quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
I'm looking forward to flying on Sigforum Airlines. This is a business opportunity for all of you here either in management or as an investor. Since all of the airlines are currently getting it wrong, there is clearly a market niche available to you.

There will be no overbooking your flights. No checked bag fees. No warm/fuzzy psyops with your high dollar frequent fliers like giving them preferential boarding. Nope, you'll board the cheap seats at the back first, and make your million milers stand around in the gate area until last. If the platinum flyer in First Class can't find storage for his carry on bag, tough titties for him, you boarded the airplane time-efficiently. You'll have good meals for everybody, and no charges for snacks. More leg room (fewer seats), softer seats, larger overhead bins, no restrictions on carry on bags. And lots of hot looking young stewardesses (when your attorneys figure out how to get around federal labor laws).

You'll keep numerous spare aircraft sitting around the country just in case you need to shuttle a crew member or two out somewhere at the last minute, thus not running the risk of denying boarding to a paying passenger.

You'll schedule your crews with shorter duty days and fewer flight hours per day so they won't time out when the weather goes bad or a mechanical problem delays the flight. But you'll pay your crews per industry standards and thus won't suffer any problems finding employees despite the pilot shortage.

You'll do all of this at a ticket price no higher than the competition, because you know if your advertised ticket price is even $1 higher you will lose sales. Nevermind that the competition gains revenue by charging for extras like meals and checked bags, you won't charge for them because it annoys the customers, and you'll price your tickets the same as the competition.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
What are we talking for salary? I might be interested, clearly my writing skills aren't getting me anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Where's the part about assaulting passengers?

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Wow jljones, where did that come from? Let me quote some of his better moments in that "first look"

"We all know that to be cool, you gotta look cool"

"the real reason was aesthetics. Everyone on the design team agreed that it looked awesome".

"It never hurts to look a little sexy"

WTF?

It was an article better suited for Cosmopolitan than a gun rag.

You think it was great, I think it was shitty. My opinion. You got yours, I got mine.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
What are we talking for salary? I might be interested, clearly my writing skills aren't getting me anywhere.

Hostage negotiation is out as well.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
jljones, Fly-Sig is not responsible for United Airlines. Cool it, please.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Fly-Sig,

you wrote that the pilot's wife account is accurate.

she said:

"They" being United

"They had nothing to do with the rest. The passenger was forcibly removed by federal aviation security (the disturbing clip that everyone is talking about) after running back into the secured area after being escorted out once.

Once he did that, like it or not, they (law enforcement) were under full discretion of the law to apply necessary force to remove the threat. I’m not saying it’s pretty, but the only one who actually broke a law was the passenger"

why do you think that is accurate? It has been reported that Dao was forcibly removed and injured.

Then several minutes later he ran back on the plane with a bloodied face.

How does that square with "The passenger was forcibly removed by federal aviation security after running back into the secured area after being escorted out once."

I don't know which sequence is correct, but it is not relevant. The man was lawfully denied boarding and asked to leave the aircraft. Failure to do so is a violation of federal law on his part.

At that point in time he is a noncompliant person who is in violation of federal law in addition to trespassing on the aircraft (similar to trespassing in a business after being asked to leave, yes?). Which means he is not staying on the airplane. Period.

Presumably the gate agent and/or supervisor had asked him politely several times to leave. Presumably he had been told he was required to comply, and if he didn't then law enforcement would be called. This is the kind of stuff we don't have video of, and which is important to understand the situation.

Imagine the student who refuses to leave the university President's office after being asked several times and being told the police are being called. Imagine the gun owner who has been lawfully asked to leave a store, but has refused, and then been told the police have been called.

That person is simply not going to be staying there. One way or another, voluntarily or not.

In this situation the person was lawfully advised by the airline that they were being denied boarding and to leave the aircraft. Failure to comply is a federal crime.

The passenger chose the outcome of the police being called.

And we all know that when the police show up and issue a lawful instruction to leave, you're gonna be leaving.

United had nothing to do with the course of events once the passenger chose to violate the law and refused to leave. Once law enforcement is called it is between the passenger and the police officers.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Fly-Sig,

you wrote that the pilot's wife account is accurate.

she said:

"They" being United

"They had nothing to do with the rest. The passenger was forcibly removed by federal aviation security (the disturbing clip that everyone is talking about) after running back into the secured area after being escorted out once.

Once he did that, like it or not, they (law enforcement) were under full discretion of the law to apply necessary force to remove the threat. I’m not saying it’s pretty, but the only one who actually broke a law was the passenger"

why do you think that is accurate? It has been reported that Dao was forcibly removed and injured.

Then several minutes later he ran back on the plane with a bloodied face.

How does that square with "The passenger was forcibly removed by federal aviation security after running back into the secured area after being escorted out once."

I don't know which sequence is correct, but it is not relevant. The man was lawfully denied boarding and asked to leave the aircraft. Failure to do so is a violation of federal law on his part.

At that point in time he is a noncompliant person who is in violation of federal law in addition to trespassing on the aircraft (similar to trespassing in a business after being asked to leave, yes?). Which means he is not staying on the airplane. Period.

Presumably the gate agent and/or supervisor had asked him politely several times to leave. Presumably he had been told he was required to comply, and if he didn't then law enforcement would be called. This is the kind of stuff we don't have video of, and which is important to understand the situation.

Imagine the student who refuses to leave the university President's office after being asked several times and being told the police are being called. Imagine the gun owner who has been lawfully asked to leave a store, but has refused, and then been told the police have been called.

That person is simply not going to be staying there. One way or another, voluntarily or not.

In this situation the person was lawfully advised by the airline that they were being denied boarding and to leave the aircraft. Failure to comply is a federal crime.

The passenger chose the outcome of the police being called.

And we all know that when the police show up and issue a lawful instruction to leave, you're gonna be leaving.

United had nothing to do with the course of events once the passenger chose to violate the law and refused to leave. Once law enforcement is called it is between the passenger and the police officers.

Pyrrhic victory.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
I will probably go research the fuck out of it to prove you wrong

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

Pyrrhic victory.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:
Is there any legal or union reason why the airlines can't purchase and maintain fractional ownership of private corporate size jets? If you move 4 or more people it's not too far off the price of an airline ticket, and would do a lot to ease this sort of problem.

I'm flying American to whackyland in a few days. I'm ok with American but TSA is worse than a combination root canal-hemmorhoid episode.