Please, someone in Perth gaffa-tape GT!
My recollection of "Flightpaths" was that it was a promotional publication commissioned, paid for and distributed by Qantas with GT as its author. It was such an outstanding piece of writing that Qantas gave each employee a copy of it because they knew no one was going to fork out money for it. I also note that it hasn't been updated as it was printed in the heady days of the post-Ansett collapse and the brave new world of Jetstar was evolving. I think my copy went the way of all those glossy QF annual reports. It would be far better if the media just referred to him as an aviation journalist and called on someone like Owen Zupp if they want an aviation professional.
Arm, I haven't read his article and had not heard of him before. Please could you post a link to his article.
I understand these guys are just doing a job, but I agree with the sentiments of previous posters who are saying it's not an excuse that you have to get attention-grabbing copy out for your expectant masters - I want my journos to put at least a reasonably rigorous effort into fact-checking.
Silly, I know, in this day and age of the sound bite, but it annoys me when something put up in a medium purporting to be an authoritative source, i.e. a major national newspaper, reads as shabbily as this particular article did.
If the whip-cracking editors just wanted something on the page that looked vaguely right from a distance, well, that's what they got in this case.
Let me start by acknowledging George Carlin; “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
With that said, here goes anyway....
Mate, and yes that is meant as a put down in case your handle on sarcasm, is as poor as that of the English language. Despite the bolding, I refer to the first point in my previous post. Your ability to highlight parts of my sentence, don't make it less valid or true. I will state it again clearly. (I would bold it, but don't know how) "I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media."
Really? I supplied a video showing not only GT's poor understanding of heavy jet operations, his stating as FACT things that we may never know even happened, and his atrociously presented and written 'script'. Watch the first 30 seconds and see what an amateur job he does, even by that point. Has he not heard heard of 'cut, let's try that bit again'?
Yet, you didn't even watch it to find out for yourself? Have you taken tips from GT? Don't even study the video, yet feel superior enough to comment on it with authority.
A messenger doesn't instinctively mean they have to be wrong. A messenger can in fact be knowledgable on the subject. He isn't forced to deliver the message, he CHOOSES to! He therefore has no reason to be under-prepared.
Oh the ones that YOU THINK mean that facts don't count, as long as he only speaks for a few seconds? Mate (yes, again) the presenters aren't even listening half the time, they are thinking of their next question. GT has to fill a certain time, FACTS don't take any longer than misinformation to spruke. The presenters might actually learn something if he spoke about FACTS.
Try this at home: "I can not breath underwater without breathing apparatus."
"People have been known to breath underwater regularly."
About the same time for each would you say?? One is true, one isn't. (Hint, the first one is wrong).
Exactly, therefore he would be very well aware that he had no justification to say 'Absolutely!'
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.
Really, then where is the EVIDENCE? I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
Partly, because words matter. Facts matter.
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had passed around, that the colt from Old Regret had got away".
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had got around, that the colt from Old Regret had passed away".
One or two words poorly used, change the ENTIRE meaning. (The first one is the correct one, just in case you were wondering).
What he said was a half truth that could easily have been rectified, or if he actually was fully on top of the subject, not used at all.
The other thing that irks me about this is that you see nothing wrong with describing things incorrectly...
Mate (sorry, I can't help myself), I have done many many interviews, ranging from extended segments for TV shows, to newspaper articles, to TV news interviews, to extended (>30 minute) live radio interviews. On EVERY one, I was prepared because I knew what I was talking about. People make mistakes, but a FUNDAMENTAL one like saying that 'out climbing a TS' was 'absolutely the right thing to do' is reprehensible. This is my point. If GT was in fact an expert, such a basic mistake would not have been made, no matter what 'pressure' he was under. Another example why I don't believe GT is up to the job.
So you are advocating making stuff up, just to stay on the Telly? Have you heard of credibility? This is another reason that many in the 'aviation fraternity' are so annoyed by this guy. He purports to speak on 'our behalf' but everyone of us would tell the the TRUTH "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report" seems like a pretty good response to me.
Unfortunately, if you don't bother to even watch or read the examples I have provided, and look at them with an open mind, then nothing will convince you.
George Carlin, please forgive me.
With that said, here goes anyway....
What I said was rubbish was the following statement from allthecoolnamesarego. The statement is such a gross exaggeration that it should be considered rubbish. You seem to have difficulty with reading, so I will bold the words that indicate gross exaggeration:
Quote:
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.
Quote:
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.
Thanks for those examples, allthecoolnamesarego, but you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the constraints GT has to work to.
Quote:
"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.
Quote:
"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.
There was no need for me to actually watch the video.
