FUD at Flight Options

[B19 Flyer]

Looks like B19 doesn't like to face reality...

I work non-union.

All I face is reality because nobody speaks for me.

 

[B19 Flyer]

Well, enjoy your lunch. I gotta go.

I guess I'll just have to concede that my 11 years in this industry count for nothing. And your, uh, how many years in the FRACTIONAL industry?, trump mine and everyone else's.

By the way, part 119 may have changed 135, but did it make it more lenient? Because that's what the FAA has done this time around. Now why would they do that? Seems that might be compromising safety in the charter world.

In fact, considering that this whole conversation is centered around the FAA's concern for the FRACTIONALS, and the SAFETY and STANDARDIZATION of the FRACTIONALS (according to you), I'm wondering why the FAA dragged part 135 into it at all? What did charter rules have to do with 91K and fractional operations?

Still trying to say it was all about safety, and wasn't a politically motivated thing?

Okay, you live in your world, I'll live in mine (you know, the one that addresses the real questions head-on).

Heading out to try and make the fractional world just a little bit safer for the next week.:beer:

You do understand that eligible on-demand
is only authorized by an operations specification and isn't blanket converage to a 135 carrier, right? There are experience and specific procedure requirments that go with the paragraph.

Clueless.... just clueless.....

 

[WabiSabi]

You stated there was no cost for safety.

I listed one specific item that is very expensive to implement.

Enough said.

Only a clueless individual would say there was no cost for safety.

Now that is just stupid. You're merely attempting a straw man argument to bolster your idiotic claims. Show me where I stated that there was no cost to safety. I pointed out how FLOPS management determined that the cost of safety was too high so they shortened the circadian low period for their convenience. Again, please, show me where I said that there was no cost to safety. I'll help you. You won't find it. What I said was;

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

(I added the underline just now) Then I said;

Safety does not incorporate cost structure, it is the other way around.

hmmm BOB, it looks like I did acknowledge that there's a cost to safety.....not that it has anything to do with the context of the discussion which is the contribution of safety by unions. I have debunked your argument by showing you how the IBT is well ahead of the safety department at FLOPS. Again, I'm not surprised that you cannot respond intelligently.

You are either doing a lame job of altering context to bolster your contentions or you have a severe reading comprehension problem.....probably both.

Enough said.

Yes SCAB, I agree with you here. You have babbled more than enough.

 

[Fozzy]

You didn't read the article you posted, did you?


No, American's management is jeopardizing the much-needed and valued ASAP program by using those reports for disciplinary action. You can't encourage self-disclosure of safety problems if you're going to discipline them for the content of those reports.

Thank you CA!
What Bob does not understand is there would/will never ever be an ASAP, or a NASA reporting system if the pilots can get disciplined for the reports. He like most management pukes think safety, learning from mistakes, etc, can be equated to the bottom line.
He thinks the Union should bow to management. Folks that don't even fly for a living, just sitting behind a desk screwing up day in a day out. And what is the worse thing they can screw up. Oh ya the bottom line. But now they are messing with safety. Management is the ones in this situation that is using ASAP as a tool in upcoming negotiations.

............and safety be damned. Fools

 

[400pilot]

You do understand that eligible on-demand
is only authorized by an operations specification and isn't blanket converage to a 135 carrier, right? There are experience and specific procedure requirments that go with the paragraph.

Clueless.... just clueless.....

Yeah....that's common knowledge and doesn't address his point. In other words, so what?

 

[fischman]

I work non-union.

All I face is reality because nobody speaks for me.

The only time you "face" reality is when you are sitting on the other side of a negotiating table with a Union rep.

You are DELUSIONAL and in serious need of therapy and/or medication.

 

[*#$% Headwinds]

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

 

[B19 Flyer]

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

Why would you think "up is down" when I place the specific language in a post?

The 91K NPRM stated safety was one of the 3 items.

The news article stated that the American program was successful and used by 98% of the carriers. The union wants to move away from a proven successful program.

And you've got to be kidding me to think that safety isn't part of an air carrier cost structure.

What is not right about any of these 3 items?

 

[B19 Flyer]

Pria

This thread is out of control. You've got one guy saying "It's the victim who's responsible for the rape!" And a hundred people yelling at him for being a moron. It really is amusing.

I wonder if B19 isn't some dork who thinks it's funny to insist that "up is down" and then watch everybody get their panties in a wad.

This thread started because a memo was put out to let pilots know about changes to the PRIA process.

I still don't understand why informing pilots about these changes would cause an issue, and I understand even less as to why ANY pilot would not want to know about the FAA issuing an interpretation that could affect a pilots career.

 

[400pilot]

The 91K NPRM stated safety was one of the 3 items.

So? You are either ignoring or completely missing his point.

The news article stated that the American program was successful and used by 98% of the carriers.

Specifically, it stated:

"Remember that 98 percent of the ASAP programs in the industry are almost identical to our program with our pilots," Nolen said.

"Almost identical"....other ASAP programs, including ours at Options, does not discipline pilots at all from any ASAP report as long as the act was not intentional.

The union wants to move away from a proven successful program.

No they don't. This is a flat out lie. They want to continue to use the ASAP program, but they don't want pilots disciplined if they file a report. That article clearly states that.

And you've got to be kidding me to think that safety isn't part of an air carrier cost structure.

Once again, you are ignoring or missing the point. For all of the large operators, we already had all of those "safety" procedures and positions, if not more, filled. There was no added cost at the change. As far as added cost from rest, we all already had that in place as well. Same cost structure.......that was the argument. Also, the rest of the industry is irrelevant. None of us were talking about the rest of the industry when you tried to create a straw man by saying everything prior to 2005 was irrelevant.