Why Can't This Be Retroactive? Airlines Spanked for Tarmac Waits

**MikeM** · December-22-09, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Gates full at a half dozen airports two or three times a year.

Right, that's why it's a stupid regulation to begin with. But those two or three times a year gets everyone bent out of shape. Thank God the government has come to your rescue.

No money to add gates, no one's doing it in this economy.

So which is it: Are the airlines owned by wealth interests or do they not have any money? Thank you.

**Sstashmoo** · December-22-09, 11:01 PM

Quote: "You want another round with me?

"

Lorax after your dismal performance lately in any sort of debate, I wouldn't be challenging anyone to a "round".

Above, I was just pointing out how you say one thing in one post and turn right around in the next post and contradict yourself. Quite amusing.

Lorax · December-22-09, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "You want another round with me?

"

Lorax after your dismal performance lately in any sort of debate, I wouldn't be challenging anyone to a "round".

Above, I was just pointing out how you say one thing in one post and turn right around in the next post and contradict yourself. Quite amusing.

Quote: "Lorax after your dismal performance lately in any sort of debate, I wouldn't be challenging anyone to a "round."

LOL!!!!

How does the mocking quote work for you?

Show me one example where I contradicted myself?

The only "round" you'll be working on in the near future is at the bar.

Lorax · December-22-09, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Right, that's why it's a stupid regulation to begin with. But those two or three times a year gets everyone bent out of shape. Thank God the government has come to your rescue.

So which is it: Are the airlines owned by wealth interests or do they not have any money? Thank you.

Who said I thought the "government rescue" [[LOL!!) was a good idea? I could care less. I find it amusing that airlines can't solve this issue on their own, but can spend 100 million or more on a new plane. Curious.

They are wealthy and cheap. What? You can't relate to this?

Lorax · December-22-09, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Revenue passengers:

2000 665,513,000
2001 622,131,000
2002 612,872,000
2003 646,523,000
2004 702,921,000
2005 738,629,000
2006 744,242,000
2007 768,849,000
2008 651,669,046

Down last year, but according to you, that's because of security. It wouldn't have anything to do with the economy.

So you only want partial security. You don't want a gun onboard, but a shoe filled with C-4 is okay.

Really? Is that why load factors are running around 61%? Or are you telling me than passenger numbers are up?

Again, if you 're going to be so strident in your assertions, how about a source for those figures?

I'll bet they come from the airlines!!!!

Who said I don't want a gun on board? I think having one in the cockpit is fine. Also, secure cockpit doors were finally put on most planes, I hear.

A shoe filled with C-4? Please. I doubt the 90 year old in front of me is packin' explosives! How about that air cannon? Looks great in front of a line of passengers to have your skirt blown up around your head lookin' for all that C-4!

Looks like the terrorists have won at that rate.

**MikeM** · December-22-09, 11:59 PM

Statistics are from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; thank your government.

Socialists like you want everyone treated equally so we can't profile passengers for screening.

**Jimaz** · December-23-09, 12:06 AM

Was that a conspicuous omission of the term "racially"?

**MikeM** · December-23-09, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

I could care less.

Then why do you keep going on and on about it?

They are wealthy and cheap. What? You can't relate to this?

So they have money, but they are cheap. But then they have: "No money to add gates, no one's doing it in this economy."

You're throwing everything up, hoping something will stick.

**MikeM** · December-23-09, 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Was that a conspicuous ommision of the term "racial"?

No. No racial profiling, no age profiling, no nationality profiling, no gender profiling. Get the idea?

**Gannon** · December-23-09, 01:17 AM

I finally heard back from my friend who was on the Northwest flight delayed in the snowstorm...he was stranded for seven and a half hours...I believe the twelve-hour figure included flight time.

He ended up a few years later a few miles away from the shore in Thailand when the tsunami wave hit...was on his way to the beach when his rental car broke.

By the time they got it fixed, the roads were closed...washed out.

He leads as treasured a life as me, and oddly has the same birthdate...only four years older.

Not germane to this discussion, but when have I ever been able to keep on point?!

Thanks, MikeM, for the internal justification for abusing humans. And YES, damnit, I am teasing you.

Cheers

**East Detroit** · December-23-09, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Watch how this makes prices go up...government regulations always do.

It's all about the Benjamins, eh?

Lorax · December-23-09, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by MikeM

Then why do you keep going on and on about it?

So they have money, but they are cheap. But then they have: "No money to add gates, no one's doing it in this economy."

You're throwing everything up, hoping something will stick.

You really don't get it, do you?

Rich and cheap- most of my clients fall into that category.

When was the last time an airlines footed the bill themselves? Most airport authorities make improvements through local and state subsidies. Airlines only lease access.

Have yet to see a giant corporation refuse a drink at the public well.

When these behemoths declare bankruptcy, it's only a tool to bust unions and drive down wages, nothing more.

Rarely does one actually go under- they would merge first and create an even larger airline. These folks are no different than any other industry in how they operate. Boilerplate stuff, pretty much.

Care to try again?

ccbatson · December-23-09, 04:27 PM

Did Lorax just chastise someone for name calling??

Lorax · December-23-09, 04:40 PM

When you do it, it's like deflecting a spitball, however, this "person" referred to me as a cheap bastard, and later a crybaby, so a little more mean spirited.

It's OK, the post is #17, and the poster is still lurking about.

We apparently have some bullies posting here.

ccbatson · December-23-09, 04:42 PM

Are you kidding me Lorax? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard coming from you...the king of name calling and personal attacks...I never "do it"...you know all of this full well.

Lorax · December-23-09, 04:55 PM

You have your little poke now and again, which is fine, I never said it rose to the level of the "other poster" who shall remain nameless. Why do you think I referred to them as 'spitballs'?

Well, if I'm the king of personal attacks, then you must be the court jester.

**Sstashmoo** · December-23-09, 05:08 PM

Quote: "Did Lorax just chastise someone for name calling??"

Doesn't she remind you of that quarrelsome sister that many of us had? She even let it slip that she hates when her skirt gets blown up during Airport security checks. Ha.

Quote: "How about that air cannon? Looks great in front of a line of passengers to have your skirt blown up around your head lookin' for all that C-4!"

No man would be complaining about that. They'd be asking for more air cannons.

Lorax · December-23-09, 05:12 PM

LOL!!!

Funny to see you're interested in what's up my skirt, I think you'd be in for a little more than your bargained for, being a "man" and all. LOL!!

Didn't know you rolled that way!

Guess wearing the cow-print mumus finally went to your head, sis.

**Pam** · December-24-09, 06:54 AM

They'd be asking for more air cannons.

No, just the jerks.

**Sstashmoo** · December-24-09, 10:05 AM

""Quote:
They'd be asking for more air cannons.
No, just the jerks.""

Otherwise known as the "majority of men". The remainder are deballed and declawed conformists to the female idea of masculinity and manhood. If it wasn't for men wanting more air cannons, many of us wouldn't be here. Bring on the air cannons.

**Sstashmoo** · December-24-09, 10:08 AM

Quote: "Funny to see you're interested in what's up my skirt, I think you'd be in for a little more than your bargained for, being a "man" and all. LOL!!"

Lady, I don't doubt that a bit.

Lorax · December-24-09, 11:24 AM

LOL!!!!

Looks like we have another taker!

Gosh, business is good.

**MikeM** · December-27-09, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

You really don't get it, do you?

Rich and cheap- most of my clients fall into that category.

When was the last time an airlines footed the bill themselves? Most airport authorities make improvements through local and state subsidies. Airlines only lease access.

Have yet to see a giant corporation refuse a drink at the public well.

When these behemoths declare bankruptcy, it's only a tool to bust unions and drive down wages, nothing more.

Rarely does one actually go under- they would merge first and create an even larger airline. These folks are no different than any other industry in how they operate. Boilerplate stuff, pretty much.

Care to try again?

Your O.D.D. is making you stupid. It's okay to admitt when you're wrong and move on; life is more pleasant that way.

You didn't say the airlines were cheap - you said they are wealthy then you said they don't have any money.

Apparently you don't like the airlines paying for facilities funded through government bond offerings; you want them to build it themselves or not at all. So as a Socialist you are embracing free-market capitalism?

Which airlines that went through bankruptcy have busted the unions? United? Northwest? Delta? US Air? America West?

Rarely does one go under? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._North_America

I bet the latest security procedures will make your head explode.

**gnome** · December-27-09, 02:48 PM

Hey Lorax, I assume you don't know that MikeM is a pilot and knows more about airlines, planes, airports, regulations and legislation than anyone. You included. If you want to continue to look like an uninformed, yet opinionated, stooge with an intractable political axe to grind I suggest you continue your debate.

Otherwise, a silent slinking away might be your best bet at saving face.

**Gannon** · December-28-09, 07:17 AM

MikeM knows what he wants to know, yet remains ignorant on Chem Trails...even though they have been proven to be real and true.

This is why we have a DISCUSSION board, so others get a say. Even those who don't swallow the company line on all things.

I feel a bit of what Lorax is saying, but his language apparently doesn't wrap it well enough for everyone to understand.

I believe it relates to the commentary on how this will make everyone's prices go up...and his insistence that since the private companies don't pay for their gates and infrastructure in full then there is no way the public should take the full hit...or ANY hit on price due this new and VERY necessary legislation.