AirOverTheLog

Cirrus-ly guys. ****. Fighting over a 135 operation is kind of like not worth it. Like ****ing into the wind.

B727DRVR

Hey John,

134.5 is just a pejorative for a half-ass, do it or your fired type 135 operator: Think YIP in the 1990's or S. Florida 135 operators that were bad enough to become a cliche' and a meme....

"134.5" implies a company that does not hold a charter certificate, yet performs charters. If you're applying that to the operator in question, then you've lied. Make that clear: you are lying. You state that Cirrus proudly proclaims their status as a "134.5 company." How is it that they hold out to the public for charter, then? Where is this proud proclamation?

JohnBurke

No vote of confidence. I wouldn't let you fly a pet pig. You claim to own an aviation business. Maybe you make paper airplanes. Who knows? Your spelling, syntax and sentence structure don't suggest military officer pilot or retired airline pilot, but high school drop-out who can't complete a sentence without sounding like a D+ jr. high student. Your inability to speak the truth, your ignorance about common terms, and your clear history of joining this web site to bash companies for whom you have never flown speaks volumes about your character.

Making assumptions is a stupid endeavor, but why would you assume anything. I never claimed to work for Cirrus. I have nothing to do with them. I've neither spoken for them, or against them. I couldn't care less about them. It could be payless shoes or the beagle factory for all I care. This thread is really about you. It has been since you entered, and you entered here with one purpose: to attack the employer with which you have no experience. I've made no attempt to describe them. I'd never heard of them until this thread. It didn't take reading much of the thread to realize you'd made it your thread, your mission, your pet project to take down an employer you don't know, haven't worked for...and have taken on just like the plethora of others you've chosen to attack. It does seem to be your defining trait, reviewing the few posts you've made. You've made numerous accusations, but haven't backed a single one. This has proven the case in all your other assaults on other employers, too. One need only see your posting history to know that.

I've no obligation to defend Cirrus. I didn't attack them. I don't work for them. You have an obligation. You've dedicated yourself to this attack for over a year now. Not once have you substantiated anything, and not once has anyone else who worked there come on here to back you. Interesting, don't you think? Don't answer; it's rhetorical. Clearly, you don't think.

Part 135 is the most common type of operating certificate that the FAA issues. It is not "minimalist." It is one type of certificate operation. You seem unfamiliar with Part 135 operations, let alone the meaning of the term "134.5."

"134.5" has long been used to refer to non-certificated operators performing illegal charter flights.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/at...our-faa-45384/

https://theearlyairway.com/part-134-5-charters/

https://bizjetjobs.com/contract-pilo...lying-charter/

https://www.jetlinx.com/behind-the-numbers/

Is English your second language? Is that the problem, here?

You don't seem to understand what the FAA does. Or does not do. The FAA does not "wash its hands" of employment agreements. The FAA has nothing to do with them. It's irrelevant. The FAA is charged by an act of congress with regulating and enforcing aviation. Not labor law. You seem confused about the two.

Pilots operating under Part 135 are required to comply with the regulation, and with the operations specifications issued that certificate holder. The regulation does not address "employment agreements." The regulation does not enforce, define, or involve employment "guidelines." It's irrelevant. You do not know this?

Oh, no. Say it ain't so.

"Me and you?" Really?

Hold on a second there, brightspark. You stated that "134.5" means they're a shady 135 operation. You went to lengths to expound on this ignorance that you profess. You wanted to educate your "viewing audience" that this operator is a "134.5 piece of ****" operator that operates "outside it's certification boundaries." Now you say they're a respectable 135 operation. You can't have it both ways. Which one is the lie? Caught in another one. How about that?

Are you attempting English? You're not doing well. When you flew as a military officer and retired, you surely passed your English classes in the pursuit of your degree, did you not? It does not show.

You couldn't even spell my screen name right. Disappointing. You are right, however. You are a liar.

Your mission then, as you've chosen to accept it, is to "educate new pilots." How altruistic of you. Your posting trend clearly is to find as many operators as you can and denigrate them, to save the "new pilots." How's that going? I could be a new pilot. I could be a four-decade experienced hand, widebody international captain with five FAA certificates, maintenance experience, with an extremely broad background in aviation, or I could be a student pilot, or somewhere in between: a new-guy looking for that big break. You're not working very hard to educate me, though I'm doing more struggling trying to wade through your sentences than gleaning any useful data. As a potential "new pilot," I might be looking for information of substance about these operators. Instead, I'm inundated by a mountain of allegations by someone with no connection to the operator. You. Lots of accusations, insinuations, inferences, name calling, but nothing to back it up, either, and not a single leg upon which to stand. You neither represent the company, nor have you worked for them. Nor any of the operators you denigrate. You've been identified telling lies about them, and yes, telling lies, by definition, makes you a liar. You really shouldn't do that.

