Originally Posted by
Spoon
I totally agree. We should all just quit resisting the company's interests and let them have their way. I mean, its worked out so well for us in the past and the company always knows best anyway. You know, very low probability and everything. GMAFB.
What was lost and what could be gained? Really?
You can't answer the question, but that is ok we'll get to that later.
Originally Posted by
JustUnderPar
Using that logic, we would still have segregation and women would not be able to vote.
Glad not everyone out there gives up as easily. What is given up? Equal work conditions for starters!
Non sequitur, but we will get to that later.
Originally Posted by
Luckydawg
Jungle said the same thing about TCAS.
Who put this guy in here as a moderator? Only NURPS apply?
Just a lie, easily shown by a data base search.
Originally Posted by
SpikesMyDog
I'm new to cargo flying but it seems to me that everyone is pretty happy about the pay and benefits at the company I'm with, as am I. I'm also very familiar with the "law if unintended consequences". (Yeah, I got married)
What I'm trying to learn (and all I can find is the fact that people are angry over the cargo cut out, got it) is what it would it really mean, goods and bad, to our schedules, lifestyle, pay and benefits ect. My thought is that it would mean more pilots to hire to move the same amount of freight = less money ( hours) to each pilot. Part of me is in agreement that if it's safe practice or process then implement it across the board. The other part of me thinks that I know what I signed up for and do not want the law of unintended consequences or worse an uneducated decision be made that might change the entire landscape of the company that I work at. So what is gained,what is lost and at what expense ? Has anyone really spelled this out? Im a knuckle dragger so i cant but any information on where to find this would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time.
You are thinking, and that is beautiful.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So much anger and so little direction, I invite anyone to show the effects and the cause.
Much of the anger is caused by what some view as an ethical failure, if that is the case we must also ask if both parties of the transaction are corrupt. Who would have gotten a bundle of non-sequential bills to place in the freezer?
Of course some may view it as precedent, and I suspect that word will come up often as the issue is explored further.