Us Airways Reports May Traffic

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

You're just like BoeingBoy because you only tell part of the story, which I believe is "twisting" information or misrepresentation. You have been told over-and-over again what happened over the OpEd piece behind the scenes with the IAM.

Why do you now be honest and tell the whole story? But as you say, "don't let the facts get in your way" or something along those lines.

It's funny how the IAM had to be pacified by ALPA, is it not?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

ALPA did not do it to pacify the IAM, because the majority of the false fact filled OP-ED piece was about the CWA.

So are you saying ALPA lied?

Told by who?

You?

You are not a ALPA rep or hold any kind of ALPA office, even ALPA says that, why should anyone believe you?

I'm not going to continue with "mud slinging", emotional comments, or to try and discredit the messenger. If you choose to do so, so be it.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot

[post="266173"][/post]​

 

[Busdrvr]

In regard to the acronym RASM, does it not contain the word revenue? Yes or no would be fine.

While you're at it, tell us what the rest of 'RASM' stands for and where it is cited in the U press release. but before you do that, please figure out what "good will" means....

 

[USA320Pilot]

700UW:

My comments in the previous post stand, but I find it interesting your post about the IAM vanished before I could post my response. It seems you're having your posts removed from USaviation.com too, just like BoeingBoy.

As BoeingBoy says, maybe you should go to night school because it's clear you do not understand "mud slinging". I did not insult you, I just posted the facts, but do not let them stand in your way.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[700UW]

I have no posts removed from US Aviation, you been sniffing too much JET-A?

And I guess you can't figure out my connection with IAM.

Facts? You would not know a fact if it hit you in the face.

 

[calibrator]

700UW:

My comments in the previous post stand, but I find it interesting your post about the IAM vanished before I could post my response. It seems you're having your posts removed from USaviation.com too, just like BoeingBoy.

As BoeingBoy says, maybe you should go to night school because it's clear you do not understand "mud slinging". I did not insult you, I just posted the facts, but do not let them stand in your way.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="275297"][/post]​

What...are a high ranking Illuminati officer consecrated by a sacred deity?

 

[MarkMyWords]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET A LONG!!!!

:jerry:

 

[BoeingBoy]

In regard to the acronym RASM, does it not contain the word revenue? Yes or no would be fine.

[post="275291"][/post]​

A gold star for you - you got that right! Unfortunately, that term doesn't appear in the US May traffic report either.

Moreover, I know it's tough on people like you when I know something and post it and then a few hours later it becomes public information, like it did today.

[post="275291"][/post]​

I could have sworn that a SEC filing was public information, but whatever.

I have two questions for you.

Who started this topic titled "US Airways Reports May Traffic?"

[post="275291"][/post]​

Obviously you did. That's why it was surprising that such an all-knowing person such as yourself would call it a "revenue report". But anyone can make a mistake. Those with character admit them and move on.

Who first discussed revenue in this thread when they said, "Continental may not be alone in seeing revenue gains, but that tide may not have lifted the US boat much going by those numbers."

[post="275291"][/post]​

In this thread, I did - in response to your comments in another thread where you said that CO's results indicated that "May seems to have marked a material improvement in industry revenue generation." I was merely pointing out that the US May numbers seemed to indicate that US might not be participating in that "material improvement".

Then again... You're really sounding desperate, since your true sentiment was proven and ALPA had to have your post removed because you violated their trust. How can that be "Mr. Integrity"?

[post="275291"][/post]​

This is worth discussing in a little detail.....

You posted a private message from an MEC member to the MEC, complete with e-mail addresses and names. You claimed that I had read that message on a certain day. In response, I asked for and received confirmation that you could not possibly know whether or not I had read that message at all, much less on any particular day. I posted the response I received - an e-mail addressed to me, without e-mail addresses or names.

Both posts were removed - at the insistance of ALPA as you understand it.

So if your charge that I violated ALPA's trust is true, isn't it also true that you're guilty of the same offense? Couldn't it also be true that, by revealing e-mail addresses, you're guilty of violating that trust more? So why are you only telling half the story? Why are you "twisting the truth"?

While I suppose it's possible that ALPA only complained about my post and not yours, that prospect raises intriquing questions.

Was someone in ALPA more concerned about who posted private communications than what the communications revealed? An interesting possibility considering your soul-mates on the MEC.

Was someone in ALPA more concerned about what one message revealed - that a certain someone had lied - versus the other which was used as the basis of an attack on a "darksider"? Another interesting possibility considering your soul-mates on the MEC.

Considering that I have received no complaint from ALPA, either public or private, I know where I'd place my bet.

Jim

 

[700UW]

And I wonder how ALPA found out that you posted the response to your inquiry if a someone could tell you read a particular post on the ALPA message board.

Hmm, me thinks someone is a tattletale and that someone flies the A320.

 

[delldude]

700UW:

My comments in the previous post stand, but I find it interesting your post about the IAM vanished before I could post my response. It seems you're having your posts removed from USaviation.com too, just like BoeingBoy.


Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="275297"][/post]​

Hmm, me thinks someone is a tattletale and that someone flies the A320.

i know from dealing with you that you have a habit of crying and whining to the moderators....

 

[aerosmith]

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET A LONG!!!!

:jerry:

[post="275327"][/post]​

I think it's time for a naked group hug!!!

 

[RowUnderDCA]

Is there a way for moderators to amend the title or subject of a thread to warn us that it's deteriorated into the childish same old stuff.? maybe we could write a program that would trip off when certain words actions are taken by certain posters.

 

[700UW]

700UW:
My comments in the previous post stand, but I find it interesting your post about the IAM vanished before I could post my response. It seems you're having your posts removed from USaviation.com too, just like BoeingBoy.
Regards,
USA320Pilot

[post="275297"][/post]​

It would help if you look in the right thread.

Click Here

 

[aerosmith]

Is there a way for moderators to amend the title or subject of a thread to warn us that it's deteriorated into the childish same old stuff.? maybe we could write a program that would trip off when certain words actions are taken by certain posters.

[post="275356"][/post]​

Whats a matter no sense of humor. We all need to lighten up.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Thought I'd update this since UA, AS, & B6 have reported:

Load Factor:

B6 86.6
NW 83.6*
UA 81.8*
HP 81.7*
CO 79.8
AA 78.1
DL 77.3
AS 76.8
US 75.9
FL 74.6
WN 72.4

*Not specified if this includes express or not

[post="275205"][/post]​

Jim