flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 17:47:27 GMT
You mean, apart from owning it?
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 18:10:43 GMT
Duh. He can have assets but he has no executive participation. Fact.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 19:52:51 GMT
OK. It just says flying to Kuwait - not exactly where from. On most US routings to Kuwait a great circle takes you just as close to Ramstein as it does Prestwick. Not that this helps you any. You're the one who claimed that routings have changed so that landing at Prestwick suddenly made sense in 2017. You are making this claim while at the same time claiming that it's impossible to know the routing. It's laughable. Bollocks. Name the aircraft type.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 20:17:56 GMT
Eh? You're the one making the claims that the planes can't stop at, say, Ramstein, any more when they could in 2016. You've yet to provide evidence that you know anything at all. You're the one who needs to identify the planes and routes that absolutely must stop in Scotland instead of elsewhere, given that you've claimed that this is the reason that there can't possibly be corruption.
[And even if you could show that, you still can't show that there's not the appearance of corruption - because there is].
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 20:18:33 GMT
Anyway, it was a Sopwith Camel.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 20:29:49 GMT
Eh? You're the one making the claims that the planes can't stop at, say, Ramstein, any more when they could in 2016. You've yet to provide evidence that you know anything at all. You're the one who needs to identify the planes and routes that absolutely must stop in Scotland instead of elsewhere, given that you've claimed that this is the reason that there can't possibly be corruption. [And even if you could show that, you still can't show that there's not the appearance of corruption - because there is]. How about if they set out from Ramstein? How would the closure of most USAF bases in affect their fuel calcs? Please illustrate using, say, a C-5 and an F-18. Since you know all about it, like.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 20:32:27 GMT
Anyway, it was a Sopwith Camel. Not in the US inventory. Duh. Shows what you know.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 20:34:24 GMT
Eh? You're the one making the claims that the planes can't stop at, say, Ramstein, any more when they could in 2016. You've yet to provide evidence that you know anything at all. You're the one who needs to identify the planes and routes that absolutely must stop in Scotland instead of elsewhere, given that you've claimed that this is the reason that there can't possibly be corruption. [And even if you could show that, you still can't show that there's not the appearance of corruption - because there is]. How about if they set out from Ramstein? How would the closure of most USAF bases in affect their fuel calcs? Please illustrate using, say, a C-5 and an F-18. Since you know all about it, like. You need to illustrate that Prestwick has become the most sensible viable option due to changes made since 2017. Letting me know which planes are using Prestwick and what their routes are. Because you made the claim. Off you go...
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 20:42:43 GMT
You think nothing ever changes, yeah? Get them to refuel at Fairford then.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 21:08:59 GMT
Eh? I'm just asking you to back up your claim. Things may have changed. All kinds of things. But you claimed that the range of planes changed in 2017, or where they're going changed in 2017. Yet you've still failed to back it up. Until you do, until you show that the planes that landed at Prestwick couldn't have stopped elsewhere, the appearance of blatant corruption remains.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 11, 2019 21:35:59 GMT
What claim? That routes operational requirements change over time?
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 11, 2019 21:47:17 GMT
Your claim was that in 2017 they suddenly needed to start landing at Prestwick because of those changes. Yet you've failed to identify one thing about this: the routes, the planes, the previous routes, what makes Prestwick compelling now, etc, etc.
Pathetic. Do better next time.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 12, 2019 6:09:25 GMT
You still think they're running a published scheduled airline.
Somewhat naive. No wonder you believe schoolgirl guff.
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Sept 12, 2019 9:39:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Sept 13, 2019 15:50:02 GMT
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 60,284
|
Post by mids on Sept 13, 2019 15:50:49 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 16:13:17 GMT
Looks like he should be the first to go.
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 13, 2019 18:00:51 GMT
"Exempt from additional tariffs."
So, the current, totally unnecessary, tariffs that are f**k**g over farmers in Iowa and Illinois and Nebraska remain in place...
It is a correct observation - and not one often accepted by Trump and the Trumpies - that tariffs increase prices in the purchasing country, so when he puts tariffs on Chinese or Mexican goods it's the US consumer who pays.
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Sept 13, 2019 18:08:35 GMT
you think Trump put tariffs on products being exported??
|
|
flatandy
New Member
Posts: 43,947
Member is Online
|
Post by flatandy on Sept 13, 2019 18:12:13 GMT
Eh? The soybean tariffs are retaliatory to the Trump tariffs on imported goods from China that are increasing prices for US consumers.
|
|