View Poll Results: Should this thread be locked?
Lock this thread.
213
49.31%
Do not lock this thread.
219
50.69%
Voters: 432. This poll is closed
Virgin in trouble?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know anything about VB's finacial position.
I have heard directly from one recently promoted 737 captain that he's been asked to consider 3 options, leave without pay, job sharing or taking an FO slot.
As a QF employee I really hope VB gets through these more difficult times as I have quite a few friends working there, as have most of my collegues. The last thing aviation needs in Australasia is another failure.
I have heard directly from one recently promoted 737 captain that he's been asked to consider 3 options, leave without pay, job sharing or taking an FO slot.
As a QF employee I really hope VB gets through these more difficult times as I have quite a few friends working there, as have most of my collegues. The last thing aviation needs in Australasia is another failure.
Yes it is a rumour network
When a 'rumour' is proven to have no basis or cred it becomes a lie or a mistaken belief (or a journalistic fact!).
In particular when it can have a negative effect on peoples lives/jobs it should be handled accordingly.
Bin it, it adds nothing
When a 'rumour' is proven to have no basis or cred it becomes a lie or a mistaken belief (or a journalistic fact!).
In particular when it can have a negative effect on peoples lives/jobs it should be handled accordingly.
Bin it, it adds nothing
When they talk about cash for fuel it reminds me of the movie flying high where the old captain oveur pulls out his wallet chooses his credit card and hands it over to the refueller!!
Thread Starter
...biggles!
Now that the dreaded poll suggests that this thread not be deleted (that was a fascinating process!), I might make another couple of comments.
A 'rumour', by definition, is an unsubstantiated expression of possibility. Thus it may be true or not. A rumour is not necessarily a 'lie' just because it turns out not to be true. Somebody who passes on (perpetuates?) a rumour may be a 'rumour-monger' (I guess that's me) but this is a forum that is provided for rumour-mongers.
A rumour that is vigorously responded-to by Ppruners isn't 'proven to have no basis or cred' simply by virtue of that vigorous response.
A rumour that is deliberately created by someone for no other reason than to cause mischief, dismay or distress may be a 'vicious rumour' but is a rumour nonetheless. Rumours are the fodder of this forum. My comment was not deliberately created by me nor was it intended to cause distress (although I am aware that many Ppruners have experienced just this at times, and are perhaps a smidge paranoid). Whether or not a rumour--once posted--gives offence is up to the individual who reads it.
Now... to 'my' rumour. There was more to it than the 'cash-for-gas' matter. The other bits have received very little or no response. Is that because there might be a grain of truth to them? You see, in posting what I thought was essentially a question, I felt the parts of the rumour (fuel/finance, leave cancelled, a/c being dusted off) might be connected.
As to the 'fuel for cash' matter. This comment was my short-hand for 'changing the fuel payment arrangements', however I concede I didn't make that clear. It did, I suppose, give those who thought they might gain some traction for their knife-thrusts from the simplistic notion that I was suggesting that Virgin pilots would be having to carry cash upon their persons in the manner of a Zimbabwean housewife going out for groceries some temporary fun. I suppose that's a positive...
It might be challenging to suggest (and I don't intend to insult anyone), but I suspect that pilots (line, not management) might--in some cases--be the last to know what's really going on within their airline. So reacting to a rumour, the content of which doesn't please you, with vehemence is not the same as refuting that rumour. That requires insight into the matter itself. It may be that those who might have the capacity to share such insight are unable to do so, for what are probably obvious reasons. And yes, some of we rumour-mongers may indeed have sources whose info turns out to be wrong. Does that--of itself--make the source 'unreliable'? Perhaps.
If Ppruners genuinely feel that a rumour might have a negative effect on their jobs and lives (although I'm not sure who would really be dispassionately qualified to determine this) then perhaps that dimension could be discussed and the thread closed for that reason. But to threaten closing a thread simply because the subject matter of a rumour is considered by some to be a threat to their delicate sensibilities I think says something rather negative about this forum itself.
In the meantime, I am passionate about my intention to fly via LA to MCO (BTW, powersfasher, who is VOz's partner in domestic US?) sometime after June this year. And I passionately desire for the Virgin's to still be flying soundly at the time as I would rather buy VOz's Premium Economy product than QF's, even though experiencing the A380 would have been nice. Last time I went to Orlando (2005) I flew out, when leaving, to Gatwick with VAt in their Business cabin and enjoyed the overnight flight (and the cabin!). In this case I shall snooze across the Pacific, fantasising about being invited to upgrade...
