USA320Pilot said:
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.
USA320Pilot said:
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.
USA320Pilot said:
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.
USA320Pilot said:
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".
USA320Pilot said:
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
