Alaska Airlines challenges Virgin’s right to fly in the US

The comments against Alaska seem like a cheap shot to me, and have no bearing on the case.

OK enough is enough. Firstly, Alaska IS an integral part of this thread and therefore does invite comments of any sensible type if members wish to add them. I was not aware that there an active censor in place, other than moderators, to ensure that comments viewed by others as having “no bearing” on the case are not permitted, perhaps in future you may like to prefix comments such as the above quote with the courtesy of IMO or longhand “in my opinion”

What you regard as a “cheap shot” at Alaska was in fact originated by the National Geographic channel programme as detailed earlier. All the more ironic that I supplied additional information about it at your request! My comments that I would not fly on Alaska based on that information is MY choice to make. There may be cheap shots around here, but I’m not the one firing them.

See posts 3 and 5 and I never claimed they did!!! My responses were to do with Alaska (which is part of the thread) itself and its past history, which like it or not is there. That has no connection with the Virgin issue and I never claimed that it it did. It was an observation on an airline mentioned in the thread. I wasn’t aware that we were in court ;).

We aren’t. But shouldn’t comments have some relevance to the topic in question? The comments against Alaska seem like a cheap shot to me, and have no bearing on the case.

You have!:D
It doesn’t matter if Alaska Air is owned by satan mimself, past problems have no legal standing in the argument by Alaska vs Virgin.

See posts 3 and 5 and I never claimed they did!!! My responses were to do with Alaska (which is part of the thread) itself and its past history, which like it or not is there. That has no connection with the Virgin issue and I never claimed that it it did. It was an observation on an airline mentioned in the thread. I wasn’t aware that we were in court ;).

I must have missed something here. 😉

You have!:D
It doesn’t matter if Alaska Air is owned by satan mimself, past problems have no legal standing in the argument by Alaska vs Virgin.

I must have missed something here. I could not care less how long ago the Alaska MD80 incident happened, the fact is that it did and due to the wilful actions and dubious maintenance practices at the carrier at that time, many innocent people lost their lives to help save a ‘buck’. To my knowledge apart from the poor mechanic who blew the whistle on this awful saga, nobody senior lost their posts and for all you or I know some may still be there. I fail to see the connection with “nationalism” in this debate, my post was a response to a comment made ref Alaska by Jet22, with due respect to him. Is it not one of the great things about this forum that sometimes threads make relevant detours gathering in comments, information and theories along the way? Maybe after 1,374 posts I have misunderstood the premise all along. 😉

Grey….yep, it happened 10 years ago and that has nothing to do with the thread or the assertion regarding Virgin ownership.

Get your facts straight, sunshine!

As you know perfectly well I provided the link to that article in response to your own request for more details about the safety issues that were once associated with Alaska Airlines.

Please provide details, thanks.

In the future, please read your own postings before you have a dig at others.

The fact that the A380 is selling very slowly is just that….a fact

Welcome to the Department For Stating The Bleedin’ Obvious.

Do you happen to know of any large airliner that’s selling quickly at the moment? :rolleyes:

J Boyle….agree completely.

Grey….yep, it happened 10 years ago and that has nothing to do with the thread or the assertion regarding Virgin ownership. The fact that the A380 is selling very slowly is just that….a fact.

I repeat again, if Alaska did do bad stuff 10 years ago, that doesn’t mean that Virgin America isn’t owned by Richard Branson

Finally, nationalism has nothing to do with the claim. It’s U.S. law and whether or not is being complied with.

This “let’s attack Alaska because Branson is a Brit…” is rather silly.

Keep in mind, Alaska has a very good safety record aside from that one crash several years ago. BTW: They now operate new 737s insted of MD80s.

I fly them ferequently and they’re a very good airline. However, I’m not a big fan of their Q400s they operate on their Horizon regional feeder line.

If you damn every airline and ac type because of one crash, that’s being a bit unfair.
If that’s your threshold of attack, then even your nationalistic favorites won’t bear much scrutiny.:D

I feel someone should point out that article is now almost 10 years old…..

Yes. That’s when the events in the article took place, so it’s not very surprising that it’s almost ten years old, is it?

…..and it is full of allegations, not findings.

Rather like the anti-A380 “article” you linked to in another thread, you mean?

Fanbois……. :rolleyes:

Thanks

I feel someone should point out that article is now almost 10 years old…..and it is full of allegations, not findings. Even if bad findings are produced, they would still be quite old.

It seems rather a stretch to bring up these old allegations in response to the thread starter. I mean, c’mon, everybody knows Richard Branson owns the freaking airline (Virgin). He appears to be trying to get around to law. Why do people always have to attack the person making the allegation instead of answering the allegation? Lets say Alaska did do bad stuff, does that mean Branson isn’t the owner of VA?

Thanks GA, that article refers to the same situation as covered in the excellent NatGeo documentary Air Crash Investigation dedicated to the crash that blew open this can of worms. Ship 741 if you have access to National Geographic channel this episode is repeated fairly frequently and is well worth seeing. I was left feeling that someone should have hanged for that, and I dare say that the families of those who lost their lives thought so too

Please provide details, thanks.

This is probably the sort of thing he had in mind.

Not that good me thinks! I seem to remember some pretty dodgy goings on with that carrier and its MDs a few years ago. I’d certainly never fly with Alaska after seeing that Air Crash Investigation programme about them, Frankly I am amazed that the FAA did not shut them down after that mess. :confused:

Please provide details, thanks.

You and I both

I think alaska airlines (as good as it is) cant stand compeition on some of its routes that VX do, but isnt big enough to take on the big boys and has decided to do some under the belt scoring :diablo::dev2:

Not that good me thinks! I seem to remember some pretty dodgy goings on with that carrier and its MDs a few years ago. I’d certainly never fly with Alaska after seeing that Air Crash Investigation programme about them, Frankly I am amazed that the FAA did not shut them down after that mess. :confused:

Wasn’t this sorted out a long time ago… ?

I think alaska airlines (as good as it is) cant stand compeition on some of its routes that VX do, but isnt big enough to take on the big boys and has decided to do some under the belt scoring :diablo::dev2: