FUD at Flight Options

[400pilot]

It IS a different cost structure, and NJ is not the only fractional in the industry. Which part of it are YOU not getting?

This is good......you have zero knowledge about what you speak.

If you are so sure and know so much about this then why don't you answer the questions from my previous post. Here they are so you don't have to look...

Answer these questions....

The fractional industry did not begin with it's current cost structure until February of 2005.

Specifically, what is the difference between the cost structure prior to 02/2005 and today?

If your answer is additional cost of being regulated, then my next question in response to...

Thus, any profits that were made did not take into account the additional cost of being regulated;

Specifically, what additional costs(line items and amounts) are being incurred now that were not being incurred prior to 02/2005?

Also, which regulatory changes have resulted in higher expenses to these companies?

It's not all about NJ, if it was, let's just combine all of them and be done with it.

We were talking about NJ success with their union, to which you responded by trying to say that their success is not relevant due to change in cost structure of the industry. You are trying to deflect the issue by creating an issue (industry change.)

Reading these posts have me convinced that you are not BT. Even he isn't this ignorant about his own industry....

 

[realityman]

B19, you are the one who is cherry-picking from the articles you post, not me. Again, read the WHOLE summary.

Now answer my question: If it was all about safety, why did they modify some of the 135 rules to be more in line with 91K? What, the charter operators were TOO safe? Certain restrictions they had, which could be easily argued to enhance safety, were lifted, such as the need for weather reporting at the destination airport.

So, why change the 135 rules while working on 91K?

The answer is what I've said three freaking times now! It was NEVER about safety! You have yet to post ANY statistics showing that prior to 91K the fracs had a problem with safety. The best you can come up with is "it was a free for all", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

It's not rocket science. Research old articles of AIN about the time certain people were calling for more oversight and regulation of the frac industry. Google the name Mark Fruchter. It really won't take you long to see that no one had a problem with the safety culture in the frac world, but a lot of people had a big problem with a perceived inequity of operating rules for fracs vs charter ops. That's why 91K moved the fracs closer to charter restrictions and the new 135 rules moved the charter outfits closer to frac rules.

As I said, the FAA couldn't go shouting to everyone that the new regs were because the charter ops didn't like the 'inequity' between the businesses. So what other reason was there for them to use that would pass muster except for making it about safety?

By the way, I'm not saying some good, and yes, safer things have come from 91K. Prospective rest rules would be a major improvement we can all be glad for. Whatever the reason 91K started, it certainly wasn't all bad.

But make no mistake, there was no NEED to improve safety at the fracs. They were, and still are, the safest mode of transport in the aviation industry.

 

[bchjetdrvr]

B 1.9" Said:
Frac was a free for all that needed to be reigned in.

What was that Bob? Can't hear you....what did you say needed to be reigned in?????? A frac you say.



I thought Fracs didn't exist until 2005?

 

[learflyer]

So......did he ever say he wasn't Bob Tyler? I'm a former Flopster (6 yrs). Don't let him get to you. go to his office in cgf and see if he's posting this $hit.

 

[B19 Flyer]

So......did he ever say he wasn't Bob Tyler? I'm a former Flopster (6 yrs). Don't let him get to you. go to his office in cgf and see if he's posting this $hit.

First, the only "$h*t" I see are those that are totally clueless about how an air carrier operates, which is pretty much every union supporter on this page. They take the facts and skew them, no matter how much evidence they are given.

I've given up trying to explain that I haven't any connection to FLOPS, my only interest in this board is because I can't believe how little these folks know about unions and air carrier operation. I guess if you can fly an airplane it means you are an expert on the financial workings behind it.

I'm not Bob Tyler, and I'll tell you something. If he has to deal with these types of personalities in negotiations, I feel really bad for him and all the other employees at the company. It's going to get much worse before it gets better, and those that voted the union in are going to get exactly what they asked for, and those that opposed it might as well find another job because they are up against years and years of discontent.

I've been there and lived it, and I didn't find any peace until I found a company that was non-union. Bob, whoever you are, you have my sympathies.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Clueless...

B19, you are the one who is cherry-picking from the articles you post, not me. Again, read the WHOLE summary.

Now answer my question: If it was all about safety, why did they modify some of the 135 rules to be more in line with 91K? What, the charter operators were TOO safe? Certain restrictions they had, which could be easily argued to enhance safety, were lifted, such as the need for weather reporting at the destination airport.

So, why change the 135 rules while working on 91K?

The answer is what I've said three freaking times now! It was NEVER about safety! You have yet to post ANY statistics showing that prior to 91K the fracs had a problem with safety. The best you can come up with is "it was a free for all", whatever the heck that was supposed to mean.

It's not rocket science. Research old articles of AIN about the time certain people were calling for more oversight and regulation of the frac industry. Google the name Mark Fruchter. It really won't take you long to see that no one had a problem with the safety culture in the frac world, but a lot of people had a big problem with a perceived inequity of operating rules for fracs vs charter ops. That's why 91K moved the fracs closer to charter restrictions and the new 135 rules moved the charter outfits closer to frac rules.

As I said, the FAA couldn't go shouting to everyone that the new regs were because the charter ops didn't like the 'inequity' between the businesses. So what other reason was there for them to use that would pass muster except for making it about safety?

By the way, I'm not saying some good, and yes, safer things have come from 91K. Prospective rest rules would be a major improvement we can all be glad for. Whatever the reason 91K started, it certainly wasn't all bad.

But make no mistake, there was no NEED to improve safety at the fracs. They were, and still are, the safest mode of transport in the aviation industry.

You don't have a clue, do you?

I'm using facts, you are using opinion.

3 items highlighted by the FAA in the official NPRM summary.

One of those three was safety.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You're clueless and you gotta stop sniffing that union glue.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Thanks.. I wanted a copy of that picture.. It's the first quality thing I've seen you post!

:beer:

 

[1po'dpilot]

Bob/B19/Scab

Youre well past your self imposed 10 minute allotment on these boards for today. In fact I think youve used it up for the next 2 weeks. While youre still here though how about responding to the moderator who called you out for what you are? Everyone here knows youre a scab and a snake might as well fess up.

 

[Fozzy]

I don't see the union helping here, I see the union doing exactly what I said many posts ago, allow pilots that have failed to be forgiven, even when the pilot has clearly done wrong.
Are unions helping here? I think not. (but somebody will counter with an arguement, because every piece of documentation I post gets twisted...)

Are you actually arguing that the ASAP program is a bad thing!!?!!
I guess we should submarine the NASA report also.

You are truly a management tool, among other things.

 

[Hobbes]

First, the only "$h*t" I see are those that are totally clueless about how an air carrier operates, which is pretty much every union supporter on this page. They take the facts and skew them, no matter how much evidence they are given. We don't claim to know about air carriers (if by air carrier you mean part 121 operators) We are not the ones posting on a board about a different segment of the aviation industry from the one we work within. We are posting about OUR industry, the one we work in EVERY DAY...you should try focusing on yours. (although we all think you already are...)

I've given up trying to explain that I haven't any connection to FLOPS, my only interest in this board is because I can't believe how little these folks know about unions and air carrier operation. I guess if you can fly an airplane it means you are an expert on the financial workings behind it. You have a connection to Flops...if not by anything else than you choose to post almost exclusively on Flops threads than those related to the industry you supposedly work in.

I'm not Bob Tyler, and I'll tell you something. If he has to deal with these types of personalities in negotiations, I feel really bad for him and all the other employees at the company. It's going to get much worse before it gets better, and those that voted the union in are going to get exactly what they asked for, and those that opposed it might as well find another job because they are up against years and years of discontent. That is right, the ones that voted the union in, ARE going to get exactly what they asked for...industry standard pay (or better), better (that means SAFER) work rules, and the security of a contract (the same security those questionable managers enjoy.) The years and years of discontent will only come at the hands of mgmt...not other pilots.

I've been there and lived it, and I didn't find any peace until I found a company that was non-union. Bob, whoever you are, you have my sympathies. Bob is a S C A B, he gave up his right to sympathy a long time ago.

My comments are in black, B19's are in red for the koolaid!

 

[WabiSabi]

Babble, did you know pass "Safety 101" in college?

The only one that is babbling is you, because it's crystal clear you don't have a clue about SMS or true safety culture.

You have a lot to learn about safety culture, but that isn't going to happen because your union speaks for you and you only learn what you are told.

Don't go telling me about how all of safety is based on what the union does..... that just continues to show how little you understand and the continued babble about things that you don't understand about aviation and the cost structure behind each and every flight.

What's wrong BOB the SCAB, did I touch a nerve???

