Getting Ready
 

An employer in the region has published this.

Getting Ready for Direction Setting for 2018

We all have a role to play in transforming our business and having clear, informed goals and a development plan for the year ahead will help contribute to our success. We will start the 2018 Performance Management cycle for ground staff employees from Tuesday 9 January (The Region and Outports).

The Direction Setting should be completed by Friday 16 February 2018. During this six-week period, employees should meet with their direct appraisers to discuss expectations (including goals and competencies), career aspirations and development plans for 2018 and record these in the Performance Platform.


The last time I saw a similar approach to this was in 1975.

A friend of mine was working for a company, that used this 43 years ago, and duly gave all of the information, as requested, that ended up in being terminated as "No longer required"

Be very careful ground staff.

Usual soulless corporate-speak. The term 'ground staff' is a clue that it's probably CX. Love the bit, 'help contribute to our success'. What they mean is 'contribute to the managers success'. The company dies little by little each day.

Soulless Corporate Speak
 

Yup, probably the same company that apparently have envisioned the (get this) "Our Sustainable Development Cargo Carriage Policy has now been published"

Please enlighten us eager, stupid, dense commoners how floging cargo around the world in a jumbo aircraft that burns 8 tons of kerosene an hour is SUSTAINABLE ?

But then if THEY say so THEY must be correct yes ?

Someone please say this garbage aint so..

... try 10 tonnes an hour. 8 tonnes if the plane is empty. 12+ at TOC following MTOW!

As for sustainable, I don’t think the earth will be running out of oil anytime soon. If it’s carbon emissions that are of concern, look back through the annals of history and see how carbon ppm now compares to times long ago. Also, note that airliner traffic contributes very little to the total amount of global carbon emissions.

Sadly, many of our colleagues buy into the 'global warming/climate change' rubbish. Meanwhile, most of North America is heading into the early stages of the next Ice Age. :ugh:

'Virtue Signalling' is a must-do for most organisations these days. Just following the herd.

No better than “everyone else is doing it” so we will too. Nothing great was ever accomplished with that mindset. Oh btw, doesn’t CX have bigger fish to fry at this point? Just a bunch of feel-good, happy horse manure.

Direction setting?

Sewing the head back on the chicken ain't gonna make it fly.

Yeah, how odd that some people believe the scientists who have devoted their lives to studying this type of thing.

Oh, you mean those scientists who faked reams of data, outright changed data (do we need to mention the infamous 'hockey stick'?), and who mostly have seen that the liberal left have turned it into their 'religion', with of course coerced tax payer funded research grants to underwrite it all. How's your temperatures in Calgary and Toronto this week...? :ooh:

And how do you explain the many eminent scientists who say the complete opposite?

...and don't forget all that industrial CO2 in the middle ages that caused temperatures to be even warmer then than they are now.....oh, wait... :rolleyes:

Traf/AP, I'm not expert, and the media is continuously full of junk science and fake news, but you should probably also read about that single incident of semi-manipulated stuff you mentioned (the hockey stick scandal thing), that came from 1 source, was quickly debunked and dismissed, and did not affect the other zillion sets of data, experiments, conclusions and predictions made based on the worldwide body of evidence, and the media went with cherry picked email comments between a couple of guys that were also misinterpreted and taken out of context. The conspiracy nuts also cherry pick and manipulate to suit their causes, and assume that scientists can't tell the difference between valid data, valid evidence, and the probably of the accuracy of their hypotheses, and BS/mistakes/fake science/junk science/advertizing/nonsense.

So far, science and the scientific method has done pretty well compared to leeches and praying and incense, no? Antibiotics, GPS, jet engines, hip replacements, HIV drugs, evolution, penicillin, electricity, relativity, mapping DNA, x-rays.....how about we fly the planes and let the scientists build them, and sort out wtf human activity is (probably) doing to the environment and wtf we (probably) should be doing about it.....

Climate study, like weather forecasting, is not perfect, and neither is medicine.....but do you go to a doctor when you need surgery, or just do it yourself? Yes, there are politics and money and corruption involved - just like health care and everything else. But in the end, science, which is always discovering, is open-sources, and assumes nothing is known for sure, always prevails...and junk science is always debunked.

All it takes is a quick read of 1 company email to know how easily any information can be biased. Believing in a worldwide, all-encompassing conspiracy about climate is pretty whacky. But that is not to say the "news" isn't full of complete baloney that drives scientists nuts, and quoted and much-distributed (by social media and new media) "studies" are rarely ever actually proper scientific evidence at all - just today's headline to sell ads. There is a supposed "study" - aka fake news - concluding everything and anything you want it to say. But that's just junk science and the real scientific consensus just ignores the people and conclusions that are not validated by the open-source system of science, the same way you ignore the Wednesday emails.

