Is this forum the reason pilots are getting paid less?

[pilotyip]

no college degree required at Burger King

 

[rumpletumbler]

your supposed to say "Boiga Kang" to be pc with the folks in Jersey.

 

[FN FAL]

While morality is religion based, I don't think it is so much to ask.

So, you're saying that if a guy isn't religious, it's moral to be a child molester or are you saying that if it's for religious reasons, it's ok for a Muslim to behead a Jew or Christian?

I'm not following you here Jeeves.

 

[El Ocho]

Not at all. I'ts too big and complex an issue to boil down to a few sentences and of course the market forces play a primary role. However, in the narrow context of my statement, it cannot be denied that the pilot groups are being played off against each other with increasing regularity. It is a tactic as old as labor, but it is accelerating because due to other influences (such as pricing pressure) it has become a more effective tactic.

Problem is: ABC airlines, for example, is told to take a pay cuts or the jets go to XYZ. ABC buckles, then despises XYZ for undercutting when it was the management who pitted the groups against each other in the first place.

As long as the separate pilot groups are fighting amongst themselves, they will be holding their own way of life down. I am not dreaming of $250/hr to fly an Embraer, but I see QOL declining in response to management's actions. It will not be until the pilot groups are working together that the teeth of the whipsaw will be blunted. I realize I am living in a perfect world here, but when I witness the angst between the groups I cannot help but grind my teeth in frustration that management so effectively plays us off against one another and we direct our anger inward instead of taking concerted action to hold against the real adversary.

It's not Mesa's fault; it's all of ours for being blind to the real threat.

Agreed! Except, the problem is not too big and complex to be resolved.

Pilots not the problem. Actually together, they are the solution.

Willingness to accept lower wages is a chronic and inevitable symptom, not the problem.

The follow on statement is how do we remedy this problem. Solution remains what it always has been. The F'n union. Hate it or love it, it is the only solution to our problems. And now more than ever, given this anti-labor, pro-business government and the plethora of whip-sawable airlines.

Lower wages will never be resolved by pointing out that the damn pilots accept lower wages, because individual pilots will always accept lower wages, but unified together into a strong and well-organized and well-run union, then we can and have fought for more.

How do you think pilot wages ever got to be respectable? Unionized pilots.

Stop bickering and learn unity.

"Unity" does not mean uniformity, that I must agree with everything you do/think, only that I will stand together with you for the betterment of our diverse group.

 

[El Ocho]

While morality is religion based...

Quite the problem as it turns out!

How you liking that morality of those 9/11 religious extremists?

Relying on religion for morality is a terrible mistake, as any review of history proves.

Morality only requires a mastery of reason and logic. Back in the day when there was little education, maybe religion based morality was a good idea since religion was about the only educational show in town. Today however, as a civilized society, we need to reclaim morality from religion.

The idea that I need a god to help me distinquish between right and wrong... is wrong. And worse yet, problematic for a healthy society.

The time to follow/do what the church wants is over, and hopefully and unfortunately 9/11 made that painfully clear.

 

[ReverseSensing]

I'm not following you here Jeeves.

And furthermore, it's taking you 8 months not to follow him!

Actually, this is a pretty funny thread; I missed it the first time around.

I doubt it, but it could be the reason pilots are getting laid less.

Excellent, but heretofore unacknowledged, observation.

Props to Sig too, very entertaining.

Before I caught the date, I though Yank was back. I miss Yank.

 

[FN FAL]

And furthermore, it's taking you 8 months not to follow him!

Actually, this is a pretty funny thread; I missed it the first time around.

Same here, the laptop thread was interesting as well.

 

[rtmcfi]

You sir, are dangerous. Please refrain from trying to "change" me.

Maverick....is that you


I can't beleive someone has not posted a link to brokeback squadron or the snl clip yet.

 

[737 Pylt]

Where is best pilot when you need him??
Some jive would fit in perfectly with this thread!
Lay it on them best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
737

 

[BoDEAN]

Any chance that there is a relationship between pay-scales and the maturity/morality of some pilots on this board?

I'm sure the moderators can not sreen members based on their stupidity levels, but if this is representative of where aviation is going we're screwed.

Welcome to the pros and cons of being and posting "anonymously"

 

[Capn Lucky]

Let's substitute the term maturity for morality. That would explain alot of problems with the industry and this board. Another problem with the internet forums is that management can come on here and flamebait. We know who they are and they prove the point that as long as pilots fight among themselves, management can do whatever they desire.

