Skywest to charge for PC's?

[DOVPILOT]

well I guess GoJets is going to go broke.

HAHAHAHA, now that's funny

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Since when did a liberal recently respect the Constitution? (Pelosi just recently laughed and said, "are you serious, are you serious??" when asked by a reporter what part of the Constitution allows her healthcare bill).

The Constitution applies to the the government's powers over U.S. citizens, not enemy combatants on foreign battlefields. Al Quaeda has declared war on this country, and we caught some of their senior commanders responsible for a horrendous act of war -- 9/11. That they didn't have a "uniform" on at the time is immaterial.

Did the military read them their "Miranda Rights" when they were apprehended? Should we let them go on a technicality designed to keep our local police from abusing their power? It doesn't make any sense to put them in a civil trial.

WTF are you talking about? The Constitution controls how the Executive branch deals with people within the jurisdiction of the US. The US has no legal jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil. Al Queda has declared war on who? and where is their state? Miranda..., you are just bright enough to be dangerous, Miranda is about self incrimination and council. Switch Fox editorial channel to cartoons, and put the remote down. Technicality? Miranda was one of the biggest decisions ever handed down by any modern Supreme Court, and you think it's a technicality?
Smoke some dope and think for yourself!
PBR

 

[Flightdawg]

TSA is charging $70.00 to do this. TSA is billing the pilot through Skywest and Skywest is passing on the cost. I'm not defending Skywest. I think Skywest should absorb this cost but for now they aren't.

It seems like a bad precedent to set. How long before other costs start being passed along to the pilots? Why don't they have their union stand up for them on this? Oh wait....ummmm, never mind. I guess they'll just have to pick up a couple of hours of OT before every check ride for the next 20-30 years.

 

[Erlanger]

It seems like a bad precedent to set. How long before other costs start being passed along to the pilots? Why don't they have their union stand up for them on this? Oh wait....ummmm, never mind. I guess they'll just have to pick up a couple of hours of OT before every check ride for the next 20-30 years.

Why are you a jerk? I'm sure you've read all the posts on this thread. Why aren't the union airlines of Delta, ASA and other union carriers picking up the tab on this?

 

[TheInsider]

This has been in place for several years. Foreigners in the US wanting to train or do a PC on a/c over 12500 must have their background checked each and every time. This goes for ground school as well so if you are going to fly an a/c over 12500 you can't even start gs/indoc/syst.training/sim training/aircraft training/FTD training, you name it, before satisfying this req.

 

[Flightdawg]

Why are you a jerk? I'm sure you've read all the posts on this thread. Why aren't the union airlines of Delta, ASA and other union carriers picking up the tab on this?

I'm an airline pilot. WTF do you expect?

I do expect that most of the unions will realize this is a very bad precedent to allow to be set and will act accordingly. [JERK]Those without unions, well, they can write emails to management and plead for mercy. [/JERK]

 

[JustaNumber]

WTF are you talking about? The Constitution controls how the Executive branch deals with people within the jurisdiction of the US. The US has no legal jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil. Al Queda has declared war on who? and where is their state? Miranda..., you are just bright enough to be dangerous, Miranda is about self incrimination and council. Switch Fox editorial channel to cartoons, and put the remote down. Technicality? Miranda was one of the biggest decisions ever handed down by any modern Supreme Court, and you think it's a technicality?
Smoke some dope and think for yourself!
PBR

I can't believe the amazing contradiction right there in your response. You agree that the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil. So legally speaking, when our military picked up Mr. Rugchest in Pakistan, they could not legally charge him with a "crime". But they could detain him as an enemy combatant who has declared war on this country. If you somehow don't think that Al Quaeda has declared war on the U.S., with 9/11 being a major victory in their eyes, then you should STOP smoking dope. They have proven that they don't need an official "state" to declare war, and somehow you therefore don't want to address this as a real war? Also, I fully understand and appreciate Miranda Rights, however defense attorneys arguing that Miranda Rights weren't read on the battlefield WOULD CERTAINLY constitute arguing a meaningless technicality.

 

[USCtrojan]

How does that put the citizens of NYC in danger?

The guy who planned the attack will be in Civilian Court (as if he had rights as a US Citizen). If there's not a better way to make a martyr by murdering a mass number of civilians and in one of the most populated Cities in the US, I don't know what would be.

Trojan

 

[USCtrojan]

And why would the military try them? Did they not commit crimes against civilians?

The legal rights on this is nil. The unlawful part took place in a far away sand land. By placing this dirtbag in Civilian Court you afford him certain rights under Civilian Court. This idiot has no rights, other than the Geneva Convention. He should be Tried in a Military Tribunal like everything else when an attack on this Country occurs. It's a ridiculously horrible decison, and goes to show you the Commander in Chief is not fit to lead the US Military.