There are 1000's of incorrect beliefs not supported by science, and there are corrupt and bad scientists too, but science itself, as with health care for example, moves forward as a whole and has always progressed in the right direction, despite setbacks errors, bad people, money, etc...

It's fine to be a skeptic, but to be an armchair layman criticizing things like this takes more than some links to web sites that can say anything, post anything, manipulate anything, cherry pick anything and broadcast whatever they want to billions with zero credibility, consensus or foundation in science or reality....but people do love to latch onto this and FB the crap out of it all!

Alternatively, you can go with a common sense way of sorting out the facts from the fluff, which has a similar parallel at out work that you will surely notice, perhaps: If Donald Trump says it's true, then you know it probably isn't!

CR, I really don't think anyone needs another extended debate on the issue, but I think as the years go by, it is becoming more evident by the day that there has been plenty of fraudulent science behind the GW debate, and even more to the point, I only have to look out the window in the hotel in Chicago to see that GW is probably not going to be a problem for a while yet. And as AP just mentioned, it was warmer in the Middle Ages, and i'm fairly confident in stating that there weren't too many cars around. :rolleyes:

Something that never seems to get asked: who's to say what the 'correct' global temp should be? Maybe we will be better off if it gets warmer. Regardless, after they GW loonies get to spend their trillions in tax dollars and totally turn society upside down, they claim the total 'possible' change to average yearly temperatures will be 1/10 of one degree Celsius. I kid you not. Heaven forbid we spend a trillion dollars helping cure disease...i'm sure that wouldn't be a better way to apply the dollars. :/

Pah - Curtain Rod. Next you will be telling us helicopters fly using the same principles of lift as normal aircraft when we all know it is just because they are so ugly the very earth repels them.

It is interesting how both the left & right have their own woo-woo. Left tends to homeopathy, crystals & anti-vaxx, Right tends to be creationism, anti-global warming & faith healing.

I find it incredibly ironic that folks who mistrust our management based on words and demonstrated actions somehow place their blind trust in so-called 'scientists' and politicians whose track record (and degree of principle) is even worse. And whose 'bonuses' in the deal far exceed what anyone working here might get.

FWIW, NO true scientist uses words like 'incontrovertible' or 'irrefutable' when dealing with any model which has great tolerance in its data sources. And great sensitivity to minute data inputs far below what can actually be measured over time. The earth do what she do.

George Carlin of all people had remarkable insight into this and was actually funny in the process.

But we've beaten the man-made global warming myth to death here.

Reading this thread is seriously depressing. Thankfully it doesn't matter what you guys think, science is right whether you believe it or not.

As pilots, it is so obvious to us that reporters and non-industry people don't have a clue what they're talking about when aviation is the topic of discussion, and yet so many of you fall for the BS that climate change deniers spew without critically thinking. It's embarrassing, really.

Well, first off, natural ice ages/natural climate changes/weather out your window have nothing to do with the man-made CO2 issue and its current and future effect on the planet.

The fundamental question today is whether human activity that causes greenhouse gases is causing an unnatural global warming or not. Scientifically educated people who examine this stuff, from all over the world, with different biases and different politics and different agendas and different sources of money and every other variable, have reached an overwhelming consensus based on 1000's of investigations and experiments (not a few corrupt and invalid ones), and after years of school and work using mathematics that most of us don't even know exists, they conclude with the body of evidence that almost surely human activity is vastly accelerating global warming and waiting longer before doing something about it is a very bad bet. They also know about ice ages and weather and all the other stuff to take into consideration when producing hypotheses, don't you think that's the whole point of science?

And, by the way, the industrial age (and the industrialized meat industry) came long after the Middle Ages. Anectodal stories about other times when it was hotter have nothing to do with the problem being addressed by those who understand these things.

How come nobody complains about how corrupt and stupid and foolish scientists are (even with their actual errors along the way) when they use the same process of investigation, discovery, experimentation and validation to figure out how to cure diseases, or get to the moon, or repair birth defects, or make better cars and planes and engines and computers and satellites and drugs and bomb detectors and tissue regeneration and contraceptives and MRI machines?

THANK YOU, Curtain. A voice of reason. I guess in the end though you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't use reasoning to arrive at in the first place.

I agree with Curtain rod on this.

mole, seriously? I assume that your reference to global warming is tongue in cheek (hence the :cool: emoji I guess?) as the correct term, as I'm sure you're aware, is climate change. Anthropogenic influences, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions, are contributing to air and sea temperature increase and the resultant changes in climate are there for us all to see; increased frequency of extreme weather-related events, such as heat waves, cold spells, destructive storms and floods, to name but a few.