Again, where did you learn English, Mr. retired military officer and retired airline pilot?

Clearly you don't like smoking. Do you think that the FAA should regulate this, too? Does the act of a management employee smoking, make the operator a "134.5" operator in your misguided eyes?

I have not worked there, and nothing I have said would suggest so. Again, you lie. But you do that. A lot, it seems. For the record, I know nothing about them. I frequently field questions about who is hiring, and I perused the thread to see what was said. Turns out it was mostly you, and having read everything you have to say about them, I still know nothing, because you've offered nothing you could, or would, back up. You made the accusations aplenty, and the operator has responded in the negative, denying your claims. As you made the charges, it's up to you to defend them, prove them, provide something other than your second hand sniping from the shadows, and you've made no effort to do so (but have been caught lying about it). If I'm a new guy looking for that big break, educate me, then. Back up your hot air, if you can.

I know. You "got nothing to loose" (sic) by "going to to toe" with me "all day." You seem to thrive on it. So, let's say I'm that "new guy" in need of saving. You think you know me. You were not "a race to the bottom" like my "counterparts today." Who are my counterparts, brightspark? Do they need saving, too? Your "flesh and blood" worked for Cirrus, and apparently didn't come out of the experience a winner? Case of sour grapes? When you took legal action to remedy the situation, what was the outcome? Or did you not? Help the new guy out. Spill the beans. Lots of mouth; put the money there. Back it up.

Of course, I could be another operator. Maybe a 135 operator. Would that make me a target, worthy of shredding in broken english with unsubstantiated slurs and slandering, eviscerated by second-hand innuendo? Which shall it be, toe-to-toe retired military officer English major: save, or shred?

FlightIsLife

Welp.... I beat the dead horse and he has awaken.

Cavok1

Sounds like they are growing. Saw a lot of job postings. Unfortunately things are worse.
If they tell you you will be home most of the month that is a lie. Looks like they are more of a floating fleet now. The good news is lots of hotel points for the company. No hotel points, no Atlantic points to pilots. Friend said they threatened termination if you fuel more than bare minimum at Signature because pilots can actually get Tail winds points. No vacation. If you want a job that gives you vacation go work at Wal Mart. 14+ hour duty days is common. But don’t worry, if they switch numbers from 135 to 91 it’s all legit. Unheard of 2 year contract. 100% payback for 14 months. If you leave they will threaten you with bad reference and PRIA.
Unhappy pilot group. Subpar pay. The biggest slap in the face, the owners (GW) doesn’t care one bit about the pilots and he has no problem showing you in person. Stop one of their pilots in an FBO if you see one. Ask them about the nice Christmas cheer received from the company. It’s really a family atmosphere (sarcasm) and looks like it’s only getting better (NOT).

JohnBurke

Cavok1, do you work for Cirrus Aviation?

Your sole purpose on this web site has been to denigrate them, and your posts are not written as one with first hand knowledge. Literally, you entered eight years ago with two posts stating you will follow the rules, and that you're a regional pilot...and since then, you've not made a single post except to denigrate Cirrus. Did you leave the regionals to fly for a 135 operation?

You share much in common with LLWS09R. Low post count. Don't seem to understand or know 135. If you think 14 hour duty days are a stretch, you've not done 135 much. You've not done much outside 135, either, and apparently have never seen 30 hour duty days...which make 14 hour duty days seem like a vacation. That's just your inexperience showing though. Not that there's anything to go by, because your only posting history is to bash Cirrus Aviation.

So, do you work there? Leg to stand on? Or is this the alter ego of "LLWS09R," who didn't have a leg to stand on, either?

Let's see...in this thread, YOU exist only to post to attack this company. You do nothing else and have done nothing else. Low post count.

"FlyingLV" has a low post count and has posted nowhere but this thread.

"Woods" has low post count, and has posted nowhere but this thread.

