Have you ever wondered what the Presidential candidates’ speeches would be like if they weren’t allowed to use the word, “change”?
In 2006, the FAA was concerned that electrical shorts and fires may result from improperly bundled wires in the MD-80 aircraft. One wonders why the FAA allowed American Airlines to operate for two years before mandating immediate inspections. This led to over 3,000 flight cancellations during the week of April 7.
It’s clear that American Airlines is willing to risk passenger lives, all in the name of reducing maintenance expenses. American had ample opportunity to spread its MD-80 aircraft inspections over several months to avoid impacting flight schedules. Instead, the company chose to ignore the risk for two years and is inspecting aircraft now to avoid government sanctions.
Although tens of thousands of passengers were stranded/delayed by airline mismanagement, American Airlines is not required to reimburse passengers for canceled flights. Isn’t a strong Airline Passenger Bill of Rights long overdue?
Have you noticed how some companies are unable to follow through on promises of good service? Oceanic Time Warner Cable Road Runner immediately comes to mind. I contacted the Road Runner National Help desk six times during a two week period. Each time, I was promised a technician would call back in 24-48 hours with a solution. That never happened. I learned one important thing from speaking with the Help Desk; Road Runner does not guarantee timely delivery of emails. A three day delay is acceptable service in their minds. How disappointing.
Every candidate vying for the Presidency says he or she will “change” things. The real question every voter should be asking themselves is, “change to what?” Change for the sake of change is a foolish waste of time and often requires billions of taxpayer dollars.
I am constantly amazed by people who never question the claims made by Presidential candidates. Why are so many people swayed by slick talking points rather than serious arguments based on facts?
Considering Barry Bonds’ shoe size increased from 10.5 to 13 during the last 15 years (starting at age 29), can anyone argue with straight face that that’s a normal occurrence?
