Appreciate. I am trying to devote more time to real life. Particularly as participating here usually ends up with me collapsing under the kilos of stupid I run across.
As an example, we have the several gems dropped over the weekend, and not picked up. Against my better judgment, I will bite. Not going to litigate one line at a time, will stick to a general recap.
- Regarding the airline safety claims:
- To start with, for a lawyer to make sweeping claims on airline safety based on his prior work on a single air disaster 20 years ago, however consequential or illuminating, is absurd.
- To extrapolate from that single incident, again however consequential or illuminating, to the policies of airlines which came into existence some 15-20 years later, as if it's the same thing, is beyond absurd.
- To draw some kind of logical link between rudeness and professionalism or lack thereof (unprofessional crew that was busy helping you with luggage with a smile and that speak English ... prefer nasty profesional who enforce the air security rules") - what?!
- We all know that the ruder someone is, the more professional, right?
- It can't be that someone is both rude and unprofessional.
- Or even - gasp - polite and professional.
- Regarding the aborted FlyBondi flight from Iguazu to El Palomar, in which the tail struck the ground on takeoff:
- To draw conclusions based on a news article whose sole source appears to be hearsay from an anonymous employee, is misleading if not dishonest.
- Similarly misleading to omit that a similar incident apparently happened in the last couple of years with an Aerolineas aircraft, as reported in the articles bajo quotes.
- Equally misleading to make no reference to the fact that lots of the opinions quoted there come from the head of the pilots union, and to provide no insight into his biases.
This union is the same group of clowns who, during an Aerolineas flight, put out a message from the union regarding a labor action on the plane's PA system.
- To paint Aerolineas as above fault is ridiculous. Unless you forget that little incident where they allowed Argentina's answer to Kim Kardashian into the cockpit during a flight (ended up sentenced to community service).
- Regarding flights on LADE (the civilian state owned airline that uses military infrastructure), and their openness to foreigners, which bajo was badly wrong about, which was easily flagged as nonsense with a quick look at their website, and which bajo decided to double down on:
- To insinuate that clearly stating the documentation requirements for foreigners (spoiler: a passport) is actually a honeytrap on the part of the military to charge those foreigners with espionage, is why I drink.
- Mixing the Colonia runs into said stupid-soup - more desperate still.
- To mix in that the army may throw you off their planes because the military junta did so in 1979 - what are you smoking, dude?
To be clear, a lot of the points may in fact be correct. Aerolineas' overall record is very good, as I mentioned before, pilot indiscretions notwithstanding. And it is perfectly fair to ask whether the low-cost airlines cut costs too much on safety issues. In the US, for example, there is
Allegiant Air, which it appears no sane person should ever fly. Questions and perhaps even some assumptions are always in order.
But when trying to have an intelligent discussion, it's often helpful to keep made up stuff and loony theories separate from valid arguments and facts. Which bajo, as usual, turns out not to be very good at.
and explain military about the Colonia runs.