 

[Sig]

Relying on religion for morality is a terrible mistake, as any review of history proves.

Uhh, what? Morality is the tradition of ethics (without banging you over the head between applied and normative) that seeks authenticity with a litmus test against social mores (THAT word should ring a bell, 8 ball) derived from a common law- in our western world, it's canonical. It's not a part of natural ethics (virtue, Aristotleian style where it simply IS right), it's based on a code- Judeo-Christian is an example of this code that we call Morality.

Morality only requires a mastery of reason and logic. Back in the day when there was little education, maybe religion based morality was a good idea since religion was about the only educational show in town. Today however, as a civilized society, we need to reclaim morality from religion.

The idea that I need a god to help me distinquish between right and wrong... is wrong. And worse yet, problematic for a healthy society.

The time to follow/do what the church wants is over, and hopefully and unfortunately 9/11 made that painfully clear.

Don't muddle ethical traditions. If you're using Western Moral Philosophy as the test for deciding what's wrong and right in an ethical dilemma, then you're applying Biblical ideas (Why can't you bang your neighbor's wife? Why is that wrong? What's a wife, anyway?).

Utilitarianism or even the ethical tradition of Methodists (whoa, another religious idea-- but a neat set of ethical tests) might be what you're thinking of. In fact, it seems you're more on about Virtue.

Or a moron when it comes to Virtue. Jury's still out.


/rant

 

[It'll Fly]

Oh my God! Give it a rest!

 

[El Ocho]

Sig,

You are saying there is historically a religious foundation for morality?

Fine. So what?

I'm saying religion is a BAD and unnecessary foundation for morality.

I don't need a god to understand that treating others the way I want to be treated is a good idea.

I don't need a god to tell me not to screw my neighbors wife. Why, because I just apply the previous rule, would I like it if that happened to me?

Religion leads to things like 9/11. That was religious morality in action. Perfect faith brother! Trust what someone else tells you is correct.

No thanks. My brain works just fine, I don't need someone else's conclusions.

 

[Buda6868]

Sig, Sig, is that you!!!!!! The greatness that taught me everything I know!!!

Whew, give me a shout brother!!!!

 

[FishandFly]

Suggesting that morality is religion based does lead down the wrong path. A better way to put it would be to say that morality is an inherent trait given to us by God.

For someone to think that it is random chance that humans are the only creatures that hold a basis of morality is crazy. There is an obvious difference between humans and all other living creatures because God intended it that way.

 

[El Ocho]

If your morality requires god, then I am happy you are not Muslim because the more religious you are, the more your morality tends toward terrorism.

Morality given by god was the root cause of unimaginablly horrible terrorism. How can you argue for that?

What's wrong with random chance? Do you know nothing of science? There are laws that govern the universe. Unfortunately for the belief system you advocate these laws cannot be shown to require a god.

The difference between humans and animals is a higher consciousness, not a god's intentions. Nothing crazy about that. Reason for the higher consciousness is evolution. Over a LONG period of time one species rose to a higher consciousness than others. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept? Just because you are a member of the brightest species provides no argument that there has to be a god.

 

[Tyro]

Suggesting that morality is religion based does lead down the wrong path. A better way to put it would be to say that morality is an inherent trait given to us by God.

For someone to think that it is random chance that humans are the only creatures that hold a basis of morality is crazy. There is an obvious difference between humans and all other living creatures because God intended it that way.

"Broadmindedness is Highmindedness Flattened by Experience."

 

[Blucher]

Question?

Suggesting that morality is religion based does lead down the wrong path. A better way to put it would be to say that morality is an inherent trait given to us by God.

For someone to think that it is random chance that humans are the only creatures that hold a basis of morality is crazy. There is an obvious difference between humans and all other living creatures because God intended it that way.

Father FishandFly,

Can you explain to me why it is that pro atheletes are always thanking Jesus for winning the big game and not blaming Jesus when they lose? Personally, I think the hours and hours of preparation and practice had more to do with the win than Jesus getting involved. Also, just out of curiosity, do you play the lottery?

-Blucher

 

[FishandFly]

If your morality requires god, then I am happy you are not Muslim because the more religious you are, the more your morality tends toward terrorism.

Morality given by god was the root cause of unimaginablly horrible terrorism. How can you argue for that?

