David Simon

I’m making “claims about your knowledge” because you have claimed that there will be a technological way around this. There isn’t. 4300’ is the physical distance required for traffic separation. There is no way around it other than expanding the footprint of the runway layout at SFO. I know that because I’m a professional pilot that has operated out of the Bay Area for decades. You go on to make claims about the Bay Area’s history, economy and conservation actions that are all extremely inaccurate. Speaking someone who grew up in the SF Bay Area and is involved professionally in aviation it’s clear to me that everything you said was inaccurate or had a political-left bias. Instead of looking at things through a policial lens I’d suggest looking at the practical reality that is required due to safety regulations.

Hey FlowEndor. Nah. I said, "all of these incidents track to 47’s presidential term. I am personally viewing the FAA rules to be the typical 'blame others vs taking responsibility.'” This isn't blaming 47 for the incidents. I also know a lot about Bay Area history and don't really get why you need to make claims about my knowledge. I'm honestly going to consider this X thread closed for myself. I was making some points you don't agree with and that's OK! Ciao!

FAA banned parallel landings permanently, will be bad for SFO (max landings drop from 54>36/hr) Given the topography of SFO, we have 2 parallel runways 750’ apart. There was an accident at DCA last year, now the FAA is mandating staggered approaches :(

You said all recent incidents were due to 47s term. That is not the case at all. A staffing and capacity crisis has been developing for decades due to lack of infrastructure investment in airports and ATC. I don’t care about “Orange Man Bad” I care about safety. Decades of not training new controllers and horrible staffing issues will lead to incidents and accidents. Chalking it up to whoever is in office is idiotic.

@FlowEndor @pitdesi Not blaming anyone. FAA regs not being sensible (IMO) can coexist with decades of issues at ATC. Thanks for the POV. I’m sure it’ll get sorted!

Now you’ve gone off the deep end blaming a multi decade ATC staffing crisis on Trump. Yes, yes. Orange man bad. However there is no technology or savior for SFO the runways need to be 4300’ apart. They are 750’ apart. The only way to do that is fill in a small portion of the Bay. We get that the SF Bay Area has been absolutely infested by east coast liberals since the 1960s and it’s great you enjoy the spot. Howecer, your lack of history on the area is astounding. There have been multiple plans to fix this issue. All of them involved filling in a small portion of the Bay for a massive wetland improvement in another larger and more environmentally significant part of the Bay. All of those plans had detailed reports on the current environmental quality of the Bay in the portions that would need to be filled to expand SFOs footprint to handle simultaneous, parallel approaches in IMC.

Now we are talking. The toggle between the more rational points and the sweeping and scapegoating (“ruined”, “hobbling”, and “destroying” for example) are getting in the way for me. No one is hobbling and destroying and ruining. They advocated for their issue and won. We live in a democracy so you have every same available tool (and probably more at this point), and if there’s a better policy to be had, well I hope it works out. I am not an SF Bay environmental expert. The claim about some polluted wetlands seems like another fallacy to me though. The one where the circular reasoning comes in. Just because we polluted the Bay before doesn’t mean we should continue polluting it? I also, and obviously, care about a thriving economy (and we have one), so for me that part isn’t really resonating in your argument. Expanding SFO’s capacity (pre-FAA rule) would have had to come from other innovations. In terms of the overall air safety underpinning the rule: all of these incidents track to 47’s presidential term. I am personally viewing the FAA rules to be the typical “blame others vs taking responsibility.”

@ResisttheMS 🔫 Nice

ELON MUSK: "If you use a gun emoji on X, Apple forces it to be a squirt gun. Then the X app turns it back into a 1911. Yes, you can actually have a 1911. We reverted Apple's change inside the app."

レバーアクションライフルを錆び錆びのピックアップに載せて荒野を駆け巡りたい

You only quoted part of what I said. Making it seem like I said that conservationist screwed over the entire Bay Area. That is not true but with SFO arrivals down to 30 flights an hour from 60 at all times the Bay Area no longer has a meaningful international airport. You then go on to say that somehow hobbling the airport which is a major hub for United Airlines and serves many others is worth it to protect a small amount of polluted mudflats in order to halt the east-west runways from being the required distance from each other to operate simultaneous approaches. Airports are a critical infrastructure for a flourishing economy and growth for the SF Bay Area and California. Conservationists have now succeeded in reducing SFOs capacity by 1/2. This will have a tremendous economic impact on the entire region. Many will lose their jobs. There are many solutions that could be implemented to allow SFO to expand and improve the environment. Areas that are salt ponds could be restored to wetlands and traded at a 10:1 ratio to allow SFO to use a small amount of fill to meet the minimum distance between runways and allow the normal arrival traffic for the airport. But this is all prevented by law. A law put in place by conservationists. Specifically Save the Bay. If you think that destroying the economy of an entire region is worth a few acres of polluted mudflats that’s your view. But this entire issue could have been solved with a compromise. One that could have restored much more wetlands and actually had a meaningful positive impact on the environment. Rather than a law that conservationists knew would render SFO all but useless as an international gateway and forever trap it as a small domestic satellite airport. The impact from this law will have a massive negative economic effect on the entire area.

No I literally was quoting you? You said, “Conservationists screwed over the entire Bay Area from a real useful international airport.” 1) You don’t think SFO is a real and useful international airport? 2) What are some environmentally sound ideas for expanding it, IYO? My view is that we have a flourishing Bay Area thanks to, not in spite of, the kind of policies and regulations that have kept our natural splendor in tact. This isn’t a political statement, I am all for amazing and accelerating innovation, and abundance. It’s also OK if there are inherent limits on human activity and infrastructure in order to preserve the actual natural habitat of such an important watershed. The FAA ruling seems flawed to me. And hopefully the aviation tech will keep advancing so the infrastructure needed overall can become more compact and it would turn out that SFO had it right the whole time 😊 . That would be real innovation IMO. Finally: not sure how you’re defining ad-hominem. I haven’t attacked you or your character, but if you feel attacked just let me know.