Yet, you didn't even watch it to find out for yourself? Have you taken tips from GT? Don't even study the video, yet feel superior enough to comment on it with authority.
GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.
Quote:
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
Remember those constraints I keep referring to?
Try this at home: "I can not breath underwater without breathing apparatus."
"People have been known to breath underwater regularly."
About the same time for each would you say?? One is true, one isn't. (Hint, the first one is wrong).
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
To have said "absolutely" suggests to me that this was the consensus view of those he questioned about it. Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this. Some of that debris may actually have been from MH370. The fact that the recovered debris was not from MH370 does not mean that *some* of the sighted debris was not from the accident!
Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this.
Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this.
Quote:
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had passed around, that the colt from Old Regret had got away".
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had got around, that the colt from Old Regret had passed away".
One or two words poorly used, change the ENTIRE meaning. (The first one is the correct one, just in case you were wondering).
What he said was a half truth that could easily have been rectified, or if he actually was fully on top of the subject, not used at all.
The other thing that irks me about this is that you see nothing wrong with describing things incorrectly...
Quote:
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.
Mate (sorry, I can't help myself), I have done many many interviews, ranging from extended segments for TV shows, to newspaper articles, to TV news interviews, to extended (>30 minute) live radio interviews. On EVERY one, I was prepared because I knew what I was talking about. People make mistakes, but a FUNDAMENTAL one like saying that 'out climbing a TS' was 'absolutely the right thing to do' is reprehensible. This is my point. If GT was in fact an expert, such a basic mistake would not have been made, no matter what 'pressure' he was under. Another example why I don't believe GT is up to the job.
One answer that GT must be very careful about giving is the "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report". For us in the aviation fraternity, that would be the correct answer most of the time, but for GT, that answer is poison. He must avoid it if he wants to continue being asked to make media appearances!
I am not convinced by those examples. There was nothing there that I would not have expected to see or hear from somebody in his position.
George Carlin, please forgive me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Copied that Snakecharma 
Good post Kharon... a small reflection on society now I guess.
FGD, I understood exactly what you said, hence my reply. Please re-read (with out bolds
).
Enough said.
Happy Landings
Good post Kharon... a small reflection on society now I guess.
FGD, I understood exactly what you said, hence my reply. Please re-read (with out bolds
).Enough said.
Happy Landings
allthecoolnamesarego:
Fabulous posting, though I'm wondering if FGD = GT.
Fabulous posting, though I'm wondering if FGD = GT.
Well said FGD. There are plenty trying to shoot you down, bit like seagulls fighting over a chip. We all know who GT is but some on here "Allthecool...etc" are almost bragging about how good they've been with the media..ok, so who are you so that we can draw a comparison or gauge your credibility, and if you're that good why aren't the media using you. Maybe GT just has that audience appeal that you don't. Doesn't matter what you say, GT is recognized by the media, in all it's forms, as an EXPERT! BTW, I'm not him either but the vitriol coming from some posters is particularly nasty. Talk about playing the man and not the ball. Old Goon heh Chocks Away? There but for the grace of god go you....mate!!!
Well said FGD. There are plenty trying to shoot you down, bit like seagulls fighting over a chip. We all know who GT is but some on here "Allthecool...etc" are almost bragging about how good they've been with the media..ok, so who are you so that we can draw a comparison or gauge your credibility, and if you're that good why aren't the media using you. Maybe GT just has that audience appeal that you don't. Doesn't matter what you say, GT is recognized by the media, in all it's forms, as an EXPERT! BTW, I'm not him either but the vitriol coming from some posters is particularly nasty. Talk about playing the man and not the ball. Old Goon heh Chocks Away? There but for the grace of god go you....mate!!!
P51D. Why don't you just stay logged in as FGD? It would save time when posting.
You seem to have similar comprehension problems to FGD.
Talk about playing the man and not the ball
If someone is a dill, then where is the problem with saying that? It is a shame when it gets a bit close to home, that we need to hide behind 'play the ball not the man'.
As for my media stuff, here is a link..... Hold one, that would give away my identity! You almost had me! I am no media Guru, but as I said previously, I always told it how it is/was, without the need to make it up on the spot.
I don't do media stuff now, because I have no need to and because the media is a whore who will use your time, expertise and effort for it's own reward. I have seen enough to know that my time could be better spent doing things I enjoy.
Coolnames
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistically 50% of the Australian voting public are ... idiots. Somebody has to cater for their needs. (insert political party of your choice at ellipse).
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 5th Jan 2015 at 23:14. Reason: Is Gibson on holidays? Don't know what made me ask that.
Note to the media: Definitions of expert and reporter?
