Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-15-2021, 03:40 PM   #201  
Line Holder
 
AirOverTheLog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 74
Default

Cirrus-ly guys. ****. Fighting over a 135 operation is kind of like not worth it. Like ****ing into the wind.
AirOverTheLog is offline  
Old 04-16-2021, 12:17 AM   #202  
Gets Weekends Off
 
B727DRVR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Standing in front of the tank with a shopping bag
Posts: 647
Exclamation 134.5 is a pejorative for a bad 135 company..

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?
B727DRVR is offline  
Old 04-16-2021, 04:21 AM   #203  
Disinterested Third Party
 
JohnBurke's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
I appreciate the vote of confidence there.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
One can only assume you don’t work for Cirrus. Either or you could dispute my claims up very easy with facts.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
But I will clearify for are veiwing audience. Cirrus does hold a Part 135 operating certificate. Part 135 holds the minimalist standard for an operating certification. There are operators in Florida with a single Cessna 172 operating under Part 135 certification. The reference of Part 134.5 is a well known slang for a piece of —-t operators. That operate outside of there certification boundaries. Unfortunately there is not enough dedicated FAA inspectors to throughly check all Part 135 compliance out side of there yearly/bi-yearly inspection. Sad but true.
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/

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
Now employment on the other hand the FAA washes there hands of any employment agreements or guidelines as long as they comply with crew certification and rest rules.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
This is where me and you come to odds.
Oh, no. Say it ain't so.

"Me and you?" Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
They may run a respectable Part 135 operation.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
But treatment of flight crew is where I see the reason to educate the new pilots. Like most management companies a company in this case Cirrus or ABC management company for all it matters will never come out and tell a potential recruit the real story. But since Mr Bruke says I’m full of it and in his words a liar.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLWS09R View Post
Please go work for them. Apparently they are Forbes top 100 companies to work for. Dont let my negativity stop you. But don’t say I didn’t warn you either. Mr Burke has apparently work there for awhile and knows everything about them! Good luck there and I’ll give you a hint if you want to get in good with the Management start smoking.
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?
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 04-16-2021, 08:13 PM   #204  
On Reserve
 
FlightIsLife's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Posts: 11
Default

Welp.... I beat the dead horse and he has awaken.
FlightIsLife is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cirrus Aviation has Immediate Openings CirrusAv Corporate 0 01-28-2018 12:17 PM
Cirrus Aviation has Immediate Openings CirrusAv Hiring News 0 01-28-2018 12:05 PM
Beacon/Dynamic Aviation King Airs in NE Fetzervalve Part 135 43 02-04-2016 09:46 AM
CFI FIA versus CPL written dl773 Flight Schools and Training 2 06-17-2014 03:03 PM
PPL training in a Cirrus. MobiusOne Flight Schools and Training 11 10-11-2007 06:27 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:43 PM.