Originally Posted by
DC8DRIVER
You are speaking about the 767 training. I am referring to the 74. Yes, SA has reformed the 74 experience and it is slightly improved but the 767 training has always been much better than the 747 training ... and still is. Also, the 747 does not have a two day ETOPS training event. The difficulty the aforementioned crew had was not with plotting but with their clearance. As I heard it, it wasn't that they forgot what to do, they had simply never been trained in what to do.
Only one crossing is required. Many OE's are done to this minimum and the particulars of crossing other oceanic areas do not get covered in the classroom or on OE.
Obviously the captain on that flight did not ask about the crew's experience. That was the point of bringing up that example and it was only a part of the problem. The bigger part of the problem was the lack of training both in the classroom and on their OE.
Of course, the point of the example is not what you are interested in. You are more interested in disputing anything I say because we have a fundamental difference in our belief of the reality here at Atlas. I think it's bad. You think it's great. Pretty much no matter what I say, you'll disagree. That's fine - that's your prerogative. Most readers can see that the vast majority of posters on this thread feel much the same way that I do and you are in a small but annoying minority of company supporters who feel that things at Atlas are all sunshine and candy.
Don't get me wrong. I like the flying. I like the crews I fly with. What I don't like is the way Atlas treats us. Oh, I p*ss and moan about the company but probably less than most other pilots (there are far better things talk about than that). But what I don't do is try to dupe other pilots into coming to Atlas with the giggly squeals of a starry-eyed teenager. The pilots applying for a job should be informed about the reality here.
And obviously your goal is to douse the union's fire. That is clear. Again, that's your prerogative. Maybe one day, you'll be so abused by the company that your perspective will change. On the other hand, you may just end up with JC's job. Right now, it seems to be a toss-up.
There you go AGAIN 8......you are taking things way too personally. You are going to give yourself an aneurysm reading my posts. LMFAO.
But seriously, I did not personally attack you yet you presume to know me and what I am thinking by accusing me of being an anti-union company man. My response was purely neutral yet you conveniently left out the other half of my quote in your response. You can continue with your diatribe on what your opinion of me may be but it won't change the words that I have written on this forum.....You will not find one quote that corroborates your opinion that I am a company man, with the understanding that my quotes are taken in full context. Period. I have always dissected posts with responses shot right down the middle and I have NEVER posted any anti union opinions.
My original post was a continuation of those that had posted Q & A's both to and from prospective candidates about attitude and training. I went through initial on both the 747 and the 767 and the only discernible difference between the two was the additional day of ETOPs on the 767 IMO.
Rumors are nothing but garbage and it does nothing to advance our position with trying to secure a better contract. In my opinion, it does quite the opposite. Let me explain my theory....in the age of the internet, social media, and our ever voracious and insatiable appetite for litigation, less is more. Consequently, the more we say that may or may not have happened or that very well could happen, the more ammunition we give to our counterparts that will ultimately make it's way to an uninformed judge thereby making it harder for our union to extricate themselves and us from the tangled web of misinformation. And yet surprisingly, posters here and on other threads and FB and the multitude of other social media outlets, continue to refer to rumors as if they had happened and continue to spew an image of toxicity here.......to what end? Are we trying to keep pilots away? No one in the industry disputes that the Atlas pilots and Atlas management have a very contentious relationship but why are we intentionally or unintentionally adding to our staffing shortage? If that is the case, the problem I see is that we are keeping the potentially qualified candidates at bay and inviting the less than savory candidates (according to others on this thread) who have no other career option i.e. DUI and other things, of whom we will be stuck flying with when the dust settles!! So the net gain is what?? We get a contract sooner than later?...but we are still stuck with the dregs!!
How about this, "prospective candidates, Atlas totally sucks right now, but our union rocks and these are unprecedented times and we will get a contract to make those that choose to come here and stay a destination airline.....eventually". Instead of "everyone, stay away, this place is toxic", knowing that management will hire anyone who applies if they can't find qualified candidates(which is what is happening right now....part 91 turboprop operators and zero airline time). Personally, I'd rather fly with a guy that has options than one who doesn't.