the death of 200’s.

Also added 150 shares of the stock ($ACIC) to my portfolio. Looks like Mesa is involved.

 

“Our entry point is around $3 per passenger mile in these markets, which is roughly equivalent to maybe a ride-sharing company today.”

This is a long way down the road, even says so in the last part of the article. Can it get down to $3 a passenger-mile, probably eventually. In the next 3-4 years? Probably not, especially considering you would need to pay the pilot to fly the aircraft. Even a short distance flight would take at least 15 minutes or so when you factor time to take off, land, etc.

Even then you need to factor in how those aircraft will actually work in the system. I doubt O'Hare will allow them to land enmass at the airport, and there's no way they'll be able to land on roads legally. I just don't see this scaling at 2024 except for people who are able to spend a lot of money for something like this, and there's no way they can take over the role of RJs because they can only travel 150 miles. We regularly do longer flights than that.