What's wrong with random chance? Do you know nothing of science? There are laws that govern the universe. Unfortunately for the belief system you advocate these laws cannot be shown to require a god.

The difference between humans and animals is a higher consciousness, not a god's intentions. Nothing crazy about that. Reason for the higher consciousness is evolution. Over a LONG period of time one species rose to a higher consciousness than others. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept? Just because you are a member of the brightest species provides no argument that there has to be a god.

Your faith is in evolution, mine is in God.

I have no problem with atheists desire to deny the possibility of there being someone above us. But you can't expect me to understand it, let alone accept it.

 

[FishandFly]

Father FishandFly,

Can you explain to me why it is that pro atheletes are always thanking Jesus for winning the big game and not blaming Jesus when they lose? Personally, I think the hours and hours of preparation and practice had more to do with the win than Jesus getting involved. Also, just out of curiosity, do you play the lottery?

-Blucher

I agree that people are more vocal about thanking God when times are good than when they are bad. But ironically, people are also more reliant on God when times are bad.

I would also think that the hours preparing for the big game have more to do with the win than God.. Frankly, I don't think God even cares about who wins sporting events. Maybe they are just trying to give thanks where they think thanks are due.

It's not really that different than a nobody thanking God for his health.

 

[FishandFly]

If your morality requires god, then I am happy you are not Muslim because the more religious you are, the more your morality tends toward terrorism.

Morality given by god was the root cause of unimaginablly horrible terrorism. How can you argue for that?

What's wrong with random chance? Do you know nothing of science? There are laws that govern the universe. Unfortunately for the belief system you advocate these laws cannot be shown to require a god.

The difference between humans and animals is a higher consciousness, not a god's intentions. Nothing crazy about that. Reason for the higher consciousness is evolution. Over a LONG period of time one species rose to a higher consciousness than others. Why is that so difficult to understand and accept? Just because you are a member of the brightest species provides no argument that there has to be a god.

Give me a break. I can argue with God given morality leading to terrorism because what they did was not from God.

Andrea Yates drowned her kids and said that "God told her to". Are you saying that if you were her lawyer your argument would be that it was God's fault and that we should really be holding God accountable? That's absurd to try to back up your atheistic beliefs in that way.

---

There are two completely seperate areas in science...
1. Laws
2. A continual attempt by atheists to circumvent any possibility that there is a God above them which has led to making up of any and every story imaginable to try to explain why and how we are here.

I love learning about the laws of science. But number two is a joke. If you know about science, tell me how you are able to place your undying belief in a theory. As an atheist you must rely solely on theories according to the whole scientific method thing. None of that has ever passed the scientific test of being fact.

 

[El Ocho]

Give me a break. I can argue with God given morality leading to terrorism because what they did was not from God.

They thought it was. They believed it was. They had Faith it was. Did God tell you otherwise? Or did you think and reason to some other conclusion?

There are two completely seperate areas in science...
1. Laws
2. A continual attempt by atheists to circumvent any possibility that there is a God above them which has led to making up of any and every story imaginable to try to explain why and how we are here.

No. There is just science. What some athiest may try to do has no effect on what science is or says.

I love learning about the laws of science. But number two is a joke. If you know about science, tell me how you are able to place your undying belief in a theory. As an atheist you must rely solely on theories according to the whole scientific method thing. None of that has ever passed the scientific test of being fact.

OK talk about the classic blunder... You are letting semantics confuse your world.

If you don't know the difference between a SCIENTIFIC theory and theory, I don't think you understand science very well. Hence you don't understand this world very well, hence your need to create a god to explain things.

The fact that science uses the concept of a theory attests only to science's commitment to truth. A scientific theory is the truth with as much evidence as we have. Scientific theories are not eventually found to be NOT true. Only more insight is added to the existing truth. A "fact" is a small, single, simple thing. A theory is the more complicated conclusion arrived at from a collections of facts. Scientific theories do not eventually become laws or facts. They remain theories which just aren't able to be much more refined.

The scientific method which you childishly ridicule is what allows an airplane to be constructed and fly. Thus eventually providing you with a job.

 

[El Ocho]

Your faith is in evolution, mine is in God.

I have no problem with atheists desire to deny the possibility of there being someone above us. But you can't expect me to understand it, let alone accept it.

No, my faith is not in evolution.

