I pulled this complete text from The Hill website as I couldn't get the link to work.

T***sportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg heavily criticized a recent lawsuit by major airlines over a new rule that requires airline companies to reveal extra fees on purchases.

“We just issued a rule requiring airlines to inform you, before you buy a ticket, of fees they will charge you,” Buttigieg said Tuesday in a post on the social platform X. “Now, the airline lobby is suing us, saying that if you have the right to that information it will ‘confuse’ you. For once, I am speechless.”

The lawsuit was filed last Friday by trade group Airlines for America, as well as Delta Air Lines, American Airlines, United Airlines, JetBlue Airways Corp., Hawaiian Airlines, and Alaska Airlines. In a statement, Airlines for America said the rule “will greatly confuse consumers who will be inundated with information that will only serve to complicate the buying process.”

“Airlines go to great lengths to make their customers knowledgeable about these fees. In addition to the disclosures required by existing DOT (Department of T***sportation) regulations, airlines engage in competitive advertising and emphasize ancillary fee discounts and benefits when they promote their loyalty programs,” the group wrote.

The Department of T***sportation said in a statement to The Hill that they “will vigorously defend our rule protecting people from hidden junk fees and ensuring travelers can see the full price of a flight before they purchase a ticket.”

“Many air travelers will be disappointed to learn that the airline lobby is suing to stop these common-sense protections,” the statement continues.

The Biden administration finalized the rule late last month, with Buttigieg saying in a statement at the time that “airlines should compete with one another to secure passengers’ business — not to see who can charge the most in surprise fees.”

“DOT’s new rule will save passengers over half a billion dollars a year in unnecessary or unexpected fees by holding airlines accountable for being t***sparent with their customers,” he continued.

The Hill has reached out to Airlines for America for comment.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

The Air Force expects to keep using the B-52 until 2060. It began life as the B-52A - the test model - and gradually worked its way up to the current B-52J. Of the 744 that have been built, only 76 remain, but only 59% of them are mission-capable. The planes have always been stored outside, so they have experienced corrosion because of the weather. Many of the original suppliers have gone out of business, so getting parts is sometimes impossible. Without a successful upgrade of the existing planes, waging a successful war would be difficult. They will be getting new, reliable, economical Rolls-Royce engines.

What surprises me is that after sixty years, they haven't ordered a new large bomber. Going from 744 to 76, with only 44 of them usable, seems to be relying more on luck than on technology. There is also some doubt that the remaining fleet will get through the upgrade successfully. That will leave us without a replacement, but we won't know that for several years.

Assuming the upgrades are successful, the upgraded B-52H will have to be preceded in operations by the stealthy B-21 which will, hopefully, take out radar and anti-aircraft weapons. The upgraded B-5J will be fighting in the future, where there will be better radar and better air defense weapons. It faces a difficult future.

Lots of info -

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=b-52+upgrades

What I think (and it really matters little) is that although some states were allowed to summarily change ruled under the guise of C***d, vehicles like paid b****t harvesters were more widely employed (not illegal and part of the democrat’s very effective ground game that they will be more effective than republicans in 2024 as well) and there was some fraud identified but the courts clearly found that any fraud was not enough to change the results of any e******n. I do believe that the media (most main stream print and televised) as well as social media quashed stories or information (such as H****r’s laptop) that could have changed razor thin margins but I obviously have no way to quantify that. I believe that certain conservative PACS were prevented from social media sites preventing solicitations because they were deemed to spread unsafe C***d information or alleged h**e speech but again there is no way I could quantify the effect of such disruptions so I live with the results of the e******n without protest.