Originally Posted by
Sumtinwong
Dude, you need to go back and read this thread again. At no point did I ever name bash you or whatever. I simply pointed out your unfounded and absurd point that you made about this being somehow related to an "liberal" mindset. You somehow tried to turn this conversation into a political one. If you want to have a political debate, i'd be happy to. But this isn't the forum for that.
If you think that somehow someone expecting an industry average TA is somehow a liberal mindset, well you need to get out of your conservative echo chamber and learn about economics. Its supply and demand. The pilots are able to demand what the industry is offering. That's Econ 101. JO lives in the principles of supply and demand. That's why he's lobbying in DC to try and get rid of the 1500 hr rule. Whether you agree with it or not, it is hurting the supply of pilots to the reigionals, in some way. The real problem JO has is not the 1500 hour rule, rather a pay problem. He is not offering an attractive contract or pay to bring people in. He would rather increase his supply of pilots so that he doesn't have to increase pay to attract talent.
He has mentioned on every conference call since I have been here that he doesn't need to increase pay as long as people are coming. Well guess what, people aren't coming and also people aren't staying. So what does he do when he's having trouble staffing? Well, he doesn't increase pay (other than bonuses) so he continues to bleed pilots from the ranks, he instead increases the scope of the type of pilot he's willing to hire. We are hiring people with terrible training records and those who are all the way up into their 60's. Totally fine to do that and I'm personally cool with that, just further educating you on how JO's approach to supply and demand works since you seem to think this is about socialist economics.
Further, I and others on here have been debating the merits of this TA since it was made public. So for you to somehow suggest that because we aren't debating you on your suggestion that this is somehow a politically charged debate, perhaps you should stop trying to sway it that direction and we might take you seriously.
My example is sound. You just don't get it or missed the point. As for bashing me, you even admit you think it was "absurd". That is bashing me. Why don't you tell me why. Enlighten me. Then that wouldn't be bashing me then. It would be debating. You are right though this is not a political forum.
That response was directly to calmwinds trying to tell people to go away that don't agree with them. That is a "liberal" mindset and I explained why I see it that way above.. He brought the Russian's into it and was making it political so I responded in a way he would get. Political. Why Trump won. Calmwinds claimed we were like the Russians. I am not Russian. I didn't vote based on what the Russians said. If he wants to change minds on the merits of this TA he needs to debate instead of telling people to go away.
Debating is explaining why someone is wrong. I have been doing that for awhile on here. Not just saying that is "absurd". That gets no where.
I never said someone wanting an industry average TA is a liberal. At all. Ever. In fact everything you are telling me about Econ 101 I have been preaching on here for years. So I am not sure where you were going with this. Now is the time to get a TA due to the economics. So I think we are saying the same things. You just didn't get my example. It is all good. Peace.