From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: So Much Written... So Little Said
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2025 15:19:46 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-08-16 13:58, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 21:14:55 -0700, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-08-15 20:07, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 18:45:06 -0700, Alan says...
>>>
>>>>> Pretty sure I never said they "owned" their aircraft, saying
>>>>> they FLEW aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> Nope!
>>>>
>>>> 'Well, for one, they're down a cool $125 million after
>>>> acquiring Blade Air Mobility's US air taxi business, which HAS
>>>> helicopters'
>>>
>>> They do.
>>>
>>> STILL never said they OWNED them, semantics slime-ball.
>>>
>>> Show us where I said they "OWNED" the helicopters they use.
>>>
>>> "Do you have a car?"
>>>
>>> "Yes, but it's a lease."
>>>
>>> "So... you DON'T have a car."
>>>
>>> Just because they don't OWN them, doesn't mean they don't HAVE
>>> them where they operate from.
>>>
>>> STILL never said they OWNED them.
>>>
>>> Are you REALLY stupid enough to think they lease a helicopter
>>> for EACH flight?
>>
>> That is exactly what they do, Loser.
>
> No cite means it's a lie.
I'll remember that for all the times you don't cite (which is basically
always).
But I'll cite it again:
'Blade, founded in 2014, doesnât own a fleet of aircraft. Instead, the
company has developed a digital network that allows passengers to book
private rides on helicopters across several short-hop routes. '
<https://techcrunch.com/2025/08/04/joby-aviation-to-buy-blade-air-mobilitys-ride-share-business/>
'Blade Air Mobility was founded in 2014, but does not actually have its
own vehicle fleet. Instead, the company focuses on more of a ride-share
concept, where users can utilise a digital network to book private rides
on helicopters across short routes.'
<https://www.electrive.com/2025/08/05/joby-aviation-to-take-over-blade-air-mobility/>
And if those aren't enough for you, here is Blade's own investor
presentation:
'Blade does not own or operate aircraft
Instead, Blade buys aircraft time by-the-hour, paying only for flights
completed(1). Blade pays a fixed, all-inclusive rate which covers all
costs associated with flights, including aircraft, fuel(2), insurance,
pilots and maintenance'
<https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_713b75def29a3567aa3930079f21b851/blade/db/1311/11963/pdf/2022.11+BLADE+-+Investor+Presentation+vF-1.pdf>
>
> So... the helicopters stay outside the lessor's office until Blade
> needs them?
I don't know. But then understanding the logistics of their business is
not my job.
'Blade does not own or operate aircraft'
>
> So... the people wanting to be transported to say, JFK, need to pay
> Blade and walk or drive over to the lessor's heliports?
>
> Hmmm... probably not.
>
> If you can prove that Blade leases these helicopters, but does not
> keep the helicopters out side of THEIR designated heliport, well,
> we'll go from there.
Blade doesn't LEASE helicopters.
They have deals with other companies that operate helicopters and sell
services to Blade:
'Instead, Blade buys aircraft time by-the-hour, paying only for flights
completed(1). Blade pays a fixed, all-inclusive rate which covers all
costs associated with flights, including aircraft, fuel(2), insurance,
pilots and maintenance'
>
> In the meantime... Blade HAS helicopters to lease and "rent" and fly
> customers with.
No. Blade HAS no helicopters at all.
>
> LOL
>
> No, they may PAY for each flight but keep the helicopters where they
> can easily use them.
Again, the logistics aren't publicized.
>
> If you have proof that isn't the case...
'Instead, Blade buys aircraft time by-the-hour, paying only for flights
completed(1). Blade pays a fixed, all-inclusive rate which covers all
costs associated with flights, including aircraft, fuel(2), insurance,
pilots and maintenance'
>
> Anyway, it's still bullshit liberal faggot semantics.
So even if you're wrong, it doesn't count, huh?
>
> AND, faggot... *I* never said they owned them, so it's also a non-
> sequitur.
>
> I know that's not a "bad" word to you, so I'll say what you're
> doing... trying anything to get a win, because you need to win. I
> guess the chip you have on your shoulder is/was too large for a
> psychologist to remove after you had something bad happen?
>
> Are you trying to prove it to yourself, or someone else, dearly
> departed?
>
> Get help.
>
>> I've already provided the links that show precisely that.
>
> I'm providing some links too.
>
<snip>
>
> WHY did you bring up Joby, when Joby was NOT the topic, and has
> exactly NOTHING to do with HEAVY electric airliners, such as the one
> in the image?
I brought it up because it shows how wrong you are.