T1B

While riding in the back of a Delta plane this morning I sat next to an American Airlines pilot who was on his way to work also. We chatted about a few things including the planes we fly (ratings) and how we would both like to fly the others plane a few times. I asked him why he was on Delta when AA flew the same route. His answer was shocking. He basically admitted that the pilots are taking action against AA unofficially. He said the flight on his company metal would take a delay or cancel as he had spoken to the pilots for that flight when he first arrived at the airport this morning. As we continued talking he admitted he refused to fly on Monday until an open item was fixed. He also stated he has prolly operated 250 segments with that same item open in the past.

I can't believe the AA pilots are doing this again. They were fined $40 million years ago for a similar illegal action, which was more than the worth of their entire union. AA finally forgave $26 million of it in a contract negotiation. Their company is already in bankruptcy, this isn't going to help them.

See Eastern Airlines as an example of what can happen pilots.

What are typical "open items"?

Seer, each plane type has a minimum equipment list that states what items must be operating for a flight to depart. If an item isn't on that list it can operate. This was done so that a plane at an out station can still fly to a hub where the airline has maintenance and stores.

Since I don't fly for an airline I can't speak to their lists, but generally things not directly related to flight are the open items. Things like a light out, or an oven, coffee maker, some warning light bulbs, hell even the APU which is used to provide power on the ground and to start the engines are not on the MEL. The AA pilot made maintenance fix a wing landing light which wasn't required since it was a daytime flight.


Jsc,

All of the airlines are safe to fly. you may just find yourself overly delayed on American for awhile. As for the pilot boards, we all knew what they were doing, it is just amazing to hear one of them admit it.

Every profession has its share of assholes.

Sounds like BS to me. If they really wanted to make a point & stay on the customer's good side they'd make sure they got to their destinations pdq.

Diego in Seattle wrote:Sounds like BS to me. If they really wanted to make a point & stay on the customer's good side they'd make sure they got to their destinations pdq.

You're misunderstanding the union/employer leverage gimmick. The idea is that that pilots piss off the customers who will then vent their outrage on AA and/or take their business elsewhere. Then the union's hope is that AA caves to whatever stupid demands they're making.

it's a zero sum game since everyone loses, but unions do it all the time because sadly, it frequently works.

OCmike wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Sounds like BS to me. If they really wanted to make a point & stay on the customer's good side they'd make sure they got to their destinations pdq.

You're misunderstanding the union/employer leverage gimmick. The idea is that that pilots piss off the customers who will then vent their outrage on AA and/or take their business elsewhere. Then the union's hope is that AA caves to whatever stupid demands they're making.

it's a zero sum game since everyone loses, but unions do it all the time because sadly, it frequently works.

But that risks not having customers after they get their new contract. Why not hurt the company w/o hurting the customers?

Diego in Seattle wrote:

OCmike wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Sounds like BS to me. If they really wanted to make a point & stay on the customer's good side they'd make sure they got to their destinations pdq.

You're misunderstanding the union/employer leverage gimmick. The idea is that that pilots piss off the customers who will then vent their outrage on AA and/or take their business elsewhere. Then the union's hope is that AA caves to whatever stupid demands they're making.

it's a zero sum game since everyone loses, but unions do it all the time because sadly, it frequently works.

But that risks not having customers after they get their new contract. Why not hurt the company w/o hurting the customers?

How are they supposed to do that, sabotage the planes? Look, I'm not defending the process. Like I said, it's a zero sum game. But pissing off the customer is standard dispute-resolving practice in a lot of industries.

Just as one example, when there's a dispute between a doctor getting paid by an insurance company, the first thing they do is send you a bill (a practice known as "involving the patient"). They know you'll call the insurer and demand to know why the bill isn't being paid, putting pressure on them to pay. Again, it's a zero sum game. You're pissed, the doctor's pissed (because they rarely get more money out of the insurer) and the insurer has to deal with your irate calls.

Left Seater wrote:While riding in the back of a Delta plane this morning I sat next to an American Airlines pilot who was on his way to work also. We chatted about a few things including the planes we fly (ratings) and how we would both like to fly the others plane a few times. I asked him why he was on Delta when AA flew the same route. His answer was shocking. He basically admitted that the pilots are taking action against AA unofficially. He said the flight on his company metal would take a delay or cancel as he had spoken to the pilots for that flight when he first arrived at the airport this morning. As we continued talking he admitted he refused to fly on Monday until an open item was fixed.