"ChallengerCP" has a low post count, and has posted nowhere but this thread.

"Crook we fly" has a low post count, and has posted nowhere but this thread.

"Fly604LV" has a low post count, and has posted nowhere but this thread. He actually cited his name, pilot certificate number, and provided a phone number.

Some post for, some against, but of these, each created the identity to post here, in this one thread, and nowhere else. Why? Which one(s) are you?

You're very likely LLWS09R, who was exposed with lies on multiple counts. Your grammar is similar in some of your posts. If you are the same person, posting and then responding to yourself, that would make you a bit schizophrenic, wouldn't it?

It's one thing if you have numerous posts in other threads and have a reason to be here other than to attack a singular company...but that's all you've contributed. Negative attacks on one, single company. Your reason for existence here.

That is interesting, isn't it?

Cavok1

That was a quick response. Did u get a notification that someone posted a negative comment about Cirrus? You must be management. Why don’t you say something good about the company? Guess you’ll have to keep on guessing.

JohnBurke

As I clearly stated before, I have nothing to do with the company. I'd never heard of them until this thread.

This thread is unique, with so many names created ONLY to post in this thread, and a number of them, like you, only to attack Cirrus Aviation.

Now, I've lived in Vegas four times, worked for various operators there. Never heard of Cirrus. They didn't exist when I was there, so far as I know.

You've offered not a single thing to substantiate any of your attacks. Nothing. You've contributed nothing to Airline Pilot Central. Not a single comment in a different thread. Not a positive comment anywhere. You've literally contributed nothing in your time, and have only denigrated. You continue to do so.

I think you're the previous poster who was exposed as a fraud and a liar, and who has since stopped posting here. I think you're LLWS09R. Just posting under a different name. There's something unbalanced, and quite fraudulent, about posting under multiple personalities, especially to support each other. The only thing you could do that would be stranger would be to argue with yourself using different personalities. You're not doing that too, are you?

If you have something specific to charge against Cirrus Aviation, I'd love to hear it. I might be that new hire looking to invest myself and my career. It's hard to take the word of a coward in the shadows who contributes nothing, however, isn't it? That's you. Do you work there and are afraid for your job? Did you work there and are afraid Cirrus will come after you? What is it? Why the cowardice, here?

Which is it? Cowardice, or lies?

Cavok1

You have nothing to do with Cirrus but you sure get butt hurt over this. I’ve offered up what I know. Don’t need to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn’t a court. Believe it, don’t, I don’t care. If your a new hire, ask yourself why would there be so many negative posts? OK dad, I’ve violated my oath to only provide sworn testimony on this forum… my bad. Maybe it’s my evil alter ego? Or not. Who knows.

JohnBurke

Reasonable doubt is a court standard.

Do you mean to say you came here to sow doubt? That seems to be your mission. Cast aspersion. Put down. Denigrate. Insult. But not one thing to offer, and nothing to substantiate a lick of it.

Believe it or not, you don't care? Your ONLY posts on this web site, on all of airline pilot central, have been to attack Cirrus Aviation. You come here for one reason, and one reason only: to attack Cirrus Aviation. And you don't care? No, I believe you not.

I'm not your dad. My kids know better. They're not liars. Yet you just lied. That's something else you have in common with your alter ego.

You've made specific, pointed accusations, prefacing them by saying "this much I know." That's not reasonable doubt. That's testimony. You've used it as if to lend credence to the notion that you work there, but you don't, do you? A lie by inference. Once a liar, always a liar, it seems, regardless of the alter ego.

It's "you're a new hire." There's an apostrophe. Your language is poor, like your alter ego. Of course there, you claimed to be a retired military officer, and airline pilot.

I don't take issue with those with experience with an operator warning others. You have claimed no experience and your language in other posts indicates that you don't work for them. Subtle, but there. You're not an experienced employee coming here to warn others at all. Neither was your alter ego. When you exist in this space for one reason only, and come here for the sole purpose of this singular thread to attack one company, and then attempt to say you don't care, there's not enough paper to wipe up your excrement and pretend it's not there. Don't try.

No, you're not someone coming here to warn others. You're something else. Something unsavory, a little gnat that's come to pester, and can't tell the truth about that, let alone contribute in any way, anywhere on the web site. That's telling.

Tell more. Your choice if you continue to do it as a coward, or if you'll come clean. You've no credibility, so you might as well continue the coward role. Right?