Originally Posted by
Scoop
Seriously? You even mention in your post that everything is relative but then proceed to disregard it.
When a 2000 hire who moved forward for less than two years, then backward for two years, then furloughed, then "stagnant" for the next five finds it amusing that guys who don't advance in three or four months consider it stagnation feel free to consider the "relativeness" of the situation.
Just so I have it correct - The guys who point out that four months with no advancement are the "crybabies?" IMHO part of the information flow from some of the more senior Pilots is pointing out that four months with no advancement is to be expected, is not a big deal, and will happen quite frequently in this career.
Scoop
Scoop,
I appreciate this type of response, but I believe that either I did not adequately explain what I meant or you misunderstood what I wrote.
1. Nobody would claim that relatively slower movement in specific airframes in today's environment can touch the industry-wide stagnation experienced over the previous 15 years.
2. When people in this forum use the word stagnation, it's just the easiest way to compare one category to another. Nobody is comparing it to being furloughed, displaced, being stuck on a plane, domicile, or company that they didn't want to be at/on for years on-end.
3. When I am calling those people babies, it's not because they don't have legitimate grievances with the way their careers panned out, only at their hijacking of the word "stagnant". It's just a word, for a group of professional who so often claim to have such thick skin it boggles my mind the way others lose theirs over this one word.
4. Just because somebody wasn't at an airline doesn't mean they have no perspective or weren't affected by the lost decade. Somehow ~2000 hires seem to think they're the only ones whose master plan for life didn't turn out exactly as they wanted.
Hopefully this clears up my stance. Maybe it's what you thought it was all along, hopefully not.