So, do you have any data to support this claim? This is quite a bold statement to make without supporting facts...
uhm, "bold statement"? You either don't work there or, if you do, you have your head in the sand.
A. I worked there
B. Pilots don't fly broken airplanes nearly as much.
C. Pilots don't fly over duty nearly as much
D. Pilots are performing more thorough preflights
E. Pilots are helping each other perform more thorough preflights. This, in no small part, has to do with union solidarity.
F. The union's Safety Committee issues DYK's (Did You Know?) on a regular basis. These DYK's are proactive advisories on issues regarding safety and regulatory compliance. The company's safety department has been historically reactive and never issued bulletins that didn't have a pro management spin.
G. The union made sure there was union involvement in the ASAP program per FAA guidelines when management attempted to keep the union out. The union is very proactive on getting pilots to submit ASAP reports. These ASAP reports have resulted in certain
intimidation program PSM's losing their positions and being placed in non-safety related duties (i.e. Aircraft Support Manager).
H. The union showed management the absurdity of the "productivity meetings" and showed them that pilots do not control their number of legs flown per day. This somewhat curbed management's on-going intimidation programs.
others, feel free to add to the list
And as far as the ignore function, you're just limiting yourself to one side of the argument. This endangers your ability have a well informed view on this or any subject (I know, just like I said in my post in the FO mechanics union thread).
The choir rarely cares about what the preacher is saying.
:laugh: I needed a minute to recover from my laughter.
That would only apply if B19 actually made cogent and sensible arguments. That would also apply if B19 actually answers your questions. If well informed views are to be had, they are most certainly not from a babbling troll like B19.
I have no trouble having an intelligent debate with someone with an opposing view. The keyword being "
intelligent".