I understand the theory of evolution to be correct because the preponderance of the evidence indicates it is.

That is not faith. Faith is accepting something as true that cannot be proven so. As such I have no such faith when it comes to scientific matters.

I do expect you to understand the difference between faith and understanding.

Whether you understand and accept athiests is of no concern to me.

 

[FishandFly]

They thought it was. They believed it was. They had Faith it was. Did God tell you otherwise? Or did you think and reason to some other conclusion?



No. There is just science. What some athiest may try to do has no effect on what science is or says.



OK talk about the classic blunder... You are letting semantics confuse your world.

If you don't know the difference between a SCIENTIFIC theory and theory, I don't think you understand science very well. Hence you don't understand this world very well, hence your need to create a god to explain things.

The fact that science uses the concept of a theory attests only to science's commitment to truth. A scientific theory is the truth with as much evidence as we have. Scientific theories are not eventually found to be NOT true. Only more insight is added to the existing truth. A "fact" is a small, single, simple thing. A theory is the more complicated conclusion arrived at from a collections of facts. Scientific theories do not eventually become laws or facts. They remain theories which just aren't able to be much more refined.

The scientific method which you childishly ridicule is what allows an airplane to be constructed and fly. Thus eventually providing you with a job.

I would expect nothing less than for you and other atheists to think that science is solely a "search for truth".

That concept creates a very noble effort on an atheists behalf.

What you fail to see (this is a theory), is that when you base your efforts on finding truth while denying specific truth and truths, your effort is futile.

Atheists like yourself would obviously want to discount this as ridiculous.

--

As to my lack of knowledge of the specifics of the scientific method. You've got me... Since I skipped over memorizing it all when I took science class in the 7th grade, I gave up on logic and decided to place my trust in the ignorant ways of the Christian faith.

Works well for me though.

I never did understand how so many scientific theories could hold absolutely no water, and yet continue to be looked upon as the only answer by atheists like yourself.

 

[pilotyip]

What does this have to do with pilot pay? Do you need a college degree to figure it out?

 

[El Ocho]

What you fail to see (this is a theory), is that when you base your efforts on finding truth while denying specific truth and truths, your effort is futile.

Atheists like yourself would obviously want to discount this as ridiculous.

That is ridiculous!

So your theory is that science is flawed because it doesn't take articles of religious faith as facts to be included in the data set for a theory?

Just because something is written in a book does not make it a viable fact to be considered in the quest for truth.

As to my lack of knowledge of the specifics of the scientific method. You've got me... Since I skipped over memorizing it all when I took science class in the 7th grade, I gave up on logic and decided to place my trust in the ignorant ways of the Christian faith.

Works well for me though.

Nice standard...

For centuries faith that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth worked well enough too. Worked well enough until you had to travel a little farther distance and required some more accurate information...

I never did understand how so many scientific theories could hold absolutely no water, and yet continue to be looked upon as the only answer by atheists like yourself.

Could you elaborate on which scientific theories hold no water?

The reason science is looked upon as the only answer is because it is the only system I know of based on the search for truth based upon facts and requireing demonstrable results.

Nothing wrong with your spirituality, but why do you insist on intruding into the world of science?

 

[Tyro]

Ochomeister,

When ya got ‘em cornered 'Check Mate,' "they" call you names, since "they" cannot argue on the terrain of rational thought. So I say, Compadre: move on. Yer wastin’ yer time and energy.

Besides, The Yip is Right On. As always.

 

[Sig]

Sig,

You are saying there is historically a religious foundation for morality?

Fine. So what?

I'm saying religion is a BAD and unnecessary foundation for morality.

Again, you've muddled ethical traditions. It's just what it is- the moral tradition of ethics, as in you're using what you'd call morality to test an ethical dilemma, comes from some sort of religious tract. End of story.

Whether that's goofy or not is an entirely different can of worms, and I'd be inclined to agree with you 100% on where you're coming from- my ethics thesis [minor, majored in Chem E] was on utilitarianism's vision of socialization. Ain't no reelijun in that manifesto.

And to explain why I think that's goofy:

I think it's abhorrent, degenerative behavior to maim and kill those who can easily be argued to be innocent, simply based on religious fanaticism fueling murderous, bombing terrorism.

The kicker? I'm talking about bombing abortion clinics. Ethnocentrism is pervasive, and it erodes ethical thinking--- if you believe there is a greater good and higher power in this world.