That's a odd way for you to say "Sorry for being such an A-hole and correcting you when I was wrong," but I'll accept your half-assed apology anyway.
You'd have more friends if you didn't emulate 700UW so often. Like you, he seems to revel in "correcting" people when his corrections are not accurate. I fact-check my posts, and this place would be better off if you did as well.
no, it means that I cited a published source. If you would like to argue that the published source is wrong, that is fine.
By citing the original document, you made your point.
you lowered yourself to the exact level you accuse others of when you couldn't just note that the source was incorrect and post the accurate source text.
what you and dozens of other people on here can't stand is that I really do read the source documents and transcripts a whole lot more than you wish I did since I find so much stuff that you would like to sweep under the rug.
and specific to this discussion, AA's labor costs have already gone up more than $1B on a annualized basis since the merger which means that Parker, like I said he would, has undone everything AA did in BK to get its labor costs down.
If the merger was producing the revenue results that he said it would, that would be fine. But not only is the merger nowhere close to being finished - and labor is only part of the process - but there are still a couple billion dollars difference in what AA is doing or can do to the bottom line compared to its peers.
so, yes, I am glad for the pilots despite the work rule changes that they accepted.
AA's costs are rapidly rising well ahead of its revenues.
and it wasn't lost on Wall Street that approval of the AA pilot contract came on the day that oil prices took their biggest jump in months.