Let me answer this as I just got off the phone with my best friend that has been an American Airlines pilot for 12 years to clarify what he's been telling me for a few years.

The AA pilots contract expired in 2008 and management is screwing them with pay cuts and furloughs. Currently management is looking to cut 1200 maintenance personnel. When the pilots write up items, the maintenance guys simply aren't fixing them The mechanics don't care as they could be unemployed at any time, so they aren't fixing the "gripes." Keep in mind the AA fleet is the oldest out there so the pilots are doing as that guy you sat next to that said and not flying planes with "open items."

KC Scrote (the financial genius/day trader) brought up something about US Airways. US Airways is made up of mostly former American Airlines pilots that were forced out as the old AA management is not forward thinking. So US Air would love to actually take over AA.

Atomic Punk wrote: KC Scrote (the financial genius/day trader) brought up something about US Airways. US Airways is made up of mostly former American Airlines pilots that were forced out as the old AA management is not forward thinking. So US Air would love to actually take over AA.

So lemme get this straight, you think US Airways wants to buy AA to reuinite their pilots with their former coworkers. Uh...

OCMike;
Allow me to be a little more clear in my original comment. When I said get to their destinations pdq I meant fly extra fast. That will keep the customers happy (and thus more likely to side with the pilots) while costing their employer more fuel money. It screws the correct party while not hurting business/alienating their clients.

Yes, it's always the union at fault for a strike. The corporation is never at fault, and never lies to get what they want.

Sincerely,
Don Carty

In this case the AA pilots are pissed because in bankruptcy AA had the ability to rework labor contracts. All groups except the pilots voted for new labor agreements rather than allow the judge to set the terms of their deal. The judge did that for the pilots and sided closer to what mgmt and creditors wanted. AA pilots are mostly pissed that the cap on region jets at 47 seats no longer exists. This means more flying can be done by American Eagle in larger planes at a much lower cost. They are also pissed about more work for less money.

The other large legacy airlines have all been thru bankruptcy previously, some like united multiple times. Therefore they were able to reset labor costs somewhat. American on the other hand had not been thru bankruptcy so they had labor costs well above the industry average which wasn't sustainable.

Note: Southwest pays their pilots the most and they have not been thru bankruptcy.

Hey you high-flyin' union-bashing expert, here's yer boy--you know, the guy you're going to vote for?--taking airplanes...

After his wife's plane was forced to make an emergency landing this weekend, Romney told the Los Angeles Times, he was worried for her safety. The candidate then continued on a bizarre tangent that showed just how little the Republican nominee understands about flight.

“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney told the paper. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly."

Romney said the biggest problem in a distressed aircraft is that "the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous."

No doubt Mittens believes a 757 disappeared into a small hole in the pentagon, as well as in the basic evil of unions. The logic follows, right?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:No doubt Mittens believes a 757 disappeared into a small hole in the pentagon

So was your final conclusion that it was a conspiracy between the evil Zionists and Dick Cheney to launch a magic missle disguised as an airplane at the Pentagon?

Also, are we still going with the "WTC controlled demolition" wild-eyed theory? Because I'm still wondering how you manage to plant explosives on all 100 floors of a NYC landmark that is occupied by thousands of people every day without anyone noticing. Oh, wait, I got it...bomb-planting ninjas!!

Uh, OC-m, not to digress from Mitten's interesting take on airliners, but I think you're missing something here in your jovial jesting. And that is the clear fact that the three buildings in question each collapsed in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. Now, as to wild-eyed theories on exactly why that occurred, the onus is on you to make a case for it NOT being what it clearly appears to be. For you to simply offer the Popular Mechanics report--which bestowed the imprimatur of Science upon its own explanations--is patently hollow at best. Here, review an accurate analysis of the piece itself...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

And if you really think you've got an explanation for the apparent controlled droppings of those buildings, let's hear it.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Uh, OC-m, not to digress from Mitten's interesting take on airliners, but I think you're missing something here in your jovial jesting. And that is the clear fact that the three buildings in question each collapsed in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. Now, as to wild-eyed theories on exactly why that occurred, the onus is on you to make a case for it NOT being what it clearly appears to be. For you to simply offer the Popular Mechanics report--which bestowed the imprimatur of Science upon its own explanations--is patently hollow at best. Here, review an accurate analysis of the piece itself...

