Date: 18 Mar 97 03:14:49 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Mitchell Regenbogen) Organization: PANIX References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1997.633@ohare.Chicago.COM>, "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: >Ken wrote: >> As a pilot for a major airline >> flying the 747 I can tell you there is absolute NO truth in that >> statement whatsoever. > >Well, I am in no way disputing the safety of 747-100s. However, since >lawyers had been involved in that public statement by the plaintif and >stated that TWA was operating planes after they should have been retired >(or whatever exact wording had been used) I was thinking that they had >found some sort of loophole that allowed them to make such a statement. I'm a lawyer, and I can tell you that no "loophole" is necessary for lawyers to talk. > If it >were not true, then the media should not have reported that part of the >newstory with the plaintif saying that TWA was operating planes that >were past their "deadline". The media was simply reporting the statement. It is not the media's job to filter what the public should hear, although a good news story will include its own investigation in addition to the statement. >The fact that TWA has retired its 747-100s from what I heard does not >help the argument that it is a perfectly fine plane. (hey, this >retirement may have been purely economic, but in the context of TWA800, >the public cannot help but put safety connotations into it as well). If the "public" has concerns, it hasn't manifested by passengers refusing to fly the aircraft. -- Mitch Regenbogen, Brooklyn, New York, email@example.com "Knowledge is Good."