IMO, an expert is someone who has achieved a distinction of high level professionalism in a particular area. Airline captains, senior maintenance engineers, people with degrees and senior experience in management and economics, etc.
Unfortunately, while many areas of science engineering, and economics require a high level of education and training to be an expert, safety (like education) is something that everyone thinks they are an expert in, because of their personal experience in having avoided accidents through "superb" personal driving skills (for example). In addition, attending a 2 day (no fail) short course or reading a parody of Reasons' "Swiss cheese" model, does not of itself qualify a person as an expert.
Reporters are those that report on events, interview witnesses, and relay what experts say and think. They should not pretend to be experts.
There are some excellent reporters (e.g. Matt Brown from the ABC), but there are a lot of reporters who haven't the background to understand, or can't be bothered to understand the intricacies of complex matters.
The brave new world has reporters that think they are experts because they once read a technical article, or spoke to an expert, and reporters that interview other reporters (saves on travel costs, and actually precludes needing to attend events).
Unfortunately, GT appear to have no expertise whatsoever in aviation safety, so IMO he should stick to REPORTING, not presenting judgements and opinions as an expert.
(For those with a sense of irony, I should say that I am not, however, an expert on the definitions of what constitutes either an expert or a reporter!).
The weekend Aus article by AK used most text space writing about what reporter GT thinks, with smaller comments reported from real experts, and with Nathan Safe getting only a small para quote at the end. This article is IMO a classic example of how not to write an article about aviation safety!
Oh well, maybe the media, editor of the Aus, AK and GT will read this, but probably not.
Seabreeze
Unfortunately, while many areas of science engineering, and economics require a high level of education and training to be an expert, safety (like education) is something that everyone thinks they are an expert in, because of their personal experience in having avoided accidents through "superb" personal driving skills (for example). In addition, attending a 2 day (no fail) short course or reading a parody of Reasons' "Swiss cheese" model, does not of itself qualify a person as an expert.
Reporters are those that report on events, interview witnesses, and relay what experts say and think. They should not pretend to be experts.
There are some excellent reporters (e.g. Matt Brown from the ABC), but there are a lot of reporters who haven't the background to understand, or can't be bothered to understand the intricacies of complex matters.
The brave new world has reporters that think they are experts because they once read a technical article, or spoke to an expert, and reporters that interview other reporters (saves on travel costs, and actually precludes needing to attend events).
Unfortunately, GT appear to have no expertise whatsoever in aviation safety, so IMO he should stick to REPORTING, not presenting judgements and opinions as an expert.
(For those with a sense of irony, I should say that I am not, however, an expert on the definitions of what constitutes either an expert or a reporter!).
The weekend Aus article by AK used most text space writing about what reporter GT thinks, with smaller comments reported from real experts, and with Nathan Safe getting only a small para quote at the end. This article is IMO a classic example of how not to write an article about aviation safety!
Oh well, maybe the media, editor of the Aus, AK and GT will read this, but probably not.
Seabreeze
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?
Excellent post Seabreeze but I suspect that most of the 'reporters' to whom your post would apply would take little if any notice of your comments, simply because their ego would not permit it!
I once told a reporter that it was her job to tell us what happened but it was not given to the likes of them to try to tell us what to think, or offer opinions. Just report the facts.
It didn't go down too well, judging from her facial expression!
M-dot - totally wrong, wouldn't know FGD if I fell over him, or her. I know GT and know he's very well connected right across the industry. To "Allthecool names etc" no link, don't disbelieve you, done a bit myself, but avoid it like the plague. You guys have to stop beating yourselves up over GT, he's got an ego you can't jump over but the media and public have fed him to be like that. FGD was just trying to offer a different view and was set upon with him and me being branded as dopes....really, give me and him a break!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
allthecoolnamesarego,
You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:
I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".
Perhaps if you could recognise this, you wouldn't be so bothered by his statements and appearances?
GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.
GT the TV personality is entirely the creation of the media. He is exactly how his media masters want him to be. We know this because they continue to ask him to appear.
For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second. The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.
If the above comes as a surprise to you, then you don't understand the nature of commercial media to the extent that you claim.
If GT was hit by a bus tomorrow, the media would soon find someone else, but they would sound exactly like GT. Your gripe should not be with GT, but with the producers of the TV shows frequented by GT. But if you were to complain to them, they would just say they were "giving the audience what it wanted"!
About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:
Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?
You also said:
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.
I am not GT. I have also been accused of being Geoff Dixon (former Qantas CEO) at one time!
You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:
He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...
Perhaps if you could recognise this, you wouldn't be so bothered by his statements and appearances?
GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.
GT the TV personality is entirely the creation of the media. He is exactly how his media masters want him to be. We know this because they continue to ask him to appear.
