Left regionals to provide for family...
03-30-2013, 09:06 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
I don't know that, don't care about that, and it's irrelevant.
One can't return to something unless one has already been there. One can't return to the majors unless one has already been at the majors.
If one moves to the majors, one isn't returning to them, if one hasn't previously worked for them.
One can't return to something unless one has already been there. One can't return to the majors unless one has already been at the majors.
If one moves to the majors, one isn't returning to them, if one hasn't previously worked for them.
Sorry JB - but everything that others say is NOT irrelevant, and everything YOU type is not the end all - be all.
The poster wasn't even speaking of himself in this instance. OTHERS is the key word.
I deem your comprehension of his post irrelevant.
I know that you can't say that you MIGHT HAVE misread/or misunderstood anything, but it is OK.
Try it.
Last edited by USMCFLYR; 03-30-2013 at 01:11 PM.
03-30-2013, 10:13 PM
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,016
Sorry JB - but everything that others say is NOT irrelevant, and everything YOU type is not the end all - be all.
You were responding to me, and asked how I knew that other pilots than the original poster were not quitting the regionals, going elsewhere, and then seeking employment with a major airline. Whereas you asked me the question, and referred specifically to my statement (which you quoted), then the only relevancy must be to my statement. Whereas you asked questions, however, that did not pertain to my statement while at the same time addressing it, your question was irrelevant. You understand this concept, that if something doesn't apply, it's not relevant? Yes?
If a pilot has not flown for a major airline, he cannot return to work for a major. He may move to a major airline. He may seek employment and find employment at a major airline, but he or she cannot, by definition, return to work at a major airline, never having been there in the first place.
The qualifications of that individual are irrelevant, as no amount of qualification changes the fact that one who has not worked for a major cannot return to work for a major.
The future employment of an individual, including finding work at a major, is irrelevant, as that individual is not returning to work for a major, never having worked at a major before.
Remember that you were specifically addressing my observation that one who has not worked at a major cannot return to work for the major. One cannot return whence one has not been. Your interrogative attempted to dance around that fact, asking what I didn't know about other applicants qualifications, when in point of fact, such questions were irrelevant to the observation that one cannot return whence one has never been.
03-30-2013, 11:59 PM
#16
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
If one moves to the majors, one isn't returning to them, if one hasn't previously worked for them.
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Whereas you're responding to me and I made neither of those statements (nor implied as much), your observation is also irrelevant. (That means it doesn't apply here, because those are things you made up). You said them, not me (though you attribute them to me).
You were responding to me, and asked how I knew that other pilots than the original poster were not quitting the regionals, going elsewhere, and then seeking employment with a major airline. Whereas you asked me the question, and referred specifically to my statement (which you quoted), then the only relevancy must be to my statement. Whereas you asked questions, however, that did not pertain to my statement while at the same time addressing it, your question was irrelevant. You understand this concept, that if something doesn't apply, it's not relevant? Yes?
If a pilot has not flown for a major airline, he cannot return to work for a major. He may move to a major airline. He may seek employment and find employment at a major airline, but he or she cannot, by definition, return to work at a major airline, never having been there in the first place.
The qualifications of that individual are irrelevant, as no amount of qualification changes the fact that one who has not worked for a major cannot return to work for a major.
The future employment of an individual, including finding work at a major, is irrelevant, as that individual is not returning to work for a major, never having worked at a major before.
Remember that you were specifically addressing my observation that one who has not worked at a major cannot return to work for the major. One cannot return whence one has not been. Your interrogative attempted to dance around that fact, asking what I didn't know about other applicants qualifications, when in point of fact, such questions were irrelevant to the observation that one cannot return whence one has never been.
You were responding to me, and asked how I knew that other pilots than the original poster were not quitting the regionals, going elsewhere, and then seeking employment with a major airline. Whereas you asked me the question, and referred specifically to my statement (which you quoted), then the only relevancy must be to my statement. Whereas you asked questions, however, that did not pertain to my statement while at the same time addressing it, your question was irrelevant. You understand this concept, that if something doesn't apply, it's not relevant? Yes?
If a pilot has not flown for a major airline, he cannot return to work for a major. He may move to a major airline. He may seek employment and find employment at a major airline, but he or she cannot, by definition, return to work at a major airline, never having been there in the first place.
The qualifications of that individual are irrelevant, as no amount of qualification changes the fact that one who has not worked for a major cannot return to work for a major.
The future employment of an individual, including finding work at a major, is irrelevant, as that individual is not returning to work for a major, never having worked at a major before.