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

And if you really think you've got an explanation for the apparent controlled droppings of those buildings, let's hear it.

Wait, so the onus is on me to convince a lunatic that his paranoid delusions aren't real? Pretty tall order, bro.

All I ask is that you tell me how they strung a thousand c-4 charges and a couple miles of det cord on every floor of the three WTC buildings inside without anyone noticing. If you're so convinced that it happened, that shouldn't be too hard.

Don't sweat it, Felchco. People called me a kook when I exposed a vast conspiracy on this very message board, but the Wig Truth Movement is too strong to be sabotaged by the agents of deception and evil.

You will never stop us from bearing witness to this abominable cover-up!

:x

Compared to you LTS Mitt sounds like a genius when discussing flight physics.

Left Seater wrote:Compared to you LTS Mitt sounds like a genius when discussing flight physics.

Okay, L-seater, let's see what you've got..

Mitten's take on windows in airplanes is like Ayn Rand having her husband walk the dog while she fucked her acolyte. Don't get it? Never mind.

The three buildings at WTC fell on the morning of New Pearl Harbor Day in the manner that everyone would agree resembles perfectly the manner of a controlled demolition. And...the official reason for this certainly not being the case is...what?


WAKEY WAKE

OK, let's go with Looney Tinfoilhat Simpleton's suggestion that the only was to get a skyscraper to fall down like a controlled demo, is to have a controlled demo.

Everyone here has seen controlled demos, right? It starts with a bit of a fire works display and the distinctive rat-a-tat-tat of the charges going off, closely followed by the building dropping.

I think it's safe to say there was a camera or two focused on the event. Not one that I have seen shows this. Maybe they were magic silent flashless charges?

It is fairly obvious from the footage that the collapse begins in the area of the plane strike. So, those charges went off like clockwork, despite the fact that a large fukking plane bore a rather nice sized hole through that area and set it afire. So, not only are these magic charges slent and flashless. They are fukking fire proof too. Maybe they are made of that really, really cool black cox errrr box material.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The three buildings at WTC fell on the morning of New Pearl Harbor Day in the manner that everyone would agree resembles perfectly the manner of a controlled demolition. And...the official reason for this certainly not being the case is...what?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2001/dece ... c-125.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278874
http://video.popularmechanics.com/servi ... 1745050112

WAKEY WAKE

You first.

That prof from Stanford was obviously paid off by the jews. He came up with the ridiculous assertion that steel loses strength when you heat it to 1000 degrees. Any 7 year old knows that it retains it's full structural integrity untill it suddenly turns into a liquid at temps well above those generated by thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.

He explains what likely happened to the plane in a logical, reasonable manner. So it's obviously complete bullshit to Nick.

Oh, and Nick, I'm still waiting to hear how they wired the 3 WTC buildings with explosives. While you're at it, if a missle hit The Pentagon, please tell me how the impact and explosion produced a gigantic burning cloud of jet fuel.

I'll wait right here ---------> ____________

So far you've offered nothing to explain why the three massive buildings collapsed as they did--in the manner of a controlled demolition. As far as smaller detonating explosions, these were observed and filmed "popping" on the lower floors as the collapse began. The links offered are a joke--except for What Really Happened one, which guts the controlled demo explanation. Similarly, the link I've provided--right here again

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

This reveals the sleazy and shoddy attempt to bullshit the world--and let's be clear, there's a very strong desire by most folks to believe it was just a terrorist attack--and that our government is actually trying to protect us, etc. And this is a major part of the cover-up succeeding as well as it has. Ask yourself...do you really accept all of those astonishing irregularities, coincidences, glaring mistakes, and sheer incompetence all happening at the perfect time for those darn freedom haters? Really?

