What's new

Should 700uw Change Names

delldude said:
why thank you.......
in light of what i said....435 was still an ok place.....
[post="265447"][/post]​

A lot may have happened to us all, but you can never take away all the memories.
 
ITRADE said:
And how is this relevant to 2 returned aircraft???

I'm not seeing the connection. Maybe the Mods can figure it out.
[post="265439"][/post]​



The point: Your never ending derogatory nasty insinuating manner of postings adds zero and only feeds your twisted need to piss off people, people who have been pissed on by your heroes called a management team whose only goal is to make themselves very rich while unconcerned of the negative consequences their actions produce. Just like Dave Siegel in his sick self serving article I posted. You can’t see past yourself and only getting excited like they did in Rome when a gladiator ripped out another mans guts.


Dell Dude: The clown is a short dumpy long haired dude pretending to be a true biker while sucking in his huge girth on his Harley.
 
calibrator said:
Dell Dude: The clown is a short dumpy long haired dude pretending to be a true biker while sucking in his huge girth on his Harley.
[post="265456"][/post]​
you got it all wrong there,pal...correct term is enthusiast...
 
ITRADE said:
And how is this relevant to 2 returned aircraft???

I'm not seeing the connection. Maybe the Mods can figure it out.
[post="265439"][/post]​




pro·vo·ca·teur (prà vokÅà tûrÆ, -tÂrÆ; Fr. pRô vô kA tŒRÆ), n., pl. -teurs (-tûrzÆ, -tÂrzÆ; Fr. -tŒRÆ).
1. a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator.
2. (italics) French. See agent provocateur.
[1915–20; < F < L pr$voc!tor challenger, appellant, equiv. to provoc!(re) to PROVOKE + -tor -TOR]
 
calibrator said:
pro·vo·ca·teur (prà vokÅà tûrÆ, -tÂrÆ; Fr. pRô vô kA tŒRÆ), n., pl. -teurs (-tûrzÆ, -tÂrzÆ; Fr. -tŒRÆ).
1. a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator.
2. (italics) French. See agent provocateur.
[1915–20; < F < L pr$voc!tor challenger, appellant, equiv. to provoc!(re) to PROVOKE + -tor -TOR]
[post="265472"][/post]​


If you got that out of a dictionary you would have found 700UW's avatar right next to it, because that is what he has done and that is why THIS topic is all about his 5000+ diatribes.
 
Man-o-man......700's tail must be tucked between his legs while he is feasting on that crow.
 
I have more important things then to make this topic all about me.

And 9 of the first 12 planes at MAE had problems that were reported to the FAA.

Don't see that happening at US, but you people seem not be able to understand that US mechanics are driven by safety and ST MAE is driven by profits and get the plane out at all costs on time, no matter what.
 
The topic is A/C 714 having a gear problem, not what I should do.

But once again it is easier for all you management types to attack a poster instead of sticking to the topic.

Like I said, I did not see 27 US Airways mechanics get arrested just like what happened at TIMCO last month. False documented workers touching airplanes.

US mechanics driven by safety not profit.

And maybe the mechanics followed the job card written by the company or the maintenance manaul and the problem was seemed to be fixed on the ground, but when got in the air it resurfaced.

You are all jumping to conclusions and would rather attack me then realize our mechanics are better then any MRO.
 
700UW said:
I have more important things then to make this topic all about me.

And 9 of the first 12 planes at MAE had problems that were reported to the FAA.

Don't see that happening at US, but you people seem not be able to understand that US mechanics are driven by safety and ST MAE is driven by profits and get the plane out at all costs on time, no matter what.
[post="265485"][/post]​

They happen, just nobody is here is as much of a dead-end martyr as you to point it out within seconds.
 
Lets see what happened to A/C 700 made several newspapers around the country, I don't see any mention of what happened to 714 and 721 making any news outlets.
 
Ohhhhh, so it is less of a problem if it doesn't make it in the press......Thanks for clearing that one up. So, for the 300+ customers who were on these flights, we need to remind them that since it didn't make it into the press, it was a non-event.
 
Was it an emergency landing with fire trucks waiting for them?

There is a big differance when you RTF then RTF declaring an emergency.

Why don't you ask some the of the F/As that participate on this board what a passenger's reaction is on the pilots declaring an emergency then just returning to the field for a minor maintenance issue.

I have been on flights that returned to the field for a non-emergency mtc issue and it did not bother or the other passengers, when we landed there was another plane waiting for us to board, no fire trucks, no evacuation, no emergency.

Big differance.
 
MarkMyWords said:
Ohhhhh, so it is less of a problem if it doesn't make it in the press......Thanks to clearing that one up. So, for the 300+ customers who were on these flights, we need to remind them that since it didn't make it into the press, it was a non-event.
[post="265501"][/post]​


Another corporate apologist is all you are MMW
 

Latest posts

Back
Top