All the best,
D&W
Now that the dreaded poll suggests that this thread not be deleted (that was a fascinating process!), I might make another couple of comments.
A 'rumour', by definition, is an unsubstantiated expression of possibility. Thus it may be true or not. A rumour is not necessarily a 'lie' just because it turns out not to be true. Somebody who passes on (perpetuates?) a rumour may be a 'rumour-monger' (I guess that's me) but this is a forum that is provided for rumour-mongers.
A rumour that is vigorously responded-to by Ppruners isn't 'proven to have no basis or cred' simply by virtue of that vigorous response.
A rumour that is deliberately created by someone for no other reason than to cause mischief, dismay or distress may be a 'vicious rumour' but is a rumour nonetheless. Rumours are the fodder of this forum. My comment was not deliberately created by me nor was it intended to cause distress (although I am aware that many Ppruners have experienced just this at times, and are perhaps a smidge paranoid). Whether or not a rumour--once posted--gives offence is up to the individual who reads it.
Now... to 'my' rumour. There was more to it than the 'cash-for-gas' matter. The other bits have received very little or no response. Is that because there might be a grain of truth to them? You see, in posting what I thought was essentially a question, I felt the parts of the rumour (fuel/finance, leave cancelled, a/c being dusted off) might be connected.
As to the 'fuel for cash' matter. This comment was my short-hand for 'changing the fuel payment arrangements', however I concede I didn't make that clear. It did, I suppose, give those who thought they might gain some traction for their knife-thrusts from the simplistic notion that I was suggesting that Virgin pilots would be having to carry cash upon their persons in the manner of a Zimbabwean housewife going out for groceries some temporary fun. I suppose that's a positive...
It might be challenging to suggest (and I don't intend to insult anyone), but I suspect that pilots (line, not management) might--in some cases--be the last to know what's really going on within their airline. So reacting to a rumour, the content of which doesn't please you, with vehemence is not the same as refuting that rumour. That requires insight into the matter itself. It may be that those who might have the capacity to share such insight are unable to do so, for what are probably obvious reasons. And yes, some of we rumour-mongers may indeed have sources whose info turns out to be wrong. Does that--of itself--make the source 'unreliable'? Perhaps.
If Ppruners genuinely feel that a rumour might have a negative effect on their jobs and lives (although I'm not sure who would really be dispassionately qualified to determine this) then perhaps that dimension could be discussed and the thread closed for that reason. But to threaten closing a thread simply because the subject matter of a rumour is considered by some to be a threat to their delicate sensibilities I think says something rather negative about this forum itself.
In the meantime, I am passionate about my intention to fly via LA to MCO (BTW, powersfasher, who is VOz's partner in domestic US?) sometime after June this year. And I passionately desire for the Virgin's to still be flying soundly at the time as I would rather buy VOz's Premium Economy product than QF's, even though experiencing the A380 would have been nice. Last time I went to Orlando (2005) I flew out, when leaving, to Gatwick with VAt in their Business cabin and enjoyed the overnight flight (and the cabin!). In this case I shall snooze across the Pacific, fantasising about being invited to upgrade...
All the best,
D&W
Moderator
A 'rumour', by definition, is an unsubstantiated expression of possibility.
Whilst that decision may be very subjective, none the less it is a decision Moderators must make if this Forum is to retain any credibility in professional aviation.
Yes, the poll result was interesting. Also interesting how the poll results were influenced by multiple votes from a few IP addresses.
I have no comment on whether or not Virgin Blue are paying 'cash for fuel' or not... however I will say this :
'Cash for fuel' does not necessarily mean that the Capt has to hand over a wad of pineapples when the jet pulls up at the bowser; it can simply refer to a change in the terms of credit that the fuel companies are offering. ie if they were offering 28 days invoice payment time, they may have reduced that down to 7 days/3 days/24 hrs for example.
That having been said, I hope things are ok at VB and wish the boys (and girls) all the best for the future.
'Cash for fuel' does not necessarily mean that the Capt has to hand over a wad of pineapples when the jet pulls up at the bowser; it can simply refer to a change in the terms of credit that the fuel companies are offering. ie if they were offering 28 days invoice payment time, they may have reduced that down to 7 days/3 days/24 hrs for example.
That having been said, I hope things are ok at VB and wish the boys (and girls) all the best for the future.
Thread Starter
tailwheel...
