jkhirsch

Jens David Ohlin is associate dean for academic affairs and professor of law at Cornell Law School. Author of this newsweek article: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: I'll quote my own post for you: From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: "Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse." The information contained within your post only further supports the notion that he acted undesirably towards the United employees only after United notified him of their intent to improperly breach their contract.

I'm about halfway through this article and it seems to be worth reading: http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535 Cite a valid source for this accusation? From http://www.newsweek.com/why-united-were-legally-wrong-deplane-dr-dao-583535: Although this depends on the facts, news reports suggest that Dao was not upset, and was minding his own business until he was told that he was being involuntarily removed and he was dragged kicking and screaming from the aircraft. His being upset was caused by the breach by United Airlines of its contractual duties towards him as a passenger, rather than the reverse.

That's an incredibly vast oversimplification to the point of not being relevant to this discussion, two parties mutually assented to a contract which entitled the party to be on-board the aircraft during the time at which he was on-board the aircraft. That interaction is therefore governed by the rules spelled out in that contract, any breach of the contract is governed the the statutes in which the contract is founded.

To be clear, Sean Spicer did not compare a Mooney Rocket to Hitler and the prices continue to rise.

I do not envy police officers' duties in today's society. I think as a society we need an entirely new philosophy on policing. I think "Americans" have lost their sense of community, vis-a-vis the internet "look at me" revolution, and it hurts all of society.

You know it all comes down to legal definitions. Tommy cited the CFRs which are supposed to be an implementation of the U.S.C and are widely considered statutory even though they are technically "administrative law." ["Congress cannot possibly write out such specific laws," so they task the Executive Branch with the implementation of their "grand schemes."] The argument from what I have read is that United entered a valid and conscionable contract with a passenger and under the framework of that agreement they have no contractual (statutory) right to remove him just because they "wanted to." The contract is derived from the statutes (CFRs) that assigns rights to the carrier and passenger. From what I have read so far the ruling could be in his favor because the flight was not "overbooked" it was simply full, it would require the "overbooked" status for some of the carrier protections to kick in. I don't think I have read a good assessment of the "pre-boarding" "post-boarding" part of the case yet.

Based on the latest "facts" you are standing opposed to facts? The latest "facts" appear that they wanted to remove passengers but had no right to remove them. 3 sheep were kind enough to bend to the desire of the airline, not the right of the airline. It's tit-for-tat until it's settled by the courts but it doesn't appear that the airline had the statutory right to remove the passengers in this case. The bottom line across our society is that everyone acts in their interpretation of the "statutory laws" and the only recourse a single individual has--when they believe another party has acted discordantly with those "laws"--is to seek the opinion of the established court system. The "only viable" way to seek the opinion of the established court system is to hire an attorney. Tough, but it's the "only system we have." I think we can all agree that the 24 hours news cycle and now the internet and photo/video sharing have fundamentally changed society for better or for worse. Unfortunately I think a major repercussion is that it further expands the use of the "lawyering system" as society now moves too quickly for state/federal legislation to keep up or much less get ahead.

Maybe I have a dumb sense of humor but I enjoy this kind of irony...for those of you who did not follow the link: The author of the article is Dr. Johnathan "Sackier"

"Longmount" isn't that what those TV commercials with the "single packs" are about?

I can agree with that. I mostly assume that they are taking deliberate action with at least part of a future goal in mind.

It seems likely that I will own a Twin Comanche eventually. I'd love to get one with the Robertson 200 max gross increase. Clarence, do you know much/have much experience about the Twins?

Barriers to entry are discouraging.

So you're telling me that they are operating a business that they intend to not be able to operate in the future? See my post above that Ross demanded I write

