Anti-AFA Delta FA's On US 1549

[LukeAisleWalker]

Why, just because he didn't post a link to the original article? An article from a website that appears to have close ties to labor unions?

Yes. See Dignity's last comment before this one.
In essence, they passed it off as fact without checking the source hoping no one would dig further--thinking because they have ordained themselves as being factual and grounded/without emotion that the casual reader would accept it as fact. If you're going to make claims on a public board, newsletter, etc..you should back it up with facts. I pointed this out when AFA did this last Spring with the "W2s Don't Lie" newsletter so you can't say I'm just calling one side out.

 

[Dignity]

it very may well be factual

that in itself is not factual statement as it "very may well" not be the case....does that make sense?

 

[LukeAisleWalker]

that in itself is not factual statement as it "very may well" not be the case....does that make sense?

Not only that but no matter what you may think of Pat Friend, she is certainly not going to claim credit for training FAs when the fact is readily available that the airline trains f/a's. And she is not going to be so nonsensical to state that union f/a's are the best ones to deal with an emergency.
It's too ridiculous.

 

[dapoes]

that in itself is not factual statement as it "very may well" not be the case....does that make sense?

Well lets see what happens. Someone needs to bring that PWW article to Pats attention. If it is untrue I think they would (should) demand a retraction. If not then...

 

[Dignity]

Well lets see what happens.

maybe those on that blog should simply clarify where the comment originated?

 

[dapoes]

maybe those on that blog should simply clarify where the comment originated?

What does it matter now? We now know where it came from. Call it poor internet etiquette.

 

[Dignity]

she is not going to be so nonsensical to state that union f/a's are the best ones to deal with an emergency.
It's too ridiculous.

exactly...use your head and apply some good common sense(which some should already have being familiar with the industry) or at least I hope they do.

 

[Dignity]

Call it poor internet etiquette.

the part a source was not provided, or the individual who attempted to imply all the mistakes they made and what they should have done(even though he wasnt there) or both?

 

[dapoes]

exactly...use your head and apply some good common sense(which some should already have being familiar with the industry) or at least I hope they do.

Don't be so sure of yourself. Pat has always been well known so say some pretty serious contentious stuff in the past. IE: Rhetoric.

Plus the fact the PWW is a closely connected union propaganda site, leaves it suspect, so it very may well be true.

 

[dapoes]

the part a source was not provided, or the individual who attempted to imply all the mistakes they made and what they should have done(even though he wasnt there) or both?

I dunno what to tell ya Dig, maybe you can reach thru and give an internet spanking? :unsure:

 

[Dignity]

Don't be so sure of yourself.

to be quite honest I am not sure at all regarding any of this(without a source or link)

 

[dapoes]

to be quite honest I am not sure at all regarding any of this(without a source or link)

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/14311/

 

[aislehopper]

Luke:

Since you are a member of facebook, why don't you go to that facebook page and make a post about why you think that he is in error instead of discussing it here?

Clearly, if you are interested in his motivation, a post on that group's discussion area would be more appropriate.

Posting here is more like talking behind his back instead of stepping forward and asking him to defend his position.

 

[Dignity]

I dunno what to tell ya Dig, maybe you can reach thru and give an internet spanking? :unsure:

I dont know what to think...seriously.

 

[Dignity]

Dapoes, is that the link from post #3 on this thread?