sherpa

I'm not sure what Sabato is upset about, but I can tell you what the rest of us are. I live here. I had the "opportunity" to drive through this crap on the way home from a volunteer project. It looks like a war zone, and totally driven by these creepy white supremacists who have decided to make this ground zero. I watched as the marched to their protest site. Not intentionally. I was stopped as they slobbered across a major road. Same demographic, and I saw hundreds of them. Mid to late 20's. Male, but for a few. Overweight. Face makeup. Posters. Looked like total losers. It looked like nothing more than an imported hate group.

If ever there was a need for a press conference, this is it. The new regime needs to explain to the historical fan base what this is all about.

If there was money to be made, a third party would have thought of this. Actually, many have, and failed. There isn't. Ego thing, and good for them.

Not the Dolphins. American never painted an airplane for a team. American had a history of polished aluminum only. No paint, and would not do that. I made a bit of quality of life money off those charters, so I'm quite familiar.

If it was that easy, everyone would do it. I've done a few charters, including the (New Jersey Nets) to London, and all the players sat in first. Reconfiguring isn't nearly as easy as you suggest, nor is "overseas," to use your term. Flying "overseas" requires an ETOPS certified airplane and crew. ETOPS means extended overwater equipment and pilot qualifications. Very, very expensive. Think of 1.5 times the cost. I have no problem with your logic and intent. I have a significant disagreement with how much money you think this costs over normal domestic Sat/Sunday charters. Their expenses will be huge. What Dolphins plane? They always used American, at least for the last 16 years. They got a normal 757.

As has been pointed out, there are significant expenses involved in owning an airplane vs chartering one, so you can't simply subtract the cost (10), minus the normal charter season cost, (4), and claim that all you have to do is make up the difference, (6), and you are in the money. I have no idea where they are going to get their crew. There are not a lot of 767 people hanging around, and you are now going to take on their training expenses. If I was Kraft, I'd be extremely involved in making sure he was getting good folks. Basing it in Providence makes sense for the Pats, but not for a chartered 767. Unless they have already structured agreements, like Caribbean trips from there during the offseason, there are going to be a lot of ferry flights to get it where it needs to be, and even then, it is extremely expensive to for it and its crew to sit around for the return, so there's another ferry. Anyway, these charter things are really inefficient and expensive. That's why the airlines are getting out of them. With the total scheduled airline structure in place and layers and layers of protection, an airline makes sense. If there's something that goes wrong in this operation, maintenance, de-icing as Marv's neighbor pointed out, (would result in a huge delay since they couldn't rely on an airline's system), a pilot gets sick on Sunday morning or afternoon, or countless other things, there will be few protections. I, for one, can't wait until TAWMY 1 gets stuck somewhere.

I think chartering has gotten considerably more expensive this past year. American dropped six teams this year, and now only does Dallas, Carolina and Philadelphia, so there is less supply. United and Delta still do a considerable amount. This is going to be an extremely expensive operation. They really don't need hangar space, but a parked 767 is still mounting bills. Trump never hangared his 757. They will have contract maintenance, but what priority they get depends on who they contract with, and if they go with a non airline, they are going to have significantly less efficient service. If they do go with an airline, they won't be a number one priority. They'll probably hire some retired pilots who are current on the 767. Not cheap, but not much in the grand scheme. It would be a benefit in the free agent market, but certainly they don't need that right now.

By the rivers of my memory Ever smilin', ever gentle on my mind

It doesn't matter what disclaimer a carrier publishes, and they all have them. No published disclaimer protects a carrier from negligence, and negligence is a subjective matter decided by a third party. What generally happens in these cases is that the carrier decides whether is easier to pay someone off or defend its behavior in the legal system, and often times it may be completely innocent of negligence, but deems it not financially worth the effort. It isn't the 15 year old's fault that he/she is considered an unaccompanied minor by a particular airline. It is the result of years threatened lawsuits and a lot of expense.

Unfortunately, your "rant" would not be a successful defense in a lawsuit, and that is what drives this policy, not the relative intelligence and maturity of a 13/14/15/ year old, which varies dramatically. You are correct in your claim that unaccompanied minor rules for each airline are easily accessible, and intentionally so. That's why your Southwest example is so easy to dispute. They don't allow connections for unaccompanied minors They would have never taken this reservation. And again, people of all ages constantly do not make connections regardless of all the information and announcements. It happens every day and results in countless delays and is not specific to any age. The difference is that for adults, the carrier assumes no liability.