Remember that you were specifically addressing my observation that one who has not worked at a major cannot return to work for the major. One cannot return whence one has not been. Your interrogative attempted to dance around that fact, asking what I didn't know about other applicants qualifications, when in point of fact, such questions were irrelevant to the observation that one cannot return whence one has never been.
Left, denotes departure or exit, and OP stated that he left the regionals. OP further clarified that he obtained work "away from flying". So again, nobody, not me, not the OP, nobody, but you, said "moves" to a major. OP also appeared to hypothesize if maybe one of his apps at a major, might get looked at, while he is working away from flying. He stated "he had friends at the majors" that "want him back." Most all of us here understood that to mean "back in the aviation industry".
A person can return to work,, as in return to work/employment status, and do it, at a major.
Lets look at my example.
RJ Pilot Jim is sick of aviation. He has never flown for a major and in fact the name of his current company is Never-Been-A-Major Express. He does have some apps in at majors however.
Sick of low pay, he quits the industry and finds employment as a golf course greenskeeper. For now, he has left the industry/work as a pilot.
Later, Kit Darby's predictions ring true, and RJ Pilot Jim is called by a major, due to a pilot shortage. Jim accepts, missing aviation, and returns to the cockpit.
Jim returned to work (aka the industry) and did so via his new job at a major.
See Jim, it is possible. Lighten up on the guys on the board here, we are all professionals, or at least I hope so. This is a pilot board, not the Debate Club. I have seen you do this on other discussions, instead of answering the OP's question, you attack his wording or phraseology, then proceed to get into a wrestling match with other posters who are trying to answer the OP in whatever thread. This isn't about you Jim. Its about all of us, the forum members, and the non-forum visitors, who read this site.
Your behavior, attacking sentence structure and hostility with others, and the absolute desire to "be right", is consistent with Adult OCD and anxiety issues.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
What are the symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder?
The following are the most common symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, each adolescent may experience symptoms differently.
Symptoms may include:
an extreme preoccupation with dirt, germs, or contamination
repeated doubts (for example, whether or not the door is locked)
obtrusive thoughts about violence, hurting, killing someone, or harming self
spending long periods of time touching things, counting, thinking about numbers and sequences
preoccupation with order, symmetry, or exactness
persistent thoughts of performing repugnant sexual acts or forbidden, taboo behaviors
troubled by thoughts that are against personal religious beliefs
an extreme need to know or remember things that may be very trivial
excessive attention to detail
excessive worrying about something terrible happening
aggressive thoughts, impulses, and/or behaviors
repeated hand washing (often 100 or more times a day)
checking and rechecking repeatedly (e.g., to ensure that a door is locked)
following rigid rules of order (i.e., putting on clothes in the very same sequence every day, keeping belongings in the room in a very particular way and becoming upset if the order becomes disrupted)
hoarding objects
counting and recounting excessively
grouping or sequencing objects
repeating words spoken by self (palilalia) or others (echolalia); repeatedly asking the same questions
coprolalia (repeatedly speaking obscenities) or copropraxia (repeatedly making obscene gestures)
repeating sounds, words, numbers, and/or music to oneself
The following are the most common symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. However, each adolescent may experience symptoms differently.
Symptoms may include:
an extreme preoccupation with dirt, germs, or contamination
repeated doubts (for example, whether or not the door is locked)
obtrusive thoughts about violence, hurting, killing someone, or harming self
spending long periods of time touching things, counting, thinking about numbers and sequences
preoccupation with order, symmetry, or exactness
persistent thoughts of performing repugnant sexual acts or forbidden, taboo behaviors
troubled by thoughts that are against personal religious beliefs
an extreme need to know or remember things that may be very trivial
excessive attention to detail
excessive worrying about something terrible happening
aggressive thoughts, impulses, and/or behaviors
repeated hand washing (often 100 or more times a day)
checking and rechecking repeatedly (e.g., to ensure that a door is locked)
following rigid rules of order (i.e., putting on clothes in the very same sequence every day, keeping belongings in the room in a very particular way and becoming upset if the order becomes disrupted)
hoarding objects
counting and recounting excessively
grouping or sequencing objects
repeating words spoken by self (palilalia) or others (echolalia); repeatedly asking the same questions
coprolalia (repeatedly speaking obscenities) or copropraxia (repeatedly making obscene gestures)
repeating sounds, words, numbers, and/or music to oneself
If your existence on this board is to 1) Not attempt to answer fellow board members questions and instead 2) Display a hostile and combative demeanor at all times, then frankly Jim, we don't need you. You aren't bringing anything to the table. In fact, you are destructive to this board which has grown into a pretty good place to be, the occasional curse word (me, guilty) and adult disagreement (me, many) we have had with others.
Because its like this, either you go, or we go. And the guys who built up this board and the good folks who use it, aren't gonna put up with it. Hence this response to you. And I am not calling you names, or using profanity, or anything like that. I am however letting you know my position. So again, clean it up, or you go, or we go.
Take your demons elsewhere. Good luck in your endeavors
Last edited by satpak77; 03-31-2013 at 12:41 AM.
03-31-2013, 12:54 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by satpak77
OP never said "moves to the majors" or used the word moves at all. You, not he, said that. You are arguing something that you said, not he said. You are in effect, arguing with yourself.
You seem to advocate that you don't misstate things, while claiming everyone else does. However, you stated OP said or implied "moves" to a major however OP did not specifically say this. A move, by definition, is a transfer in position or physical, from Location A to Location B. Since some of us read the first work on the thread title, which is "Left", the word move does not apply. Again, you, not the OP, and nobody here, said move. Your use of the word move is inappropriate for the situation discussed.
Left, denotes departure or exit, and OP stated that he left the regionals. OP further clarified that he obtained work "away from flying". So again, nobody, not me, not the OP, nobody, but you, said "moves" to a major. OP also appeared to hypothesize if maybe one of his apps at a major, might get looked at, while he is working away from flying. He stated "he had friends at the majors" that "want him back." Most all of us here understood that to mean "back in the aviation industry".
A person can return to work,, as in return to work/employment status, and do it, at a major.
Lets look at my example.
RJ Pilot Jim is sick of aviation. He has never flown for a major and in fact the name of his current company is Never-Been-A-Major Express. He does have some apps in at majors however.
Sick of low pay, he quits the industry and finds employment as a golf course greenskeeper. For now, he has left the industry/work as a pilot.
Later, Kit Darby's predictions ring true, and RJ Pilot Jim is called by a major, due to a pilot shortage. Jim accepts, missing aviation, and returns to the cockpit.
Jim returned to work (aka the industry) and did so via his new job at a major.
See Jim, it is possible. Lighten up on the guys on the board here, we are all professionals, or at least I hope so. This is a pilot board, not the Debate Club. I have seen you do this on other discussions, instead of answering the OP's question, you attack his wording or phraseology, then proceed to get into a wrestling match with other posters who are trying to answer the OP in whatever thread. This isn't about you Jim. Its about all of us, the forum members, and the non-forum visitors, who read this site.
Your behavior, attacking sentence structure and hostility with others, and the absolute desire to "be right", is consistent with Adult OCD and anxiety issues.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
5 or 6 posters, solid guys on this forum, Galaxy, Rick, and some others, read OP post and "got it" and attempted to answer him. Then you decided to turn this into English Composition Class, and no attempt was made on your part to answer OP, who posted a valid question and most of us "got" what he was asking. As a matter of fact, you still have not attempted to answer OP, which could have been "gee kid, my opinion is XXXX, good luck."
If your existence on this board is to 1) Not attempt to answer fellow board members questions and instead 2) Display a hostile and combative demeanor at all times, then frankly Jim, we don't need you. You aren't bringing anything to the table. In fact, you are destructive to this board which has grown into a pretty good place to be, the occasional curse word (me, guilty) and adult disagreement (me, many) we have had with others.
Because its like this, either you go, or we go. And the guys who built up this board and the good folks who use it, aren't gonna put up with it. Hence this response to you. And I am not calling you names, or using profanity, or anything like that. I am however letting you know my position. So again, clean it up, or you go, or we go.
Take your demons elsewhere. Good luck in your endeavors
You seem to advocate that you don't misstate things, while claiming everyone else does. However, you stated OP said or implied "moves" to a major however OP did not specifically say this. A move, by definition, is a transfer in position or physical, from Location A to Location B. Since some of us read the first work on the thread title, which is "Left", the word move does not apply. Again, you, not the OP, and nobody here, said move. Your use of the word move is inappropriate for the situation discussed.
Left, denotes departure or exit, and OP stated that he left the regionals. OP further clarified that he obtained work "away from flying". So again, nobody, not me, not the OP, nobody, but you, said "moves" to a major. OP also appeared to hypothesize if maybe one of his apps at a major, might get looked at, while he is working away from flying. He stated "he had friends at the majors" that "want him back." Most all of us here understood that to mean "back in the aviation industry".
A person can return to work,, as in return to work/employment status, and do it, at a major.
Lets look at my example.
RJ Pilot Jim is sick of aviation. He has never flown for a major and in fact the name of his current company is Never-Been-A-Major Express. He does have some apps in at majors however.
Sick of low pay, he quits the industry and finds employment as a golf course greenskeeper. For now, he has left the industry/work as a pilot.
Later, Kit Darby's predictions ring true, and RJ Pilot Jim is called by a major, due to a pilot shortage. Jim accepts, missing aviation, and returns to the cockpit.
Jim returned to work (aka the industry) and did so via his new job at a major.
See Jim, it is possible. Lighten up on the guys on the board here, we are all professionals, or at least I hope so. This is a pilot board, not the Debate Club. I have seen you do this on other discussions, instead of answering the OP's question, you attack his wording or phraseology, then proceed to get into a wrestling match with other posters who are trying to answer the OP in whatever thread. This isn't about you Jim. Its about all of us, the forum members, and the non-forum visitors, who read this site.
Your behavior, attacking sentence structure and hostility with others, and the absolute desire to "be right", is consistent with Adult OCD and anxiety issues.
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
5 or 6 posters, solid guys on this forum, Galaxy, Rick, and some others, read OP post and "got it" and attempted to answer him. Then you decided to turn this into English Composition Class, and no attempt was made on your part to answer OP, who posted a valid question and most of us "got" what he was asking. As a matter of fact, you still have not attempted to answer OP, which could have been "gee kid, my opinion is XXXX, good luck."
If your existence on this board is to 1) Not attempt to answer fellow board members questions and instead 2) Display a hostile and combative demeanor at all times, then frankly Jim, we don't need you. You aren't bringing anything to the table. In fact, you are destructive to this board which has grown into a pretty good place to be, the occasional curse word (me, guilty) and adult disagreement (me, many) we have had with others.
Because its like this, either you go, or we go. And the guys who built up this board and the good folks who use it, aren't gonna put up with it. Hence this response to you. And I am not calling you names, or using profanity, or anything like that. I am however letting you know my position. So again, clean it up, or you go, or we go.
Take your demons elsewhere. Good luck in your endeavors
I think this is what everybody has been trying to say, but this time you took him to school!
One day i will buy you a beer! Let's all raise a glass to Satpak77!
03-31-2013, 03:24 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by JohnBurke
Whereas you're responding to me and I made neither of those statements (nor implied as much), your observation is also irrelevant. (That means it doesn't apply here, because those are things you made up). You said them, not me (though you attribute them to me).
You were responding to me, and asked how I knew that other pilots than the original poster were not quitting the regionals, going elsewhere, and then seeking employment with a major airline. Whereas you asked me the question, and referred specifically to my statement (which you quoted), then the only relevancy must be to my statement. Whereas you asked questions, however, that did not pertain to my statement while at the same time addressing it, your question was irrelevant. You understand this concept, that if something doesn't apply, it's not relevant? Yes?
If a pilot has not flown for a major airline, he cannot return to work for a major. He may move to a major airline. He may seek employment and find employment at a major airline, but he or she cannot, by definition, return to work at a major airline, never having been there in the first place.
The qualifications of that individual are irrelevant, as no amount of qualification changes the fact that one who has not worked for a major cannot return to work for a major.
The future employment of an individual, including finding work at a major, is irrelevant, as that individual is not returning to work for a major, never having worked at a major before.
Remember that you were specifically addressing my observation that one who has not worked at a major cannot return to work for the major. One cannot return whence one has not been. Your interrogative attempted to dance around that fact, asking what I didn't know about other applicants qualifications, when in point of fact, such questions were irrelevant to the observation that one cannot return whence one has never been.
You were responding to me, and asked how I knew that other pilots than the original poster were not quitting the regionals, going elsewhere, and then seeking employment with a major airline. Whereas you asked me the question, and referred specifically to my statement (which you quoted), then the only relevancy must be to my statement. Whereas you asked questions, however, that did not pertain to my statement while at the same time addressing it, your question was irrelevant. You understand this concept, that if something doesn't apply, it's not relevant? Yes?
If a pilot has not flown for a major airline, he cannot return to work for a major. He may move to a major airline. He may seek employment and find employment at a major airline, but he or she cannot, by definition, return to work at a major airline, never having been there in the first place.
The qualifications of that individual are irrelevant, as no amount of qualification changes the fact that one who has not worked for a major cannot return to work for a major.
The future employment of an individual, including finding work at a major, is irrelevant, as that individual is not returning to work for a major, never having worked at a major before.
Remember that you were specifically addressing my observation that one who has not worked at a major cannot return to work for the major. One cannot return whence one has not been. Your interrogative attempted to dance around that fact, asking what I didn't know about other applicants qualifications, when in point of fact, such questions were irrelevant to the observation that one cannot return whence one has never been.
I appreciate the time spent trying to justify it though. Bravo.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MinFuel
Fractional
10
02-24-2007 12:54 PM
