Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-07-2011, 04:33 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
747 Pilot: Oh it's just like a big Piper Cub...
Evidently that's true, it can bounce just like a Piper Cub:
Evidently that's true, it can bounce just like a Piper Cub:
11-07-2011, 04:40 AM
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Interesting that the spoilers started to come up, then retracted after the bounce, then came up...again...after the second landing! Did he retract them? Or is it like a MD-88, where they...sometimes...come up, then stow, then come up again?
11-07-2011, 04:55 AM
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
11-07-2011, 04:59 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Do we really want to have to explain anything to a scheduler when making the call that we are sick? While that's not what you are specifically advocating, its a very slippery slope letting scheduling in on any annotating of our sick/well condition beyond sick/well. In any case, if the call backs become harassing in any way, let them go to voice mail and call your rep.
11-07-2011, 05:58 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
11-07-2011, 06:00 AM
Get's Every Day Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 1,860
Really????
11-07-2011, 06:28 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Glad to. Right after you get ALPA to release all the names and data on flight pay loss...like our resolution of nearly a year ago demands. Without this data from ALPA, you'd just ask me for my evidence.
Really? We were in the MAJORITY with our flight pay loss resolution, yet we were unsuccessful in changing our union. Our union just ignored the lawful resolution. Do you see a flaw in your logic now?
Yes it can. Read above.
Yes we were in the majority. ALPA just ignored it.
Carl
Carl
11-07-2011, 06:40 AM
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
I do hate when good landings are ruined by spoilers though. I don't know if the 738 is like that but I remember 737 guys at CAL talking about Captains trying to grab the spoilers before it ruined the FOs nice touch.
Now imagine how giddy that plane spotter was to grab that shot.
11-07-2011, 06:58 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
When I state the jury's verdict against ALPA in the TWA suit, that's not an insult...it's simply a fact. When apologists like you refer to the jury as "the OJ jury" or "the Casey Anthony jury", that's an insult.
When I state the judge's verdict against ALPA for ALPA trying to bust their own in-house union, that's not an insult...it's simply a fact.
When I state that an ALPA attorney was fined and given a Rule 11 sanction for lying about an opposing attorney who is being considered for seat on the Missouri State Supreme Court, that's not an insult...it's a fact.
It's always funny to be scolded for hurling insults, by ALPA apologists who do almost nothing but insult people for wanting to vote in a different union. Good times.
Carl
11-07-2011, 07:00 AM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Here is your earlier argument: "The DPA has not acted to change policy. They have instead decided to attack the institution ... which suggests to me the DPA is mostly OK with ALPA's policies and practice." Your current argument is not much better and still a logical fallacy. I have a feeling you already know that though. See below:
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).
Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.
Fallacy of accident or sweeping generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions.
Example
Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people, therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.
Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law.
Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored).
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.
Problem: Those who have been met are a representative subset of the entire set.
Affirming the consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example:
Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Torres is coughing. Therefore, Torres has the flu.
Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. someone spilled water).
Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.
Example
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds.
Carl
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