And this is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned your post contained no information and no context. Your example, Southwest, does not allow connections for the example you suggest. This was not only a connection, it was an international flight requiring customs/immigration issues, and a connection. So...You bring up an example that would never happen because your example does not permit it. Regarding your 16 year old, and how talented he/she might be, I would be happy to hear you use that defense in a lawsuit, and there have been many, rand have cost the airlines millions. You may not be aware of this, in fact I'm quite sure you aren't, but there are people who do this intentionally, looking to settle out of court. Airlines have programs to defend themselves against this. Lawsuits are an industry.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this post is an example of someone who posts without any knowledge of context or history. Most airlines, certainly any who operate in the US judicial system, understand the massive liability involved in transporting minors. The definition of "minor" is made by judges and juries, not by somebody posting on a message board. The claim that "a 13 year old" can do it indicates ignorance of what happens every day, when delays are incurred because people from 1-100 cannot figure out how to make a connecting flight. Happens all the time. Cause delays every day. Making a reservation that includes a connection or an international entry with customs/immigration issues is a whole lot different that a domestic nonstop. Most refuse to take the reservation. This res was made through Air Canada, a member of United's Star Alliance group. Surely, someone from United could have been more sympathetic, but they have their rules, and they lose their job in a second by turning a minor loose on an international flight with a connection.

Non human. Secretariat. Human. Ali.

I forgot to mention the one thing I wish I could show everyone. St Elmo's fire extending from the radome over the windscreen. It is truly an unbelievable thing to watch. I guess it would scare the heck out of people, but it is truly cool.

And worst of mine.

I may not be the one to answer this the same as most since I flew Navy attack and fighter airplanes, then 32 years in my airline career on the 727, 757, 767 and 777, but... In the Navy, flying low level training missions at 100' and 420 knots all over the west coast and Philippines. Seeing the carrier after a long mission with relatively low fuel. Getting to 50,000' and seeing the curvature of the earth. Blowing up a drone over the Pacific with a Sidewinder missile. The joy of flying wing. In the airlines, watching the sun come up over the European continent every trip east. Flying down the length of Italy on the way into Rome. Watching the Southern Cross rotate about the South Pole every night on the way to Buenos Aires or Sao Paulo. Watching the Space Shuttle fly just after launch. Flying down the west side of the Andes, just over the Pacific and descending into Santiago, Chile. The entire approach and landing into La Paz Bolivia at over 13000' airport altitude. Seeing countless demonstrations of the northern lights while sitting in the darkened cockpit. Flying over Northern Alaska and the North Pole on the way to Tokyo or Beijing. Just knowing you'd have the best view in the world every night.

Been all over the place. Don't misunderestimate the fried catfish. http://www.catfishparlour.com/north-austin.html

They already tried. Venezuela has a huge debt to China from past obligations, and China has stated it would no longer support a gov even it knows is an abject failure.

I'm aware of that. I don't want it to start and provide output to my electrical system on its own. It only takes a second to start and put online.

I've got one. There are a number of considerations. First consider how much power you want to provide. That will tell you how to size the unit. A good way to do that is lo look at your service panel and determine how many circuits you want to power . Consider what engine you want powering it, gas or diesel. Consider if you want it self starting or not. Consider what power panel you want to run it through. I have a 7500 watt Honda powered generator that is reg gas that runs 10 circuits. I did not want it self starting. I have plenty of time to start it up when needed. Anyway, lots to consider.

50-100 yards does not support hand signals. 30 feet max. Still, that isn't what I'm referring to. There are scenes when they are flying extremely close, what we used to call welded wing. It's crazy, but they do it in all movies.

You don't have to be worried at all. It's not a tough departure. You simply take off, get to about 600' and do a right 180 to avoid the terrain to the east. There is a special single engine procedure in the unlikely event of an engine failure that ensures terrain avoidance. Regarding taking off the other w taxi way, towards the west, it is because of winds. It is very unusual to have winds from the west there, so its rarely used. Further, there is no taxiway that goes to the end of that runway, so you use the existing taxiway to it's end, then taxi on the runway to the end and do a 180. It really slows thing down because of the time it takes.

There is no other place on St. Maarten to put a runway of suitable length. The departure out of there is a bit unusual as well, because there's a mountain on the extended runway center line, so it requires an immediate right turn. I've flown in there scores of times on the 757. The people on the beach wave as you land, and they are quite close. Close enough to see facial details. The jet blast on takeoff only effects about 100 feet, laterally, so its quite easy to stay away from it by moving. Anyway, really nice island as Caribbean islands go.

Why does a guy who can ditch or beach an airplane anywhere he wants, choose to overfly a couple hundred thousand allies in friendly territory, and choose German controlled ground, guaranteeing immediate capture? Why do these Spitfires fly in close formation in a tactical situation? Nobody does that. Why do we have these engagements where kill shots are passed up over and over in order to see gunsight video and the inevitable late, missing shot? Those are the things that I would criticize. It looked like a movie made by a guy who knew he could orchestrate cinematic magic, but there are so many things that didn't make sense, and the three parallel stories, with different time lines, got a bit annoying.

Absolutely not. Doing so would create yet another method to con the US taxpayer out of money, and this "strategy" has been used countless times by members of the military, including some famous cases. See "Tailhook." You only get a pension if you serve 20.