Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

APA Pilot Running for Congress

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Draginass-
Obama is the clear choice -- otherwise you've been in a cave this last year as an airline pilot- and as a middle class american.
Mccain will be better than Bush- and that's the reason you all don't like him--- amazing!
Take your hard line stances elsewhere- this world has had enough of it--
 
You mean the stance that all AMR flying should be done by pilots on the APA seniority list? Sounds like a good stance to me.

No. The stance they've taken of treating Eagle like the bastard step child. They blame Eagle for their problems, yet, ignore the fact that THEY (APA) farmed out scope to protect their ol' grey haired guys on the big jets.

Many APA members talk sh*t about Eagle, and yet, these are the same 500+ people who gladly took a flowback seat at Eagle when they were laid off from AA.

APA blames Eagle for too much, where in 90% of the cases, APA needs to look at themselves in the mirror to see where the blame lies....
 
That's the same with every mainline group and their related "express" groups. The APA pilots are nothing unusual in that regard. I agree that it's ridiculous to blame the regional guys for problems that the mainline guys created for themselves.
 
Draginass-
Obama is the clear choice -- otherwise you've been in a cave this last year as an airline pilot- and as a middle class american.
Mccain will be better than Bush- and that's the reason you all don't like him--- amazing!
Take your hard line stances elsewhere- this world has had enough of it--


I'm not a devote McCain supporter but I gotta agree with Cindy's logic:

"From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.

I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that."

Cindy McCain


OBAMA IS JUST BARELY OFF HIGH MINS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD........
 
Originally Posted by STL717
He thinks global warming is a concern.
..Yep. Must be that pesky "science" stuff.

I believe the proper term is "junk science".

Even the founder of the Weather Channel doesn't believe it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history


Nor do thousands of other scientists. One of which is a nuclear physicist who sent this to me: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org:80/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html
 
Last edited:
Yes, 99% of the scientific community is adhering to "junk science." Riiiiiiiiiight.
 
Yes, 99% of the scientific community is adhering to "junk science." Riiiiiiiiiight.

That's another of the many ways in which you've (we've) been mislead. There is no consensus.

An excerpt from an article titled "Consensus"? , What "Consensus"?........." http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/m...limate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

There is indeed a consensus that humankind is putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; that some warming has resulted; and that some further warming can be expected. However, there is less of a consensus about whether most of the past half-century’s warming is anthropogenic, which is why, rightly, Oreskes is cautious enough to circumscribe her definition of the “consensus” about the anthropogenic contribution to warming over the past half-century with the qualifying adjective “likely”.
There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.
Campaigners for climate alarm state or imply that there is a scientific consensus on all of these things, when in fact there is none. They imply that Oreskes’ essay proves the consensus on all of these things. Al Gore, for instance, devoted a long segment of his film An Inconvenient Truth to predicting the imminent meltdown of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice-sheets, with a consequent global increase of 20 feet (6 m) in sea level that would flood Manhattan, Shanghai, Bangladesh, and other coastal settlements. He quoted Oreskes’ essay as proving that all credible climate scientists were agreed on the supposed threat from climate change. He did not point out, however, that Oreskes’ definition of the “consensus” on climate change did not encompass, still less justify, his alarmist notions.
Let us take just one example. The UN’s latest report on climate change, which is claimed as representing and summarizing the state of the scientific “consensus” insofar as there is one, says that the total contribution of ice-melt from Greenland and Antarctica to the rise in sea level over the whole of the coming century will not be the 20 feet luridly illustrated by Al Gore in his movie, but just 2 inches.


Read on if you dare, or you can just choose to believe Algore.
LOOK! Manbearpig............:eek:
 
If you want some credibility, you'll have to find a source a little more unbiased than the Science & Public Policy Institute, an anti-environment activist think-tank.
 
Rancatore seems like a nice guy, but no way I could vote for him; way to liberal for me. Not that it matters anyway since I'm not in his district. The Air Tran guy looks like a good candidate, though.
 
Rancatore seems like a nice guy, but no way I could vote for him; way to liberal for me. Not that it matters anyway since I'm not in his district. The Air Tran guy looks like a good candidate, though.

Yes... yes... b/c "liberal" is an awful thing to be in the country that stands for "freedom"...?? you need another term for what you don't like.
 
Let's not forget the same 95% of scientist said there was global freezing in the mid 70's and and that if we didn't do anything we'd all be living like the eskimos by 2010.

I'm so sick of hearing right wingers parrot the same bunk crap.... Why don't you try reading up about something before you go around repeating everything you heard on the Rush Limbaugh show?

