Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Skybus Toast

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Yes, keep worrying about the tiny 1900 operator in Florida with 200 pilots, meanwhile real problems are actually threatening your profession. Glad your eye is on the ball. :rolleyes:

And perhaps one of the reasons they've stayed so small is because they realize the amount of shame attached to their operation makes it infeasible to grow any larger because the supply of pilots willing to work there is quite low. Did you ever consider that?
 
And perhaps one of the reasons they've stayed so small is because they realize the amount of shame attached to their operation makes it infeasible to grow any larger because the supply of pilots willing to work there is quite low. Did you ever consider that?
No, because it's not true. Cooper never wanted to expand outside of Florida and the Bahamas. Several code-share partners asked him repeatedly to serve destinations in some other southern states, but he turned them down over and over again. He just wanted a small airline and training center, nothing more.
 
I think the general pilot community considers what's ethical and to what degree and clearly Skybus and Gulfstream are shamed more than average. Not just on the message boards, but hanger/crew room talk.

I never heard it in my crewrooms. In fact that would be counter productive to slam a fellow pilot for going to GIA then realize you had to fly with him/her. Or expect them to walk the line with you. Or not turn you in to management...

You can't shame a fellow pilot and exect them to share your values...

To say it's the American way to further your way at any expense or at the expense of others is poor citizenship.

C'mon.. we champion the law of the jungle. Whoever is better faster stronger cheaper is the one that rules. L'et not have two sets of rules here..


I certainly wouldn't call Jonathon Orstein an all-American business man.

From who's perspective. You (and I) don't like him for how he treats us... but the american consumer likes him. Wall Street likes him. The legacy execs like him...


There are plenty of respectable success stories of making it without trampling over others to such unethical degrees.

Agreed. but they might be the exception.

Look you are trying to apply ethical treatment to something only you value. Not the rest of our economy.

I asked you before... how do we stop the GIA factor?
 
Last edited:
I never heard it in my crewrooms. In fact that would be counter productive to slam a fellow pilot for going to GIA then realize you had to fly with him/her.



C'mon.. we champion the law of the jungle. Whoever is better faster stronger cheaper is the one that rules. L'et not have two sets of rules here..




From who's perspective. You (and I) don't like him for how he treats us... but the american consumer likes him. Wall Street likes him. The legacy execs like him...




Agreed. but they might be the exception.

Look you are trying to apply ethical treatment to something only you value. Not the rest of our economy.

I asked you before... how do we stop the GIA factor?

I'd agree you can't completely stop it. But discouraging it in the future is in all our best interests. Even if Gulfstream remains small, it opens the door for another carrier to try such operation. I think you might feel differently if someone started up a 717 operation involving pay for training. Hopefully the Skybus situation discourages others from making similar moves in the future.

Respect if you discourage others from attending Gulfstream in the future.
 
Control the supply and you control the pay. Doctors and Lawyers figured this out decades ago.

Control supply? You mean like having a mandatory retirement age that correlates to diminishing physical and cognitive skills? Great idea.
Now, where do we draw that line? 55, the point at which accident rates show an increase? No, pilots can still fly several more years before their abilities decline to the point where the accident rate climbs substantially. 60 looks like a good number.

But wait. You FAVORED a change to age 65 since your father, (Edited to leave out Lear's family details - I'll let HIM tell everyone why he favored 65).

Yeah, that was a good idea that you had; control the supply. That horse already left the stable. And now you wish to have barriers to entry into the business?
Great. Whatever suits your individual situation.
 
I'd agree you can't completely stop it. But discouraging it in the future is in all our best interests. Even if Gulfstream remains small, it opens the door for another carrier to try such operation. I think you might feel differently if someone started up a 717 operation involving pay for training. Hopefully the Skybus situation discourages others from making similar moves in the future.

Respect if you discourage others from attending Gulfstream in the future.


HOW! How do we discourage? On FI? Do we form an Association? Do we chide GIA Alumni?

What can we realistic control... and what are we really willing to do once we understand what we do control!
 
I never heard it in my crewrooms. In fact that would be counter productive to slam a fellow pilot for going to GIA then realize you had to fly with him/her. Or expect them to walk the line with you. Or not turn you in to management...

I would agree with that. Good CRM should not be compromised by office politics in any form as it's even more unethical to create an unsafe flight environment. I have flown with a couple former Gulfstream people and I didn't and wouldn't create an uncomfortable environment. But I wouldn't buy em a beer at the bar either if they outright told me Gulfstream was an excellent career move for future pilots.
 
HOW! How do we discourage? On FI? Do we form an Association? Do we chide GIA Alumni?

What can we realistic control... and what are we really willing to do once we understand what we do control!

Just like any other issue, any little bit helps.
 
I would agree with that. Good CRM should not be compromised by office politics in any form as it's even more unethical to create an unsafe flight environment. I have flown with a couple former Gulfstream people and I didn't and wouldn't create an uncomfortable environment. But I wouldn't buy em a beer at the bar either if they outright told me Gulfstream was an excellent career move for future pilots.

Even if she was hot! :)


Seriously... do you think they would be more open to your opinions on GIA and its damage to the biz if you bought him/her a beer? And if they were open to your ideas would they be more inclined to change?
 
Control supply? You mean like having a mandatory retirement age that correlates to diminishing physical and cognitive skills? Great idea.
Now, where do we draw that line? 55, the point at which accident rates show an increase? No, pilots can still fly several more years before their abilities decline to the point where the accident rate climbs substantially. 60 looks like a good number.

But wait. You FAVORED a change to age 65 since your father, (Edited to leave out Lear's family details - I'll let HIM tell everyone why he favored 65).

Yeah, that was a good idea that you had; control the supply. That horse already left the stable. And now you wish to have barriers to entry into the business?
Great. Whatever suits your individual situation.
You should know better. Age 65 had VERY little to do with alleviating any supply issues, it was all about staving up their retirement because their pensions are gone.

Many are still leaving at 60, and the highest-wage earners aren't the problem.

The problem (as stated in the original thread with Skybus) is people who are willing to take ENTRY-LEVEL JOBS in something as large as an Airbus for wages 1/2 of what they should be.

Take away the supply, the bottom wages come up. When the bottom wages come up, the middle- and upper-tier wages will come up as well as a function of longevity.

I know you're mad about age 65, but your argument doesn't hold for controlling the supply when the pilots you are talking about are making the highest wage possible at an airline...
 

Latest resources

Back
Top