A Moderator's lot is probably not always a happy one, but you are 'a vital people' and no doubt do your job because you're interested in seeing Pprune continue. However, I do not believe it is a moderator's function (steps gingerly here, as hasn't read the Pprune Moderator's Handbook of Instructions) to seek to protect Ppruners from that which might disturb them. Some Ppruner's do--I am sure--post so-called opinion as 'rumour' (some of that opinion designed to cause a reaction), but surely the sharp wit and intuition of Ppruners can deal with that, when it occurs. Pprune is a schoolyard... a rough-and-tumble environment where, subject to a few (hopefully as few as possible) essential precepts, we can--under whatever anonymity our Pprune-tag might provide us--vent our spleens, test the waters with a personal view, or pursue substantiation of a rumour. But we are not children and we should not need a moderator to keep order when tempers flare. Some of the screams to the Moderator sound at times like desperate cries for 'mum'.
If we're not clever enought to tease out the real recalcitrants--the obnoxious malignants--and deal with them with our finely-honed sarcastic wit, then we should lurk but not participate. And for dealing with the corporate lurkers who derive satisfaction from irritating the troops; well then, perhaps a 'wind-up alert' might be sufficient, followed by stoney silence...? You can only be irritated if you allow yourself to be.
The point of all this is... you're all big (and some of you are even ugly! That's even better...) grown-ups. And the Moderator isn't being paid so needs as little to do as possible.
A Moderator's lot is probably not always a happy one, but you are 'a vital people' and no doubt do your job because you're interested in seeing Pprune continue. However, I do not believe it is a moderator's function (steps gingerly here, as hasn't read the Pprune Moderator's Handbook of Instructions) to seek to protect Ppruners from that which might disturb them. Some Ppruner's do--I am sure--post so-called opinion as 'rumour' (some of that opinion designed to cause a reaction), but surely the sharp wit and intuition of Ppruners can deal with that, when it occurs. Pprune is a schoolyard... a rough-and-tumble environment where, subject to a few (hopefully as few as possible) essential precepts, we can--under whatever anonymity our Pprune-tag might provide us--vent our spleens, test the waters with a personal view, or pursue substantiation of a rumour. But we are not children and we should not need a moderator to keep order when tempers flare. Some of the screams to the Moderator sound at times like desperate cries for 'mum'.
If we're not clever enought to tease out the real recalcitrants--the obnoxious malignants--and deal with them with our finely-honed sarcastic wit, then we should lurk but not participate. And for dealing with the corporate lurkers who derive satisfaction from irritating the troops; well then, perhaps a 'wind-up alert' might be sufficient, followed by stoney silence...? You can only be irritated if you allow yourself to be.
The point of all this is... you're all big (and some of you are even ugly! That's even better...) grown-ups. And the Moderator isn't being paid so needs as little to do as possible.
Moderator
Unfortunately, there is no PPRuNe Moderator's Handbook of Instructions. 
Interesting concepts and I am very interested in your comments, very well presented and expressed.
One fundamental difference - a Moderator's responsibility is not to protect the PPRuNe users as we assume they are adult, competent, professionals, able to judge and make their own decisions.
A Moderator's responsibility is to protect the site, both legally and in respect to it's integrity and appeal to it's users. If we were to permit unfounded and outrageous rumours, the appeal of the site to it's target audience, professional pilots, would be grossly diminished and our active membership would also diminish.
Interesting concepts and I am very interested in your comments, very well presented and expressed.
One fundamental difference - a Moderator's responsibility is not to protect the PPRuNe users as we assume they are adult, competent, professionals, able to judge and make their own decisions.
A Moderator's responsibility is to protect the site, both legally and in respect to it's integrity and appeal to it's users. If we were to permit unfounded and outrageous rumours, the appeal of the site to it's target audience, professional pilots, would be grossly diminished and our active membership would also diminish.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwheel, I'd be interested in Pprune's answer to the Q below... I originally posted it on a JB thread which drifted away from the topic, but I've always wondered this...
I'm a lurking member of a technical diving forum (Decostop) with the following rule in its TOS:
b) All membership information must be accurate and belong to the person registering. All persons are limited to having one user account. Invalid, incomplete, or falsified information can result in the immediate termination of all membership privileges for that user and, possibly a permanent ban, restricting the member from using any of The Deco Stop’s services at any time.
They don't catch everyone immediately (still a few multiples with rather more experience with computers than cave diving
) but they get rid of them quick smart if they start making nuisances of themselves using the above rule. As on here, it's usually fairly easy to pick the fantasists and wannabes.