For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second. The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.
If the above comes as a surprise to you, then you don't understand the nature of commercial media to the extent that you claim.
If GT was hit by a bus tomorrow, the media would soon find someone else, but they would sound exactly like GT. Your gripe should not be with GT, but with the producers of the TV shows frequented by GT. But if you were to complain to them, they would just say they were "giving the audience what it wanted"!
About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:
He would know what was true or not ...
You also said:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
P51D, FGD135 and FoxtrotAlpha18 = GT?
If the GT haters are prepared to risk becoming physically ill, then have a read of 'NAPC Awards' in the current 'Australian Aviation' magazine..
That was quite a 'knees up'!
That was quite a 'knees up'!
FGD,
What's that old saying? Never post on the internet after a few reds... Even then, I think I can still point holes in your argument; that, plus I sense a change in tone....
FGD, The use of quotations is often a form of sarcasm or a way of saying that something isn't quite right. I certainly meant it in this manner. I don't believe for a second GT is 'one of us', so I apologise to you for the misunderstanding. I will endeavour to be clearer in the future.
I've covered this point enough I think, so will let you re read my posts on this. Facts don't know the difference between print and TV.
Maybe for shows like 'The Bachelor' or 'The Block' or 'Hey Hey a It's Saturday'. However the news is a little different. If GT was building a new kitchen in less that 3 days, perhaps I could agree.....
You know there doesn't have to be a difference between someone who "sounds like they know what they are talking about" and someone "who knows what they are talking about".
I'll let you ponder that for a while. Ask a grown up if you are having trouble with this concept.
You were almost clever for a second then, however, I remembered that the two quotes you posted there were from two DIFFERENT answers! You almost got through my 'red wine filter'.
So without being there to confirm, of course he would know that 'absolutely' was the wrong word to use.
The second part about knowing 'what was true or not', was from this exchange:
Can you see what I am saying? If you know your stuff, you don't need to make things up because he would know what is true/feasible/realistic and be able to talk about it with authority.
As an example of knowing what is true or not, He would not tell an interviewer that out climbing a TS was 'absolutely the right thing to do"
Some of us have studied things like Aerody and Physics, so I think that your claim "Nobody else in this world has that power" is a little strange. Many humans have the ability to know what is true and what is not.
As someone with a SAR background, I can categorically tell you that anything that *might* be of interest will be investigated. I can assume (feel free to have a go at me for assuming) that people with great skill in deciphering SAT images, have been sufficiently convinced that the flotsam in the photos *does not* (I can't bold but like your use of asterisk- thanks!) belong to an aircraft. Given the HIGH PROFILE of this accident, I can be doubly sure of that.
I applaud you on your persistence, and as General Melchett says: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Coolnames
What's that old saying? Never post on the internet after a few reds... Even then, I think I can still point holes in your argument; that, plus I sense a change in tone....
You and one other in this thread have let slip that you feel GT is somehow "one of us", or is "representing" us. You said:
Quote:
He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...
I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".
Quote:
He purports to speak on 'our behalf' ...
I don't see how you can say that. He is not one of us, and does not represent us. He does not speak "on our behalf".
GT the writer comes across very differently to GT the TV "aviation expert". This would be entirely due to the different constraints between these two forms of media.
For the TV appearances, you must remember that entertainment is first and foremost. Factual accuracy comes second
The TV stations just want somebody that sounds like they know what they are talking about and can explain, in everyday speak, why planes crash. GT carries this off perfectly.
I'll let you ponder that for a while. Ask a grown up if you are having trouble with this concept.
About that "wreckage" that GT described as "absolutely" coming from an aircraft. On the question of knowing whether something was true or not, you said:
Quote:
He would know what was true or not ...
Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?
Quote:
He would know what was true or not ...
Really? Nobody else in this world has that power. Why would you expect him to?
Quote:
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
The second part about knowing 'what was true or not', was from this exchange:
Quote:
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.
As an example of knowing what is true or not, He would not tell an interviewer that out climbing a TS was 'absolutely the right thing to do"
Some of us have studied things like Aerody and Physics, so I think that your claim "Nobody else in this world has that power" is a little strange. Many humans have the ability to know what is true and what is not.
An expert would be able to say 'we are unsure
You also said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.
You also said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
So they recovered ALL the debris that was seen by the satellites did they? I think you will find that only a tiny, tiny percentage was recovered.
I applaud you on your persistence, and as General Melchett says: "If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
Coolnames
Here is GT's latest effort
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...r-fly-airasia/
And normally drinking the corporate coolaid in the chairmans lounge.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...r-fly-airasia/
though, as a rule, I don't fly on low-cost airlines because the seating is too cramped for my height.
