Jim,
Those
are recent ads. The search engine shows them current w/in 3mos. I stand corrected.
And looking at the ad, there seems to be little means for anyone to easily tell that this plane pictured below no longer belongs to/is used by US Airways:
🙄
Nor with a quick check of the link provided to the sellers homepage (for further details on that serial number), could one find the last operator listed...*cough*cough*
Seriously,
I understand that it was a mistake, but there was enough of a "huh" factor involved that a person should at least follow up on it before tossing it out. Ask someone first. As much as I might disagree with 700UW's opinions, I acknowledge that he is up to speed on fleet stats and disposition..., People like him could quickly answer a query sent about this kind of ad, right?
The point I am trying to make is that IMO people should be just be more careful of what they post.
If they post something other than a link to a news article (in which the author/news source is responsible for verification), then (it is my understanding) that
they assume responsibility for that content and any assertions/conclusions made in their post. That is a
big difference over merely posting an opinion on a given issue, event, or post/thread.
Does that point relate to earlier material in
this thread, in which questions were raised regarding material the RC4 posted/sent out to the pilots...? You make up your own mind.
Like or dislike the RC4, IMO there is a big difference between stating an
opinion on the merits of a proposal as a Union Officer, and the actual authoring of an anaylisis or creating material to be sent out to the membership. When you reference the work of professionals it is one thing , yet when you come up with it on our own it is quite another (The "hired guns" are responsible for their work, but
you are responsible for your own stuff IMHO).
I understand emotions are running high, and there is a lot at stake here. But in that kind of charged enviorment, one should be even more careful what they put forth (IMO). I am not a lawyer, but that does not preclude me from being cautious.
Anyways, enough on this, time to move on...