 

[USCtrojan]

Are you as stupid as you post? 911 happened where? Last time I checked NYC was in the USofA. A small piece of paper controls trials in this country, the Constitution, not Obama, not military tribunals, you are stuck in the GWB world of ignorance and stupidity, pull your head out of your buttt and breathe.
PBR

You would want to afford rights to a dirtbag that attacked the USA. Good for you. Love for all. I say we let him go free and you get to take care of him in your house. You can feed him and love him all you want to. I hope he doesn't harm you. Really.

Trojan

 

[QOL_is_great:)]

For those effected and have a union, isn't there something to prevent split treatment?

When a background check is required by all employed as a pilot and only a select few are required to pay then doesn't that warrant a fight by the union?

 

[Pull To Guns]

As an American employed by a foreign airline in a faraway land, I "go along to get along" with my hosts. I have to jump through many more hoops than the natives here. No problem as long as there is a net positive benefit for me.

Aliens allowed to work in the USA should not expect any different. If they are subject to more stringent requirements than US citizens, then so be it. If these requirements are too much of a financial burden for a non-citizen to satisfy, then I am sure there are daily flights back to the Motherland.

Why would an airline hire an alien over an equally qualified US citizen if they had to reimburse the non-citizen's extra fees? That makes for a more expensive employee.

The US seems quite generous in allowing foreign citizens to work there, in contrast, try getting a job in the EU as an American. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

I can't believe the amazing contradiction right there in your response. You agree that the US Constitution has no jurisdiction over foreigners on foreign soil. So legally speaking, when our military picked up Mr. Rugchest in Pakistan, they could not legally charge him with a "crime". But they could detain him as an enemy combatant who has declared war on this country. If you somehow don't think that Al Quaeda has declared war on the U.S., with 9/11 being a major victory in their eyes, then you should STOP smoking dope. They have proven that they don't need an official "state" to declare war, and somehow you therefore don't want to address this as a real war? Also, I fully understand and appreciate Miranda Rights, however defense attorneys arguing that Miranda Rights weren't read on the battlefield WOULD CERTAINLY constitute arguing a meaningless technicality.

No contradiction, the US has no authority outside the US territories to try anyone for any "crime". The US has been agreed to the Geneva Conventions for a few decades. Your logic is disconnected and flawed at its root level. If Al Queada is in fact a legitimate state and has the ability to declare war, why are their soldiers being tried for fighting that said war? Enemy soldiers are not tried for fighting for their country, the middle east is a patchwork of tribes and territories that have artificial borders created after WWI, which hav nothing to do with traditional ethnic/cultural boundaries. Step away from the "Fox News" channel, watch the BBC or something else, Bill O'Rilley is an entertainer, muxh like Rush Limberger is.
PBR

 

[Pull To Guns]

No contradiction, the US has no authority outside the US territories to try anyone for any "crime". The US has been agreed to the Geneva Conventions for a few decades. Your logic is disconnected and flawed at its root level. If Al Queada is in fact a legitimate state and has the ability to declare war, why are their soldiers being tried for fighting that said war? Enemy soldiers are not tried for fighting for their country, the middle east is a patchwork of tribes and territories that have artificial borders created after WWI, which hav nothing to do with traditional ethnic/cultural boundaries. Step away from the "Fox News" channel, watch the BBC or something else, Bill O'Rilley is an entertainer, muxh like Rush Limberger is.
PBR

Please keep in mind this is the Regional, not International Law forum.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Please keep in mind this is the Regional, not International Law forum.

Yeah, you are right, logic and accuracy should not be tolerated, I will toss out:
Mesa sucks!
There, we are back on track!
PBR

 

[Pull To Guns]

PBRSG, I understand...didn't mean to pick on you but a lot of (not only yours) comments were getting far afield. Hell, I wanted to join in! Seeya!

 

[Kenny]

I'm one of those that now have to fork out over $200 a year at AWAC for this, that's why I'm annoyed. I get charged $70 every time I set foot in a sim or go to recurrent. If it was a once a year charge I'd be more inclined to accept it but we're talking about going through a background check, 3 times a year!

The irony is that when I was an instructor, I could walk into the sim whenever I wanted and didn't have to do any backgroud checks as I wasn't the one being trained.

Didn't realise Australians were that much of a terrorist risk!

 

[Cambereffect]

"TSA has imposed a fee for processing non-US Citizen pilots who take recurrent training. The fee is $70 for each recurrent simulator training request. This will be twice a year for our Captains and once a year for our First Officers until SkyWest is operating under AQP. At that time all pilots will be scheduled each 12 months. SkyWest will payroll deduct that amount 30 days prior to the simulator training."

I'm interested in the "Until Skywest is operating under AQP".... does that mean it will go away when the AQP program is in place? I find that hard to believe...

 

[727gm]

..SkyWest will payroll deduct that amount....

This is what happens when your company doesn't have a union.

It would be interesting to know whether the most of the non-citizens voted "no" (or abstained - same thing) on union representation.

 

[Cambereffect]

This is what happens when your company doesn't have a union.

It would be interesting to know whether the most of the non-citizens voted "no" (or abstained - same thing) on union representation.

Yeah ok, read some of the above posts regarding union airlines having to do the same thing.