All of your other drivel is more than enough to show your severe lack of understanding. Now, your statement here is truly telling of your IGNORANCE.
Safety has absolutely nothing to do with cost structure you moron. Safety does not incorporate cost structure, it is the other way around. I don't know where you bought your degree but, don't 101 me you idiot. This applies to any business or discipline with a safety sensitive element. If you're indeed a pilot at all, you need a 609 ride. For that matter, it is likely that 1-800-BIG-RIGS would reject you.

I'll give you one thing....your consistency......that is, your consistency to ignore the facts (i.e.. the safety contributions of unions (which has repeatedly been shown to you and that you have yet to refute with anything other than "because I said so")). Instead, your filter out simple logic in a lame brained attempt to support your abject nonsense.

Nope, you cannot expect to use my words and turn it against me. In this thread and ones like it, you have an exclusive claim to babbling.

 

[realityman]

You don't have a clue, do you?

I'm using facts, you are using opinion.

3 items highlighted by the FAA in the official NPRM summary.

One of those three was safety.

What is so hard to understand about that?

You're clueless and you gotta stop sniffing that union glue.

You haven't provided one single fact yet. All you've put up is a little snippet from a government publication, one that helps make my point.

I know you're full of it because you also cherry pick what parts of a post you choose to respond to. So how about it?
Answer a couple questions: If it was all about safety in the frac world, why change 135 rules also? And why change them to be more lenient?
You keep claiming the fracs were out of control, or some such nonsense. So what the heck did the 135 operators have to do with the fracs?

There's only one answer and you CAN'T give it because it'd undermine your whole argument. So naturally you'll keep going on and on about some made-up safety problems the fracs had prior to 91K.

Government reasoning for doing things is suspect. The cold hard facts I'll accept from you would be for you to post some accident/incident statistics showing how unsafe the fracs were prior to 91K.

I do get a laugh out of how you think every faucet of a discussion is a union function. Yes, it's true. As I sit here discussing the origins of 91K I'm being told what to write by my union.:laugh: You really are proving to be quite a dunce.

By the way, your sarcastic assessment about pilots and business further demonstrates your blind ignorance towards individuals simply because they choose to be pilots and in a union. We have MANY pilots at NJA with advanced business degrees who understand business workings just fine. Just because they chose to be pilots instead of businessmen doesn't mean they don't understand. It's very possible that we pilots DO understand this stuff just fine, and therefore know how full of crap you are.

With every post you make you demonstrate how little you truly know about the fractionals.

I'll put down my tube of glue if you put down the crack pipe.

By the way, if you're tired of arguing with 'people who just don't get it' feel free to go to some other section of flight info.

 

[B19 Flyer]

You haven't provided one single fact yet. All you've put up is a little snippet from a government publication, one that helps make my point.

I know you're full of it because you also cherry pick what parts of a post you choose to respond to. So how about it?
Answer a couple questions: If it was all about safety in the frac world, why change 135 rules also? And why change them to be more lenient?
You keep claiming the fracs were out of control, or some such nonsense. So what the heck did the 135 operators have to do with the fracs?

There's only one answer and you CAN'T give it because it'd undermine your whole argument. So naturally you'll keep going on and on about some made-up safety problems the fracs had prior to 91K.

Government reasoning for doing things is suspect. The cold hard facts I'll accept from you would be for you to post some accident/incident statistics showing how unsafe the fracs were prior to 91K.

I do get a laugh out of how you think every faucet of a discussion is a union function. Yes, it's true. As I sit here discussing the origins of 91K I'm being told what to write by my union.:laugh: You really are proving to be quite a dunce.

By the way, your sarcastic assessment about pilots and business further demonstrates your blind ignorance towards individuals simply because they choose to be pilots and in a union. We have MANY pilots at NJA with advanced business degrees who understand business workings just fine. Just because they chose to be pilots instead of businessmen doesn't mean they don't understand. It's very possible that we pilots DO understand this stuff just fine, and therefore know how full of crap you are.

With every post you make you demonstrate how little you truly know about the fractionals.

I'll put down my tube of glue if you put down the crack pipe.

By the way, if you're tired of arguing with 'people who just don't get it' feel free to go to some other section of flight info.

You don't understand the industry, how it got there or what it takes to manage it.

You're clueless.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Safety has absolutely nothing to do with cost structure you moron.

Implementing rest rules in February 2005.

No cost for safety?

Clueless, totally clueless.

 

[B19 Flyer]

My comments are in black, B19's are in red for the koolaid!

Clueless, totally clueless...