As far as the pentagon--surely the most egregious of the faked attacks, the forensics were a total joke. Everything sealed and hauled off, nothing revealed--such as just what had exploded, burned, caused that curiously small hole, etc. All videos permanently disappeared--no clear picture of anything hitting the building. Sure, that's an acceptable situation...or no, it's not and the truth remains to be revealed.

WW

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So far you've offered nothing to explain why the three massive buildings collapsed as they did--in the manner of a controlled demolition.

And you have offered nothing based in science that counters what actually happened. Maybe you should hit up the local university and talk with some freshman engineering, physics and aviation majors, and they can start schooling your ignorant babbling ass in basic principles and concepts and you might gain an understanding.

But with all your inane rambling and spewing , we won't wait for that to happen you fucking tard.

What, you suppose that your little smear rant somehow refutes the clear points I've made and documented?

As to your silly question, NO, giant steel-framed buildings don't collapse because of a fire, period, and if a giant sky-scraper should fall, there's no reason whatsovever that it should simply fall straight down. If it somehow gave way--and the reasons offered for this in the Popular Mechanics explanation are bogus and refuted--it would have buckled horribly, bent in giant twisting fashion, and most of the structure would have remained standing. The miraculous complete collapse--of all three identically--is obscenely impossible and an insult to our basic intelligence. Just like a hundred or so other instances of "the event" (to quote the arrested Mossad dancer as he explained to a group back in the fake state after his release).

What really disgusts me about you tedious hacks is your sheer laziness to actually face the tough issues. Did you dare to examine the Popular Mechanics refutation? I doubt it. All cowards are essentially the same, but there are layers--and the mewling coward--and that's you--is one of the lowest.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:So far you've offered nothing to explain why the three massive buildings collapsed as they did--in the manner of a controlled demolition. As far as smaller detonating explosions, these were observed and filmed "popping" on the lower floors as the collapse began.

All that's great. How did they get the explosives on every floor of a building with heavy security, occupied by workaholics who routinely log 18-hour days? Still waiting...

As far as the pentagon--surely the most egregious of the faked attacks, the forensics were a total joke. Everything sealed and hauled off, nothing revealed--such as just what had exploded, burned, caused that curiously small hole, etc. All videos permanently disappeared--no clear picture of anything hitting the building. Sure, that's an acceptable situation...or no, it's not and the truth remains to be revealed.

WW

That's great too. What made the fuel fireball? Last I checked the military didn't have any Tomohawks loaded with jet fuel.

How did they rig the towers? Well, look who owned them and thus who had access. And then consider that rigging every floor was not necessary at all. And moreover, consider that the massive pile of wreckage from each building was immediately gathered and destroyed without any forensic testing for the thermite or other agents--which mysteriously caused a steel-frame building to collapse for the first time in history due to a "fire."

And what about the wide array of glaring inconsistencies in all the areas of the crime? you're a ducking little coward and you know it.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...ducking...

When I first saw that, I read it as duckling, and I thought to myself, "Awwww!!!"

LTS TRN 2 wrote: As to your silly question, NO, giant steel-framed buildings don't collapse because of a fire, period, and if a giant sky-scraper should fall, there's no reason whatsovever that it should simply fall straight down.

So add in the structural damage caused by a 200,000 pound plane impacting at 500 plus mph, then the increased heat caused by the fuel, just maybe that is similar to a controlled demolition ?

the reasons offered for this in the Popular Mechanics explanation are bogus and refuted--

Popular Mechanics ?? The ones who have been talking about flying cars and inter planetary travel, right ????

Derron wrote: Popular Mechanics ?? The ones who have been talking about flying cars and inter planetary travel, right ????

He's refuting Popular Mechanics and questioning their validity.

Have you even read this thread, you brain-damaged mongoloid?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:How did they rig the towers? Well, look who owned them and thus who had access. And then consider that rigging every floor was not necessary at all. And moreover, consider that the massive pile of wreckage from each building was immediately gathered and destroyed without any forensic testing for the thermite or other agents--which mysteriously caused a steel-frame building to collapse for the first time in history due to a "fire."

What the owners didn't have was access to was the load-bearing I-beams and supports, not without ripping out a shitload of walls and sheetrock, anyway. So how did they do it? it's a reasonable question.

