That's all we can do. Unfortunately, it might take a total implosion of RAH or F9 before anyone is willing to fess up. I'm still waiting to confirm some truths (I guess they aren't truths if I can't confirm them) from 4 years ago.

As for my opinion of IBT and the Company, I gave them both a fair shot in making my judgements. IBT started out as a neutral while RAH started started out with the disadvantage of having to prove they weren't everything you all said they are. Since then I have watched RAH do things with you guys that I certainly wouldn't appreciate if I were in your shoes, but I haven't seen any of that applied over here.

On the flip side, IBT managed to quickly fall off a cliff for reasons that have been rehashed 100's of times on this site and others. It is what it is. IBTs relationship with the Company can not really even be called that. It appears to be beyond repair and I absolutely can not fathom that it is 100% the fault of the Company.

All I can say MasterofPuppets, is that we have experienced the IBT machines ability to twist and misrepresent the facts. We don't need to wonder if it is truth or not, because we know (we have first hand experience).

I can't tell you who is telling the truth between RAH and IBT, and I assume you've got lots of intelligent and informed pilots over there. That is good. But, we've also got the 5% RAHbros with an IV drip of 357 liquid crack, and they don't seem willing to try and help themselves.

Truth dude, everyone should seek it. Good luck with everything.

 

So what? He had a problem, and he's going to pay for his actions. What does that have to do with the web site?

But, since you bring it up, the name Gilbert Ponder ring a bell? Were you incensed enough to write a letter when he put passengers' lives at risk for his selfish behavior? Or did you know him personally and have conflicted feelings when he got canned?

 

This is a risk of outsourcing, it happens all the time when a regional does something, they label it United or Delta. They do normally mention who operates it but they always go after who they bough the ticket from. Loos at what has happened with the Colgan crash and Continental.

 

Airbill,

What benefit comes from naming pilots that have had serious personal, health and career problems on a public message board?

It seems extremely classless and achieves nothing. Show some respect to those who are less fortunate than you or many of our peers that could at one point or another during their careers have faced a similar situation.

No one named the CHQ pilot that had an issue, although everyone knows his name. The system prevented both pilots from endangering anyone, unlike the situation where the pilot actually flew the aircraft and ultimately his Captain turned him at their destination. In the Captain's defense, he was a very young man and a new Captain at the time of the incident. I'd like to think he learned from the experience and would handle it differently if faced with the same situation today.

It's easy to get caught up in the emotion of the issues, especially on an anonymous message board, but that is no excuse for attacking a pilot or pilots that have suffered, and will continue to suffer, without having an opportunity to defend themselves in these fora.

We should not abandon respect, common decency and class regardless of how contentious or emotional we become while arguing about issues that are relatively minor in the grand scheme of world issues.

Before anyone else points it out, I have not always followed these tenets myself, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all continuously strive to do better.

Discuss, argue and debate, but how about we leave the names of the defenseless out of the discussion, especially when it brings nothing of substance to the discussion.

 

Well played Airbill. touché!

Let me turn the tables on a RAHbro once again by asking "what your point is?" You appear to be seeking for clarification of my comments regarding an unnamed CHQ pilot who made a mistake. First of all, why are we bringing names into the discussion? Why have the personal addiction problems and subsequent career ramifications of a certain F9 pilot become a talking point? All because I mentioned a similar instance with an unnamed CHQ pilot that blew up in the news with nearly zero reference to CHQ and nearly 100% to Frontier? I am simply pointing out that the actions of those not working under the F9 certificate are fully capable of negatively impacting the Frontier brand, whether it be staggering into the hotel van while preparing to show for duty or using images of brands of companies whom RAH contracts with as a means of pressuring them to the bargaining table.

For the record, at Frontier we have systems in place to deal with substance abuse and addiction issues (not to mentioned FAR violations) when they arise and the company is made aware. I am not privy to the information related to the specific individual whom you chose to identify, so am unable to comment any further on his situation.

Frontier employees are fully capable of making their own mistakes or taking actions which garner negative publicity for the company. Fortunately for you, the Chautauqua, Shuttle and/or Republic names don't generally get dragged into the discussion. The pilot whom you identified had an addiction problem, made poor decisions and paid for it with his career. Any negative publicity shone upon Frontier was deserved as he was one of our employees.

That's about all I need to say. You've made an effort to redefine the discussion as a tit for tat of who's who in the drunk pilot world. You win! You also exposed your true character in doing so. I'm simply amazed at the immaturity often displayed by some of you.