1) Missed the employee question. I am not an employee of FL, nor do I personally know any employees of FL.

2) It WAS a little wisp of smoke, as it was one switch that shorted out. For a similar effect, find a cigarette lighter, leave it lit for 5 seconds, turn it off and look at the smoke that comes from it. That was just about the extent of what happened.

3) 956 was NOT FL's fault. I'm not saying it is okay for it to happen, but AirTran didn't cause it, it was a darn CURLING IRON. It could have happened on any airline, as most of them didn't have the fire suppression systems on 100% of their fleet at that point.

4) I have said that VJet WAS unsafe. AirTran is safe now. End of story discussing VJet as we agree on that point, if you want to debate more on post-merger AirTran I'd be happy to.

>>I'm not doubting that they're safer today. A newer fleet, even with incompetent maintenance, will always be safer than an older fleet with the same maintenance. It's ridiculous to think that AirTran is as safe as other major airlines or to try to compare countless AirTran incidents with a major airline incident. AirTran has more fire crashes and emergency landings than airlines with 10x the number of planes. <<

Your last statement is bogus. DL and its wholly owned subsidiaries had about 50 emergency landings in 2000 alone.

And so far you never replied to my argument that there haven't been any fires or emergency landings on FL aircraft(Not including weather diversions or 9/11 diversions, of course) in almost two years(2001 and 2002 have been perfect). After they went through all the DC9 wiring and replaced anything that was wrong, there haven't been any more emergency landings.

I think that you are the blind one. Stuck in the past, not thinking about the future. Watching too much american news, need to watch/read more international news media for a full view.