And what about the wide array of glaring inconsistencies in all the areas of the crime? you're a ducking little coward and you know it.

Nah, I'm just looking at it more practically than you are. In your scenario, there are 20 hijackers and who knows how many CIA handlers, case officers and senior officers involved, plus a 100-man demolition team to tear out the walls of the WTC 1, 2 & 7 to access I-beams and supporting walls on which to plant charges, a 100-man repair team to come in and patch up and paint the drywall, and who knows how many members of the NY Port Authority, NSA, Dept of Defense and White House Senior Staff involved. Let's just call that 300 people to have a nice round number. You think that 300 people would not only go along with an operation that will kill thousand of Americans, but keep their mouth shut and take a secret like that to their grave?

Is Nick still blaming the Jews for the towers falling?

Yeah, and he's getting all bent because I've asked him to explain how he thinks they did it. As much as he obsesses about it, you'd think he'd have it all worked out by now.

Shit, he was blaming the Jews before I was banned. Thought he might have left that one by now...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As to your silly question, NO, giant steel-framed buildings don't collapse because of a fire, period, and if a giant sky-scraper should fall, there's no reason whatsovever that it should simply fall straight down. If it somehow gave way--and the reasons offered for this in the Popular Mechanics explanation are bogus and refuted--it would have buckled horribly, bent in giant twisting fashion, and most of the structure would have remained standing. The miraculous complete collapse--of all three identically--is obscenely impossible and an insult to our basic intelligence. Just like a hundred or so other instances of "the event" (to quote the arrested Mossad dancer as he explained to a group back in the fake state after his release).

What really disgusts me about you tedious hacks is your sheer laziness to actually face the tough issues. Did you dare to examine the Popular Mechanics refutation? I doubt it. All cowards are essentially the same, but there are layers--and the mewling coward--and that's you--is one of the lowest.

You seem to speak of skyscraper behavior in the event of a wide body jet with a full fuel load striking it at 400+ mph as if there is some sort of case history.

There isn't. Nothing like this has ever happened to such a building, anywhere.

Stating how it supposed to fall is a display of dumbfukkery. You don't know. Nor does anyone else, because it never fukking happened before.

And lets say they did rig the building to blow. And an uncontrolled demo would result in it toppling over, causing even more carnage, wouldn't it make sense to do that?

There have been fires in skyscrapers before, but never one like this, accompanied by massive structural damage to get things started.

As for the Kikes dancing in the streets afterwards, it is understandable. I am sure Churchill had a big fukking grin on his face after Pearl Harbor for the same reason. When you are at war, news that the most powerful country in the world just got signed to a long term contract for your team, is a good thing.

Martard wrote:

Derron wrote: Popular Mechanics ?? The ones who have been talking about flying cars and inter planetary travel, right ????

He's refuting Popular Mechanics and questioning their validity.

Have you even read this thread, you brain-damaged mongoloid?

Fuck you right in your tardling ass Martard. Quoting Popular Mechanics pro or con yields no conclusive information one way or another, and merely shows yours and LTards gullible infatuation to believe anything you read in the media.

Want to try and support some of LTards engineering smack ?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:without any forensic testing for the thermite

So, a building will collapse in a "controlled demolition fashion" if you heat up the I beams with thermite, but not if you heat them up by other means?

I mean, just so we're clear here?

Your knowledge of basic science never fails to amuse.

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:without any forensic testing for the thermite

So, a building will collapse in a "controlled demolition fashion" if you heat up the I beams with thermite, but not if you heat them up by other means?

I mean, just so we're clear here?

Your knowledge of basic science never fails to amuse.

The other means weren't there. The jet fuel was not a full load at all but closer to a half after the turn around in Oho, and then the bulk of the fuel burned in the giant initial explosion. Consider in the same light that the WTC 7 supposedly burned for several hours to the point of DROPPING A 44-STOREY STEEL-FRAMED BUILDING which was NOT hit by anything at all.

Are you even pretending to pretend anymore?

C'mon...now's your good chance..to just relax and atone for the allegiance you've secretly succored, the sleazy success you savored--much more than 11% regardless of market conditions....come...down to the river and wade in the soft current. :wink: