![]() |
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1273174)
Once again, to compare what happens to a loved one being murdered, to a job shows how utterly tasteless, classless, and ignorant you are. Nothing compares to the destruction of a human life and all the pain and damage it causes to those that experience such a loss, particularly murder. To compare this to murder is about as stupid as it gets. Grow up and get a clue.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1273153)
There isn't age discrimination to defend. The trial wouldn't be about age discrimination. It'd be about falsification of legal documentation and lying to a federal agency.
I'm glad you're confident it'll be gone soon, considering the entire reason Age 65 occured was to align with ICAO standards. |
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1273159)
Because a requirement to be issued an ATP is to be of good moral character. If someone falsifies documentation and lies to a federal agency to benefit themselves, they certainly haven't maintained that.
|
Originally Posted by 80ktsClamp
(Post 1273180)
The logic of it remains the same as per your original statements. He has a valid argument...
|
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1273188)
Anyone who thinks losing a job, an upgrade, or pay compares in any way to the loss of a life needs to get a serious reality check. Nothing compares to that. I'd point you to the 16 year old girl we had to raise because her mother was blown to pieces by a murderous thug, but if if you're so ignorant as to think that compares to losing your job, I won't waste the time.
|
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1273174)
Once again, to compare what happens to a loved one being murdered, to a job shows how utterly tasteless, classless, and ignorant you are. Nothing compares to the destruction of a human life and all the pain and damage it causes to those that experience such a loss, particularly murder. To compare this to murder is about as stupid as it gets. Grow up and get a clue.
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1273159)
Because a requirement to be issued an ATP is to be of good moral character. If someone falsifies documentation and lies to a federal agency to benefit themselves, they certainly haven't maintained that.
My opinion is that the intent of the FAR's, as it relates to this guy, is to protect the public. There has been no evidence, as of yet, that shows that the public was at risk in any way. Was it wrong? Yes. Is it as big a deal as some people would like to make it out to be? Not really. Relax, Francis. It's one guy, and he is never going to fly as PIC again. Not even in a Piper Cub. That, to me, would be worse than anything the court could do to me. |
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1273186)
While working as a scheduler, I had an FO call me and refuse to fly with a Captain because he was sleeping with another guy's wife and didn't meet the "good moral character" clause and was not fit to hold his ATP. Please tell me this wasn't you.....
We have all flown with people we don't care for, but there comes a point where you may have to bow out. |
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1273186)
While working as a scheduler, I had an FO call me and refuse to fly with a Captain because he was sleeping with another guy's wife and didn't meet the "good moral character" clause and was not fit to hold his ATP. Please tell me this wasn't you.....
|
Originally Posted by FlyingKat
(Post 1272991)
I wouldn't worry about it because I only concern myself with what is under my control. Upgrade times, hiring, what others earn really don't concern me. All I worry about is preparing myself or opportunities and then taking them. Whining and crying about things beyond your control is a waste of time.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:27 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands