Originally Posted by
own nav
Um, yeah, you asked a question, got a fact based answer, and countered with your opinion of what defines an "employee." Are we sharing information here, or just trying to stir up controversy?
No controversy on my part.
You seem to want to argue what constitutes an employee based on semantics (and I appreciate the information about Eagle Jet FO) whereas I don't care who is paying him when we are discussing the perception on fair treatment. I agree - Eagle Jet FO is responsible for this situation, and it seems from this outside observer that AMF is adding to the problem by allowing it - especially when those interesting facts aren't available to the layman.
I think LRS summed it up very well:
They have a AMF photo ID and are .293 and .299 qualified to fly revenue producing runs. They log time under op specs. We use them to qualify for reduced minimum takeoffs. They wear the same uniform as captains
I don't see controversy at all.
I applaud the fact based answer.
Would have been nice to have that on the very first response
