"Interview questions used to be along the lines of "How did you accrue your hours? What lessons did you learn? Tell me about Vmca / Vmcg (piston vs twin jet).... How does the IRS work (then strap down gyros, etc...) Nowadays it's: "What do your parents think of you becoming a pilot?" ([/b][/i]refer CX Wannabes forum[/i][/b])."
No reference given, eh? True.... I did expect anyone questioning the claim to use the reference given (I know, I know.... The one too blatant provided). That may have taken some reading. Too much to ask to someone more hell bent on self righteous ridicule without the professionalism to research first.
A reference to the forum is inadequate, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
You provided no link. I have no intention of researching your posts for you, and if you can't be bothered to link your information or at least quote it and give the thread reference, that's your failing, and your problem. You did neither.
You did assert, after all, that technical questions are no longer asked, but your quote listed technical questions all the same. You were called out on this, but failed to respond. When you finally did quote the CX post (in #8 in this thread), you excused yourself by saying "
as frustrating as it is to do the research to prove what I knew, hence the reference!" Apparently you find researching your own posts frustrating, and expect others to do it for you. Alternately, your failure to reference was also excused in post #8 by saying "
that was needed to be respectfully & professionally paid for: reference is personal knowledge of internal SIN Safety Dept info, sorry can't give the source." Perhaps if you're unable to give the reference, you shouldn't bring it up in the first place.
Same song, same dance, same backpedaling. Here we are eight or nine pages later, and you remain the same.
It's an insult to argue you.
Yet you do it anyway. (and lose). Why punish yourself?
Not to question your highly educated English (I know you're very sensitive), but "
It's an insult to argue with you," works a little better.
I cannot find find ONE post linking or believing that salary scales directly proportional to pilot skill or ambition. Many have questioned motive for the job. Most have questioned the levels of professionalism & airmanship of those accepting lower T & C's owing to their competitive lack of experience as opposed to those with substantially more. You are the one flogging that agenda to death.
No. Actually I'm the one not "flogging it to death." I'm the one who states that professionalism and airmanship doesn't depend on the paycheck.
Seeing as you brought it up, of course, the issue of professionalism linked to pay has been broached by you, in post #1 (asserting that airlines are actually seeking to lower standards--"
the lowest common denominator"--by paying less), and continued throughout the thread. I'm one of the few asserting that professionalism and airmanship isn't reduced by lower pay.
Interesting that you tell me I'm the one perpetuating the idea. when it was your first lie, and the foundation of the thread. Of course, now you're telling us that pilots refuse those lower salaries, whereas your opening shot told us that "pilots are lining up in endless ques to accept them." Another example of your inconsistency throughout the thread.
So, let's see, posts linking pay with pilot skill and ambition...the thread, as you introduced it, is actually about airmanship, but if you want to call it skill and ambition now, as you wish. Posts that have done this: 1, 8, 9, 15, 25, 27, 30, 34, 37, 39, 46, 48, 55, 57, 87, 134, 138, 140, and of course, 142. There's the reference, broken down to save you the frustration of research, and no link is necessary, because it's this thread.
It's your agenda, you see, and one you won't let go. It is, after all the basis under which you wrote the opening shot for this thread.
You needn't argue with me; your argument is with your self, based on your frequent and constant contradictions.
You deny airlines seek less experienced pilots via reduced pay scales: pay scales they know experienced pilots, by an overwhelming majority, will not accept. Reference: CX offer to the 60 experienced pilots for the CEP "short course" whereby all but 1 refused. There's another reference for you to deny it's existence & be too lazy to research!
That's not a reference. You failed to provide one (again). It would seem you're too lazy to research your own posts, isn't it? Frankly, if you can't make your point, then don't bother. I'm certainly not going to go through tens of thousands of posts to help you make it. That you failed to do so (once more) is no surprise.
I don't know what the CEP short course is, and don't really care. If pilots elected not to take it, or a job, or a pay level, that's fine. I've elected not to take jobs before, as well. What of it?
Your sentence is ambiguous, so I'll address both possibilities in your ambiguity. On the one hand you could be attempting to say that I deny airlines seek less experienced pilots. In this, you're correct: I do deny this, and nothing in your statements is able to contradict it. Airlines don't seek the least experience they can find. If on the other hand, you are attempting to say that airlines would prefer to pay as little as possible, then you're quite correct. Find an employer that doesn't want to pay as little as is necessary or required.
You don't like pay scales, blame unions. Blame the pilots who accept the wages. Blame someone; you're hell-bent to do so (blaming me mostly, it would seem, but as you will). Here again, it's you blathering on about pay, and attempting to tie it to pilot quality. Ironically, right after you just accused me of doing that very thing. Another lie on your part, isn't it? It is.