Why doesn't PPRuNe do this? Is it because it's a much bigger forum? Or do all the multiples use proxies?
b) All membership information must be accurate and belong to the person registering. All persons are limited to having one user account. Invalid, incomplete, or falsified information can result in the immediate termination of all membership privileges for that user and, possibly a permanent ban, restricting the member from using any of The Deco Stop’s services at any time.
They don't catch everyone immediately (still a few multiples with rather more experience with computers than cave diving
) but they get rid of them quick smart if they start making nuisances of themselves using the above rule. As on here, it's usually fairly easy to pick the fantasists and wannabes. Why doesn't PPRuNe do this? Is it because it's a much bigger forum? Or do all the multiples use proxies?
Moderator
Worrals
I think we have 266,000 registered members, most of which have dynamic IP addresses - each time they connect to the internet their ISP allocates a new IP address.
Our membership is growing by at least 20,000 plus members per annum, 2,000 per month, 100 per day. No one has the time to check each new user.
In some cases a number of legitimate users may post from the same work computer or work computers with similar IP addresses.
We have no rule excluding multiple user names - it allows the schizophrenics to quietly chat with themselves!
But if multiple user names are used for mischievous reasons, the tools available to Moderators eventually ensures they will be discovered.
And multiple user names allows some Members to influence Poll results.
We acknowledge, respect and protect registered users right to anonymity. Many important posts would not be made if users thought their identity may be at jeopardy.
When your diving forum grows to the size of PPRuNe, it won't have a hope of controlling multiple user names.
I think we have 266,000 registered members, most of which have dynamic IP addresses - each time they connect to the internet their ISP allocates a new IP address.
Our membership is growing by at least 20,000 plus members per annum, 2,000 per month, 100 per day. No one has the time to check each new user.
In some cases a number of legitimate users may post from the same work computer or work computers with similar IP addresses.
We have no rule excluding multiple user names - it allows the schizophrenics to quietly chat with themselves!
But if multiple user names are used for mischievous reasons, the tools available to Moderators eventually ensures they will be discovered.
And multiple user names allows some Members to influence Poll results.
We acknowledge, respect and protect registered users right to anonymity. Many important posts would not be made if users thought their identity may be at jeopardy.
When your diving forum grows to the size of PPRuNe, it won't have a hope of controlling multiple user names.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I thought and thanks for the clarification.
They've a whole 18,000 members now (and they're pretty excited about that
), and even then a few multiples/pretenders/outright freaks have to be Dealt With.
I know too well, s70 (Crimes Act 1914) and all that
I'm glad Pprune respects anonymity.
They've a whole 18,000 members now (and they're pretty excited about that
), and even then a few multiples/pretenders/outright freaks have to be Dealt With.
...posts would not be made if users thought their identity may be at jeopardy.
I know too well, s70 (Crimes Act 1914) and all that
I'm glad Pprune respects anonymity.
We have no rule excluding multiple user names - it allows the schizophrenics to quietly chat with themselves!
--------------
Or in your case Centaurus, a few shrinks?
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D & W,
look, a few people have eluded to the fact that you are a waste of space with the rubbish "rumour" that you have posted here. Let me spell some things out to just before I snub you entirely.
Yeah? Except when it's BS.
Read your first post; you said "cash for fuel". If you cant make written English "clear", then you are functionally illiterate.
People who do this are prats and wreck this site for everybody else. Quite plainly you are in this category. Prat.
Rubbish: The "other bits" have been delt with and also discredited as crap.
ie: the Qantas dirty tricks department? Again?
You're busted...!!
The low point to which you subscribe?
P!ss off you nonce.
look, a few people have eluded to the fact that you are a waste of space with the rubbish "rumour" that you have posted here. Let me spell some things out to just before I snub you entirely.
A 'rumour', by definition, is an unsubstantiated expression of possibility. Thus it may be true or not. A rumour is not necessarily a 'lie' just because it turns out not to be true
As to the 'fuel for cash' matter. This comment was my short-hand for 'changing the fuel payment arrangements', however I concede I didn't make that clear.
A rumour that is deliberately created by someone for no other reason than to cause mischief, dismay or distress may be a 'vicious rumour' but is a rumour nonetheless.
Prat.
There was more to it than the 'cash-for-gas' matter. The other bits have received very little or no response.
Also interesting how the poll results were influenced by multiple votes from a few IP addresses.
If we're not clever enought to tease out the real recalcitrants--the obnoxious malignants-
Pprune is a schoolyard... a rough-and-tumble environment where, subject to a few (hopefully as few as possible) essential precepts, we can--under whatever anonymity our Pprune-tag might provide us
P!ss off you nonce.