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

Republic!??

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
hey turtle boy .......GET A F%^&*N CLUE !

You don't state any valid facts.

Do us all a favor and keep your mouth shut or better yet, KILL YOURSELF!
 
WOW!

OUCH!!

That was quite a can 'o' worms
Oh well, I guess I'll cross them off my list of future
potential employers. So...is that the final word from
the CHQ guys on this issue?

----hold the pickles hold the lettuce

FF

ps- Hey Turtle grow a set a nuts
and tell that e-drvr to F off
 
Translation

hey turtle boy .......GET A F%^&*N CLUE !

You don't state any valid facts.

It is apparent from the post that the turtle is speaking from a position of knowledge that is, euphamistically speaking, limited at best with regard to the state of affairs at CHQ.

Whether the assertions the turtle chose to put forth were distorted by design or are merely the the parroting of escalated crew room gossip is irrelevant. There is a basis in fact for the statements in the post, however there are what can only be referred to as "glaring inaccuracies" in the majority of the statements which significantly alter the context of and indicate a profound lack of insight into the true nature of the situation.

Furthermore, the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the assertions put forth in the turtle's "argument" is irrelevant as well. The sylogism that he or she attempted to create to support the conclusion that CHQ's contract will be concessionary is invalid and therefore is by definition logically fallacious.

That being said, it is understandable that some, myself included, might have taken umbrage at the post.

As a statement of pure opinion, absent supporting argument as I do not have sufficient knowledge of the true state of affairs at Mesa, I would venture that the turtle and his Mesa colleagues are anxious for another pilot group to further "lower the bar" so that the attention of their peers will be distracted from the disastrous (or successful, depending on your point of view) outcome of their own contract negotiations.

Despite the precedent, CHQ will not accommodate that desire.
 
Last edited:
Dam brother, I don't know what the he11 you just said but it sure sounded good!!

There is nothing except an act of GOD that will take away the disgrace the mesa people left behind. CHQ hold the line and don't give in to this crap and if worse comes to worse shut the SOB's down!!!

WD.
 
back to the Question....

Republic- Bad!

If you want to be treated the way Freedom pilots were, then get your application in now.

As of yet, there is not a Republic, it is however being formed and opposed.

We'll see..........


lazy8s
 
Advertisement starting today in www.climbto350.com for a Director of Operations at Republic Airlines, based in SDF.

I wonder who...JN...DA...JB...I know a lot of intitials of rats who will do it. I know one thing, sure as heck not GCD!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top