|
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 859422)
I don't know much about Lee, what he flies, or what motivates him. But, for every 777 or 747 on the property that's a bunch of 767-400, A-330, and 7er pilots that move up and or out.
Most of the list is positively affected. I say let's bring on all the 777's and -400's we can and I'm sure that the people in the know want the same thing. We have a winner. :) If the company gets more 747s, it's good for everyone, if they get more 777s, it's good for everyone. The fences only protect a very small percentage of the pilot group for a limited time. |
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 859425)
DING DING DING DING DING !!!!
We have a winner. :) If the company gets more 747s, it's good for everyone, if they get more 777s, it's good for everyone. The fences only protect a very small percentage of the pilot group for a limited time. The fences only protect senior captains on the 747 and 777. Most of the senior captains on these jets are very unlikely to bid away even without the fences... Cheers George |
Test.........
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 859443)
Test.........
|
Originally Posted by Reroute
(Post 859425)
DING DING DING DING DING !!!!
We have a winner. :) If the company gets more 747s, it's good for everyone, if they get more 777s, it's good for everyone. The fences only protect a very small percentage of the pilot group for a limited time. |
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 859416)
Moak's a big boy. He can handle the abuse.
Plus he's a politician. He signed up for the abuse. Having said that, the idea that he doesn't want more 747s on the property might be the all-time champion of goofy rumors. (just had to post something to stay in the top 20 of posters in this thread. Sink r8 is closing in) So sorry, you do not have the right to abuse people just because they have taken positions of leadership in the union. You can question their decisions and strategy, but you do not have the right to abuse them. If someone gives themselves the right to abuse people, then they are a lowlife in my book. If someone can't stick to the facts and avoid innuendo and personal attacks, then their ideas suck and they need to develop better arguments. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards than 12 year old girls who post nasty comments on Facebook? Shouldn't we at least try to stick to the facts when dealing with personal reputations? What would your response be if Delta management attacked one of your fellow pilots like this? I like the rumor of buying multiple 747's or 777's just as much as the next guy. These rumors are rampant in this industry. I just think that when we are dealing with the personal reputation of your fellow pilots, they deserve the same respect you would expect from them in a personal interaction. We should not allow our standards to fall in the gutter just because we can. |
I agree reroute. Fences are for a very small percentage of pilots.
The fleets are about equal now. Growing either one will probably cause angst on the other side. That said, are the fences worth the division that action may create? |
Originally Posted by Nosmo King
(Post 858572)
Hypothetical Question:
How would you feel if You had flown with a mixed N/S crew of three on a (insert aircraft type here). Some time after that trip you found out that one of the other pilots (not an LCA or instructor or special qual) had been spying/taking notes in secret (choose one) and then reporting back to someone higher in the chain of command without your knowledge. You had no prior notification from anyone in the company including the crew member. Kosher or not? |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 859422)
I don't know much about Lee, what he flies, or what motivates him. But, for every 777 or 747 on the property that's a bunch of 767-400, A-330, and 7er pilots that move up and or out.
Most of the list is positively affected. I say let's bring on all the 777's and -400's we can and I'm sure that the people in the know want the same thing.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 859461)
Sorry, but where does it say that volunteering to serve as a leader for your fellow pilots means you sign up for abuse. Who created that rule? It seems to me that the most abusive forum posters are the ones who created that rule. What if I were to find out the real name of Check Essential was John Doe and then I started posting about what "someone said" about John Doe. I could post any abusive or untrue comment and then justify it by saying "John Doe signed up for abuse by posting in a public forum."
So sorry, you do not have the right to abuse people just because they have taken positions of leadership in the union. You can question their decisions and strategy, but you do not have the right to abuse them. If someone gives themselves the right to abuse people, then they are a lowlife in my book. If someone can't stick to the facts and avoid innuendo and personal attacks, then their ideas suck and they need to develop better arguments. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards than 12 year old girls who post nasty comments on Facebook? Shouldn't we at least try to stick to the facts when dealing with personal reputations? What would your response be if Delta management attacked one of your fellow pilots like this? I like the rumor of buying multiple 747's or 777's just as much as the next guy. These rumors are rampant in this industry. I just think that when we are dealing with the personal reputation of your fellow pilots, they deserve the same respect you would expect from them in a personal interaction. We should not allow our standards to fall in the gutter just because we can. B) Abuse isn't appropriate for anyone. And I don't think Check means Moak deserves having David Letterman tell jokes about a profesisonal baseball player knocking up his 14 year old daughter during the 7th inning stretch just because he signed up to be a politician. I think Check meant abuse as in, take the heat. And that Moak knew the seat would be hot but he can take the heat and he knows how to handle it. But I don't speak for Check and nobody wants me to speak nor write for them. Grammar and spelling issues. I get it. But lets see how well you spell when your public school system is the one that gave us Allen Iverson and Michael Vick. Thats my excuse anyways. :mad: :D |
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 859461)
So sorry, you do not have the right to abuse people just because they have taken positions of leadership in the union. You can question their decisions and strategy, but you do not have the right to abuse them. If someone gives themselves the right to abuse people, then they are a lowlife in my book. If someone can't stick to the facts and avoid innuendo and personal attacks, then their ideas suck and they need to develop better arguments. Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards than 12 year old girls who post nasty comments on Facebook? Shouldn't we at least try to stick to the facts when dealing with personal reputations? What would your response be if Delta management attacked one of your fellow pilots like this?
But you might be over-reacting. I didn't see a nonsensical rumor about Moak's position on 747s as a personal attack. Its only "abuse" in the sense that its a political cheap shot. No big deal. Discredit the silly rumor and move on. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:47 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands