Originally Posted by
boofhead
Another said that the rule was written by Congress and they had no say. Could not stop it. Funny, I did not see anything at the time that indicated the FAA was not in favor of the rule nor was there much opportunity to protest (and I did protest).
Well, like I told you last time you went on this tiresome rant, that's absolute fact. Congress passed a law that the FAA *would* enact that. End of story. If congress passes a law, the FAA has absolutely no say on whether to comply. They may try to advise congress prior to passage that it's a bad idea, but congress is free to disregard their opinion. The bottom line is, the FAA may express an opinion, but Congress makes the laws, and they may choose to disregard any and all input they receive. Once congress passes the law, it's completely out of the FAAs hands. They no longer have any choice. This is the way it works. Maybe it works differently back in Oz, I don't know. I don't have a very good understanding of Australian lawmaking and regulation. But I think the same is painfully obvious about you and US government. You really have no functional understanding of how the US government works, otherwise you wouldn't persist with this drivel about how the FAA should have "fought" this. When congress passes a law that the FAA *will* enact such and such regulation, the fight is over.
In case anyone is tempted to think I'm being unduly harsh on you, I'll quote you from another thread in which you were ranting about this.
Originally Posted by
boofhead
As a confirmed conspiracy theorist I believe that the FAA has knowingly done this to kill aviation in the USA.
Aside from your refusal to grasp, despite being told many times, that the decision to pass the law was by by Congress, not the FAA, I think it's useful to have an example of the level of rationality with which you approach this issue.
You still haven't explained why you think the 1500/ATP requirement for Part 121 would cause a 4000 hour pilot to choose a 121 carrier over your operation. A guy with 4000 multi turbine time is obviously well beyond 1500/ATP minimums, so it pretty much comes down to how does your terms of employment compare to other options.
I'll say again what I said in a past thread in which you were bemoaning how the 1500/ATP rule was destroying your business: I have your minimums. I have several times your minimums, in fact. Most of it Multi time. Most of it Alaska time. Plenty of it Turbine Time. It would be great to fly your Conquest around Alaska and be home most nights. I live about a half mile from your office, I could walk to work.
So, what's are you offering? Give me a complete run-down of the terms and conditions. Salary? Monthly Guarantee? Per flight hour? Schedule? Days off per month? How long am I on call for on a reserve day? 8 hr? 12 Hr/day? 24 hr/day? What's the company contribution to the 401K? Medical benefits? How much is the employee co-pay for the medical? What's covered? How much paid vacation per year?
Last time I asked this, you got awfully quiet and didn't answer the question. Not sure why; if you're looking to hire pilots, and you believe that your terms and conditions are competitive, there's no reason I can see to be shy about posting them.
So, how about it?????