sherpa

No, you didn't call them figureheads. Someone else did, and I wanted to respond to it because it isn't true.

You live in your fantasy world. No problem here. Those relieved would be screaming like pigs if there was something afoot, and they weren't "taken offline." Further, CO's and XO's, on Navy combatants are far, far more than "figureheads."

I do. Given the fact that the commanding officers and others have been relieved, I think the facts are in.

Ya they do, but the normal process to remove wings is to convene a Field Naval Aviation Evaluation Board, made up of Naval Aviators, and that hasn't been done yet. Awfully silly to throw away over a million dollars + in training, (close to 1.5m if the other individual was an NFO), over something as silly as this. But....There's a wildcard. The entire Pacific fleet has been under scrutiny since the occurrence of these idiotic ship to ship collisions. Scott Swift, who is now commander of the Pacific Fleet, and was the the odds on favorite to be named PACOM, the head of the entire, (multi-service), military in the Pacific, just announced his retirement as he was told he would not get the PACOM position. In all probability, because of these collisions. These high visibility, stupid, though meaningless, mistakes have a way of causing over reactions. So....Who knows?

A senior chief is not going to have any say in that decision. They aren't players in such things. A bullet to the head, career wise, for sure, but not worthy of wing pulling. It was an electronic warfare squadron airplane. They are always a bit odd. Really odd.

I'm not saying that it was designed to only be a freighter. It was developed with a thought that it would have to have cargo only capability, if supersonic travel eliminated subsonic, long range airliners. thus the hinge-able nose. At the time, side loading double deck airplanes was not possible, so the the hinged nose would allow front loading. All that has changed, and now side loading is possible. Still, the design acknowledges that issue, as there was no other reason to put the flight deck on a different level.

I'm guessing that was because you were price sensitive and based on your circuitous route, purchased a Southwest ticket. There are far easier ways.

They are all still charters.

I meant from passenger service. Four engines is considerably more expensive to operate. Can't give away an Airbus 380 these days. 747 was originally designed as cargo anyway, thus the flight deck on the upper level.

For shorter legs, usually a 757. Longer legs, a 767. The London games use Virgin Atlantic. It's part of the contract agreement. Buffalo''s long runway is 8800' long. That's long enough for a 747-400 on a domestic trip with required fuel and cargo loads. Regarding the age of the airplane, the 747 series are all being retired because they are too expensive to operate, not because of airworthiness issues.

Anybody recognize this guy?

The deer where I live in VA are only grass fed. The venison is excellent. It used to be the favored meet of European royalty. We don't "hunt," we merely choose to grab one of the many deer that roam our property, and there are plenty. We don't eat bucks, only does, and head shots to keep the meat from getting blood on it. Just one or two a year, but the backstrap is excellent.

I've got one of those. A 64

Not competitive. Rock bottom.

I haven't been paying attention. What got my attention was showing a subsurface launched missile, which is not germane to the claim at all, and my disdain for using cui bono arguments as stand alone evidence of some conspiracy. So much of that is used in the 9-11 crap, and it's never proved to be of any value or legitimacy.

You have "operators on the ground?"

You're a confusing one. They didn't "upgrade" the terror threat vis a vis drones, they updated it mentioning that platform as a potential threat. Should have been done months ago. And regarding your "ballistic missile" impossibility claim, I'm confused why you keep posting pictures of a subsurface launched missile, when that isn't the claim. The claim is that it was a Burkan 2H, which is a pretty stupid scud type missile with a good bit of range. Certainly nothing sub surface launched.

Point?

All ACC, and specifically..... U.......V........A..... Go Hoos!

I don't think AT&T cares much about CNN at all, as it relates to this.

Flying isn't "very risky" when done by people who know what they're doing. I'm not sure what you mean when you claim that if "you make enough $$$$ they let you be a pilot." You are tested and granted the certificate after a thorough practical exam and display of requisite skills. Your net worth has zero to do with it. This guy was flying a very low performance airplane. He had emailed his father that it was "like flying a fighter." That is a grossly uninformed viewpoint which I hope had noting to do with his accident, but I'm suspicious it did.

I understand your point, but you are missing a major distinction. That isn't your fault because the media failed to report it in many of their reports of this. The "missed" difference is that this would be voluntary, whereas a draft isn't. "Officials stress that returning to active duty is strictly voluntary, and the service does not intend to implement a stop-loss measure." http://taskandpurpose.com/air-force-can-recall-1000-retired-pilots-new-executive-order/ All pilot positions in the military are voluntary. All they did was change the number.

No "emotion" whatsoever. Pat Walsh is no more "ensnared" is this than you are. Pat was a four star who was Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet. The guy in question was a rich contractor who had provided services to the US Navy. In your link, Walsh states that he didn't know who invited the guy to his change of command, but said that the guy had a knack for showing up at a lot of different events. As background for you, when extremely high ranking changes of command occur, a protocol office handles a lot of the invites. He also states that the guy invited him to dinner when he was commander of the USS Stennis carrier strike group, but he didn't attend. What your link does is show pro forma receiving line pictures and claim these folks are "ensnared." It is this type of ridiculous false linkage that underpins a lot of these idiotic broad brush conspiracy suggestions. Pat Walsh is successfully retired and not at all concerned.

What I understand, or at least surmise, is that you are way off on this, and wasting your time. I know Pat Walsh pretty well. He is referenced a few times in your link; quoted and pictured often. This is absolute nonsense, but it is your time.