At 10:53 AM 2/12/2002 -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to your idea for a buy-in airline, the biggest problem is going to
be that you have to have 9 or fewer people on each flight. Because of
that, it's going to be prohibitively expensive (you're going to
On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 08:23 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:53 AM 2/12/2002 -0500, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As to your idea for a buy-in airline, the biggest problem is going to
be that you have to have 9 or fewer people on each flight. Because
On Monday, February 11, 2002, at 09:50 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
(Yes, I'm a few days behind in my mail).
The ominous trend here is increased docility. The state cannot afford to
acknowledge that there is no defense from attacks by people who are ready
to sacrifice their lives. That
Ah, but how long would it take the congresscritters to write a law
to differentiate between that and legitimate business travel? By
the number of passengers on a plane, if nothing else, or the purpose
of the charter.
Congresscritters are quite good at that kind of thing. I'd give 'em
about two
On 12 Feb 2002, at 13:20, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
Steve Schear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if the passengers were on the books as part-time employees then more
than 10 could fly and still be classed as Part 135? Can you spell employee
owned airline?
I'm not sure about this, but I think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgive me for being absurd, but is there a limit to the number
of copilots a plane can have? I mean, if the pilot and the first
three co-pilots happened to die of old age simultaneously,
it'd make sense to have a fourth copilot as a back-up,
right?
Right, except
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote:
That is exactly why the attack will not happen. Think about it. If you sacrificed 20
people in the first one, doesn't it make sense to sacrifice 20 more and finish the
job, if the job was indeed defeating the US government ? Something tells me that it
The ominous trend here is increased docility. The state cannot afford to acknowledge
that there is no defense from attacks by people who are ready to sacrifice their
lives. That makes state weak and unfit.
Odd as it may seem, several more real attacks would probably make the air travel go
On Monday 11 February 2002 12:30, Eric Cordian wrote:
Some guy on a flight to SLC tries to go to the bathroom 5 minutes later
than allowed, and then pauses before following orders to return to his
seat.
So of course, Armed Air Marshals immediately take over the cabin.
The guy with the weak
At 09:26 PM 2/11/2002 -0800, Alan wrote:
Intel got around the previous rules by having private jets. I have not heard
if they have had to follow the same silly restrictions since the Sept 11th
excuse. (I have not been back to San Jose since last August, which is fine
by me since it is one of the
10 matches
Mail list logo