@emiliecole @pitdesi You’re paraphrasing that I was insinuating that “conservationists screwed over the entire Bay Area.” You even put it in quotation marks. I never said that. It’s completely inaccurate and disingenuous. AKA a logical fallacy and a personal attack.

@FlowEndor @pitdesi I didn't use any logical fallacies (and I definitely didn't employ an ad-hominem attack). The SF Bay can only handle so much human activity. Please let me know if that's coming across as negative somehow.

@emiliecole @pitdesi If you want to talk about the red herring logic fallacy you’ve aptly demonstrated it here. I never said that so you can add in ad hominem as well. Most would acknowledge that running the only international airport in the region into the ground isn’t a great idea but you do you.

"Conservationists screwed over the entire Bay Area." 🤔 This kind of statement is riddled with fallacy. "The Conservationists" didn't do anything except probably call out the reality of The Bay. But the Bay Area as a whole decided (and still does) to maintain a healthy balance between nature with human activity. What I hear you saying is that the nature of the Bay Area can't handle more than the current performance of SFO (which we're all agreeing is not as performant as less-limited geographies when it comes to air travel). So there we have it. The Bay can only handle so much air traffic or else The Bay experiences natural ecosystem and habitat loss that we've decided isn't worth it. It's really just the same as the old adage: you can't put 10 pounds of sand in a 5-pound bag, right? While it's a bummer and all, and folks are welcome to live in places where the airports can handle more traffic, it doesn't seem necessary to blame anyone. It's just...sort of the way The Bay exists on the face of the Earth that's the reality of it all.

@genesisyepez20 @pitdesi Growth has been limited since the 1980s. By conservationists. SFO just lost the waiver to allow parallel approaches in VFR conditions. As a professional pilot I can tell you that waiver was only delaying the inevitable.

@FlowEndor @pitdesi Interesting trade-off—less delay risk but limits future growth.

@emiliecole @pitdesi No. Conservationists screwed over the entire Bay Area from a real useful international airport. Anyone that’s waited hours for their flight to depart late knows not to use SFO during the summer. When it’s foggy. In San Francisco 🤣 Now it’s like that all the time.

@FlowEndor @pitdesi Yeah I know. If we generally liked SFO before this FAA ruling, then the balance of everything was there and was just fine. The Bay isn't The Bay without the bay, so we work through it.

Red herring? Every airport that does simultaneous approaches requires a certain width between runways. SFO doesn’t have it. SFO can only run simultaneous approaches when the ceiling is above 1800’. It was mandated by law that this mandatory width can never be achieved and that was put in place by conservationists. All facts my dude.

@FlowEndor @pitdesi This is a red herring. SFO's decades-long history shows that environmental protection and effective air travel can coexist. It's the new FAA mandate that's wrong.

@unlimited_ls What a fuckin Karen. Don’t try and enforce the law. You’re not law enforcement. Call the cops if you wish.

🚨NEW: Video shows how the fight started between Alan Ritchson and his neighbor The neighbor stepped directly in front of the bike, causing Ritchson to flip over the handlebars The neighbor previously said he told the actor to “slow it down.” "I did push him because he was coming towards me on his, on his bike." "He did it again for a second time. I pushed him a second time, and I think the second time he got off his bike and kicked the crap outta me." 1ST Video/ TMZ

@TylerSCrypto That’s a pretty good squiggle

bitcoin analysts making 6 figures a month from their paid groups be like:

@Martyupnorth @WeaponOutfitter I was up at FAI on a layover. It was soooo cold. Hard to describe.

A stupid Canadian general wanted to show the Americans how tough our soldiers are, and ordered them to stay out on exercise during dangerously cold weather. The Americans went home. It cost dozens of our guys fingers and toes. But that's not the worse part. The army tried to keep this secret, and under-reported the severity of the injuries. This story is not over.

@TylerSCrypto @ErikUnchained Obv… duh 🙄

@ErikUnchained is this real

Don’t try this at home. 🤣

@WatcherGuru How is this possible?

JUST IN: Trader accidentally swaps $50 million $USDT for $36,000 $AAVE on Ethereum.

@Freedom_By_40 Appreciate you! 🙌

This is going to be a rough time for me on this App but I am determined to still publish my analysis. Problem is people that want me to be blindly insanely bullish from this zone will not like that I am still going to be cautious on the way up until key upside levels are taken because we did break high time frame structure (74K). Bearish boys will not like that I am saying there is still a decent chance we rocket out of here to new highs. There will be zero engagement from either side for being rational and level headed so please do engage (like, comment, RT) with my posts if you appreciate my analysis and would like to still see my thoughts. I love you, all thank you.

@vancemurphy @GovBobFerguson Probably less than 5 years

@GovBobFerguson I’ll wager a thousand dollars that poor people won’t get richer, and everyone will have an income tax in 5 years.

The Millionaires’ Tax passed by the House represents historic progress in rebalancing our unfair system. It sends significant dollars back to Washington families and small businesses. It expands the Working Families Tax Credit to 460,000 additional households – that’s money straight back into the pockets of working families. It saves working parents money and ensures our kids are prepared to learn by funding free breakfast and lunch for all Washington K-12 students, which has been a priority of mine since I ran for governor. The Millionaires’ Tax will apply to less than one half of one percent of Washingtonians, but make life more affordable for millions. I look forward to signing it.

@RaoulGMI @nikitabier Yes

Has anyone's else's mobile experience switched to light mode with no ability to change it back? @nikitabier