Maybe they have maybe they haven't, I don't particularly care to spitball. I generally work on the principal that actions themselves are really the only relevant piece of life I can make of a laundry list of made up scenarios if you would enjoy reading that I wouldn't particularly enjoy writing it. Since you specifically asked for my opinion I'll provide it in the best possible way I can in the way that it actually exists in my brain--it feels a lot like a binary tree. For me to have an opinion about anything I need a framework to apply to the facts. In my mind it all starts with the most basic question: What is Mooney trying to accomplish? Even above that question what we are really talking about is, "What does it take to be successful in business and how do we apply that to Mooney?" Then I have to define how they would get there. Once I define how they would get there I have explore what actions Mooney has taken and see how that compares. I see two possibilities of their highest level strategic goal: Are they trying to build a company to compete in the general aviation business now and in the future? Are they trying to turn the company into something that could be marketed to another company for sale? Then we have to ask how we could possibly achieve some of those goals; throughout business history we have seen various strategies ultimately rewarded. What would allow the company to continue operations indefinitely? What would make the company attractive to prospective buyers? If we want to build and operate the company indefinitely then we want to improve profitability. If we want to make the company attractive to prospective buyers we want to demonstrate a potential for growth or corner a specific market with a measurable defined value. (financiers love that because they love measurable cash flows that can easily be valued) Then we go to: How do demonstrate a potential for growth? Ability to attract new business Ability to attract new capital How do we improve Mooney profitability? Sell more airplanes Cost cutting or efficiency in manufacturing Increase market share in the US Increase international market share Produce parts for and service the existing fleet As we can see many things that will improve Mooney's profitability at this stage of the game will also demonstrate potential for growth since they have not sold any airplanes, so it will be difficult to discern whether they want to operate the company or sell the company. Then I start asking more specific questions: How does Mooney sell more airplanes? Does Mooney want to make the market or listen to the market? Can Mooney sell new customers what they currently produce? How? Can Mooney grow beyond previous levels of market share, how? What are Mooney production costs? Can they be lowered? How can they be lowered? Does Mooney need a "ground up" redesign to take US market share? Worldwide market share? Does a modern Mooney work in China because average Chinese people smaller than average Americans? Can Mooney get a competitive advantage by being an early contributor in the Chinese GA marketplace? Should we spend the next few years building a brand while we create a new Mooney airplane platform to build familiarity? Does Mooney bring in previous employees with knowledge or start fresh? You could also have a very big existential discussion about Sales vs Products and about how consumerism itself is designed and implemented. And then comes the data...Mooney market share since inception, CapEx budget, cost of funds, cost of goods sold, comparative analysis with other companies, etc. But I don't currently have any data to analyze therefore I can only look at the current actions known to me. They've invested in China They did not change the air-frame but released a new plane They cancelled the M10 "exploratory program" They have brought in new faces and some old They cancelled factory tours They uncancelled factory tours The new CEO has on some level has been actively engaged with current owners (who may never own a new model) I'm probably leaving off something, but those are the ones that stand out in my memory without looking for anything else. It says to me a few things: China is important to them Current owners are at least worth talking to They are trying to keep themselves in the game They have assembled at least part of a strategic plan They are working towards their strategic plan As far as I know they have not released a strategic plan I believe it's because they are still working out longer term goals, but need to stay "relevant" while working toward them

Good information, thanks for sharing. Based on the available data from Twin Comanches I imagine they'd have to have reached "aerodynamic perfection" to come anywhere near that.

That's exactly why I said..."I know you said 200kts, but" I certainly never claimed anything about the speed of a Twin Comanche.

You people don't seem to acknowledge or accept that Mooney's management team may well believe they have found a way to make money that doesn't involve increasing US market share. Refusing to acknowledge or accept that they might have a plan of their own is the definition of myopia. It has nothing to do with the aforementioned coasts and everything to do with people only being able to see or accept one perspective.

My apologies that was unclear. People in the US show up to a flight school what do they see? They do not see a Mooney.

Still waiting on the Velocity V-Twin. I know you said 200kts, but certain Twin Comanches are feasible to maintain and operate and a second engine over mountains might make the significant other just as happy as the speed.

Exactly why it should not have been reported!

Doesn't matter whether you/we/anyone thinks it's a good trainer. People are being trained in them. In many cases I imagine it's those people's first exposure to GA as well.

WE ARE THE ONES MAKING THESE COMPARISONS. There you go, that's myopia at it's finest. It's not about what WE as existing Mooney pilots think or know. It's about the marketplace, and that again goes back to Mooney as a brand and company. How aware do you think Cirrus purchasers are of Mooneys in general or even more details required to understand Mooney capabilities? Which brings me back to my previous point: Do you think that Mooney's highest priority is market share in the USA? or Do you think that current Mooney management's highest priority is to make the money? You guys have done a terrific job over and over of declaring that Mooneys are not trainers and you've won the battle! What plane do you think people show up at a flight school and see...look at the thread of Sam Husky. Did any of you think that dude was actually going to buy a Mooney?

I don't care if they cite the source or not, there is no value to reporting speculation. Every human on the face of the earth can speculate for themselves just fine. 'We have a report of a small plane down in a field near the Baton Rouge Airport, when we have more details we'll provide them for you.' The 24 hour news cycle has thrived on bullshit speculation, they've programmed the public to desire that kind of reporting and it's disgusting. It's more disgusting than this poor gentleman's spark plug breaking up in flight.

WSJ regularly provides headlines on their website: "Developing story: It is being reported x" 'We have no further information at this time, but when we do we'll provide updates here.' No speculation, no bullshit. And I've lost a lot of respect for the Journal through this election cycle.

So reporting an opinion of a completely unqualified source in addition to factual information provides some value to society?