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
 
Yep. Will Breazeale is running for a seat in NC. He won his primary, I think. I'm not too sure on his stances on labor, though, because he's running on a pretty far-right platform according to his website.

High quality candidate there. Enjoyed climbing balconies on overnights to get a peak at the FA....
 
High quality candidate there. Enjoyed climbing balconies on overnights to get a peak at the FA....

Was that him? I remember that story, but not who it was. If so, typical politician. He'll fit right in with guys like John Edwards.
 
Yes... yes... b/c "liberal" is an awful thing to be in the country that stands for "freedom"...?? you need another term for what you don't like.
Okay, "leftwing", then. Feel better now?

Look, I'm not calling him a bad person for being a liberal, I just don't agree with him.
 
well-- what would you say if i told you that right-wing guys ONLY line the pockets of CEO's redistributing wealth from the middle class to the super-rich?.... i'm tired of subsidizing these guys

The left side is the lesser of two evils -- for sure.

Not one of us can say our lives have been better since 2000.

AND DON"T BLAME 9/11.
 
well-- what would you say if i told you that right-wing guys ONLY line the pockets of CEO's redistributing wealth from the middle class to the super-rich?.... i'm tired of subsidizing these guys

The left side is the lesser of two evils -- for sure.

Not one of us can say our lives have been better since 2000.

AND DON"T BLAME 9/11.
<shrugs> I would say that you should vote your conscience, then.

And yes, my life has been better since 2000. I'm sorry for you if your life hasn't gone as well as you hoped.
 
Great. Youre at WN? So b/c you've been good- nothing's wrong? It's all about you?
Do you really think that the what has happened to the legacies won't affect you? Eventually?
You're on a compensation island over there right now. You should want every legacy to be paid more than you-or at least get their contracts up close to you.

For the VAST MAJORITY OF US- for those aspects of life that government and business affects- life has NOT been better... maybe you've been gloating about that b/c so many legacy guys were always so arrogant before? I kind of don't blame you- but we are all affected by "industry-standard" wages.

And that's my point. The people you elect DO NOT BELIEVE you are worth the money you earn b/c you ARE JUST AN EMPLOYEE. They believe that only entreprenuers should earn money

That being said, i'm happy in my personal life...- i have a church and beliefs that keep material things in perspective. But, you're right that it is a shame that things haven't gone better financially in me and about 60,000 of our friends. I can't speak for them- but I've earned better.
 
Did I say any of that? As a fellow professional pilot, I wish you the best. I simply don't share your political views.
 
my political views changed greatly when i saw so much money stolen from my peers.
 
Raising taxes not only on me directly, but also on the companies that my 401K is invested in isn't going to put more money in my pockets.
 
I'm not a devote McCain supporter but I gotta agree with Cindy's logic:

"From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. 143 days.

I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that."

Cindy McCain

OBAMA IS JUST BARELY OFF HIGH MINS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD........

Compare Obama's experience with that of Lincoln when he was elected POTUS...
 
No, pissed about suspending Habeas Corpus and putting journalists and Congressmen in prison for opposing the war.
 
No, pissed about suspending Habeas Corpus and putting journalists and Congressmen in prison for opposing the war.


Sounds more the Bush....


back to the point....

Lincoln wasn't even the expected to win the nomination..... he was a backwoods lawyer, one term congressman.....

he turned out to be one of if not the best POTUS....
 
I'm not aware of Bush putting American citizens in prison and suspending their Habeas Corpus rights. No matter, neither he or Lincoln is running anyway. I'm sure Obama has some good points, but this comparison doesn't show me anything other than that it's possible to be elected with less than a majority of the votes.
 
Sounds more the Bush....


Back that up. How many congressmen have been put in jail for speaking out against the war under W? Zero. Though hopefully Murtha will be kicked out of congress for slander against the marines, his fellow marines, he called cold blooded murderers.
 
Last edited:
He doesn’t want “Drill Here, Drill Now”.
He thinks global warming is a concern.
He’s a member of APA.

Why would anyone want to support this union pilot that doesn’t understand the issues.

Who's his opponent?

I'll send him some money.

DRILL...DRILL...DRILL
 
yeah- you want drilling because it's not your coast and land that it will screw.

- there are simply better solutions- you can't shun alternative energy b/c it will take too long to develop- and then be for more drilling when it will take just as long... It's a perfect time to make the transition off the stuff altogether.

Nindiri- amazing-- .... I'd love to have a career that will allow me an income to invest. Maybe you've already got your nest egg??
There are pilots in the pipeline behind you, idiot.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom