Management And Pilots Should Read This!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Companies get the unions they deserve. Supposedly Southwest Airlines, the darling of the armchair airline experts and critcs, wanted their workforce to be unionized, so as to be easier to work with. Go figure!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Confederatio Helvetica
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You change beliefs by changing behaviour, not the other way around. And you change behaviour by a subtle mixture of carrot and stick. The secret is finding out which size and flavour of carrot, and what diameter of stick is most effective.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor
It is amusing to read your posts.
I am a B-727 Captain with American Airlines
with 16 years of service and a spotless record.
When AA grounds its 727 fleet in 6 months time, are you suggesting that I and the approximately 1000 other B-727 Flight Crew
should hit the pavement and start looking
for other B-727 jobs around the world, and
since AA is picking up 737,757 and 777 aircraft, they should recruit only appropriately type rated pilots?
Then I could go out and buy myself a B-777
type rating and reapply as a B-777 skipper?
Wouldn't do much for morale and continuity in the pilot group and I seriously doubt the company would save a penny.
Do you suggest pilots pay for their own recurrent training too?
Guvnor, I think it is time for you to get a grip and quit bashing pilots!!
Enough for now!!
It is amusing to read your posts.
I am a B-727 Captain with American Airlines
with 16 years of service and a spotless record.
When AA grounds its 727 fleet in 6 months time, are you suggesting that I and the approximately 1000 other B-727 Flight Crew
should hit the pavement and start looking
for other B-727 jobs around the world, and
since AA is picking up 737,757 and 777 aircraft, they should recruit only appropriately type rated pilots?
Then I could go out and buy myself a B-777
type rating and reapply as a B-777 skipper?
Wouldn't do much for morale and continuity in the pilot group and I seriously doubt the company would save a penny.
Do you suggest pilots pay for their own recurrent training too?
Guvnor, I think it is time for you to get a grip and quit bashing pilots!!
Enough for now!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bamse01 - you obviously didn't read (or take in) what was said. Retraining from one type to another, under this scenario, would obviously be available to those that merited it. There would be no bonding (which would make tilii happy) and as it's a privilege and not a right it therefore becomes an incentive.
Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.
Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!
The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.
As I said before, it's a win-win situation.
Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.
Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!
The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.
As I said before, it's a win-win situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Again, let's answer The Guvnor's earlier question "Anyone see any reason why [QAww's concept] shouldn't work elsewhere?"
1. We only have QAww’s word for this description of DHL/EAT and, by his own statement, he is not employed there and writes as a wannabe employee. What store should we place in his description, then?
2. “You get on in the company by doing what you are paid to do professionally and with no fuss. If you are good at your job you will be rewarded with promotion. If you are bad at your job you will get nowhere.” This is already broadly the case in most airlines.
3. “Should a new aircraft type appear, only the good, hard working and high socially intelligent people (which 70% of pilots are not) will be invited to join the fleet. Anybody else is left behind and will lose their jobs as the older aircraft are phased out.” Interesting. The words ‘good, hard working and high socially intelligent’ leave me a little puzzled for more reason than that they lack grammatical integrity. Such judgements are made subjectively. Who will decide? Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot. It will be the management … er, minus anyone honest enough to ‘remove himself’ (all male management, then?) on account of his self-assessed prejudice. And what about Qaww’s remark about pilots? Seventy percent of us are NOT ‘high socially intelligent’? Well, thank God for that. It sounds quite painful, don’t you think?
4. “The management are interested in getting the job done quickly and efficiently … . Both pilots and management try very hard to make it all work.” Again, already the case elsewhere.
5. “Management do not turn into the usual Gods on high and remain very approachable and amenable. Pilots in return do not act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels and actually enjoy doing a good job because they feel valued. Management explain to all new recruits that your progress is totally your responsibilty. Act like an idiot and you go nowhere. Act responsibly and you will rise up the ladder. The net upshot of all this is everybody gets on well (it is a big airline) and people realise (both management and pilots)that the companies survival and therefore their survival is directly on their shoulders.” What utterly naïve nonsense. QAww is entitled to express opinions and prejudices, but that does not mean we must all swallow them as the gospel. It is clear that QAww believes pilots act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels (except, perhaps, those who are lucky enough to be employed by DHL/EAT). This places QAww in precisely the same category as The Guvnor and his entrepreneurial ilk. ‘Nuff said?
6. “The attitude of the pilots and mangement is the most refreshing I have ever seen.” Since Qaww does not work there, how does he/she say that he/she has ‘seen’ it at all?
Nah, methinks I'll give this one a wide berth. Sounds like a sycophant-infested cesspool to me. But you go on ahead Guv.
1. We only have QAww’s word for this description of DHL/EAT and, by his own statement, he is not employed there and writes as a wannabe employee. What store should we place in his description, then?
2. “You get on in the company by doing what you are paid to do professionally and with no fuss. If you are good at your job you will be rewarded with promotion. If you are bad at your job you will get nowhere.” This is already broadly the case in most airlines.
3. “Should a new aircraft type appear, only the good, hard working and high socially intelligent people (which 70% of pilots are not) will be invited to join the fleet. Anybody else is left behind and will lose their jobs as the older aircraft are phased out.” Interesting. The words ‘good, hard working and high socially intelligent’ leave me a little puzzled for more reason than that they lack grammatical integrity. Such judgements are made subjectively. Who will decide? Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot. It will be the management … er, minus anyone honest enough to ‘remove himself’ (all male management, then?) on account of his self-assessed prejudice. And what about Qaww’s remark about pilots? Seventy percent of us are NOT ‘high socially intelligent’? Well, thank God for that. It sounds quite painful, don’t you think?
4. “The management are interested in getting the job done quickly and efficiently … . Both pilots and management try very hard to make it all work.” Again, already the case elsewhere.
5. “Management do not turn into the usual Gods on high and remain very approachable and amenable. Pilots in return do not act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels and actually enjoy doing a good job because they feel valued. Management explain to all new recruits that your progress is totally your responsibilty. Act like an idiot and you go nowhere. Act responsibly and you will rise up the ladder. The net upshot of all this is everybody gets on well (it is a big airline) and people realise (both management and pilots)that the companies survival and therefore their survival is directly on their shoulders.” What utterly naïve nonsense. QAww is entitled to express opinions and prejudices, but that does not mean we must all swallow them as the gospel. It is clear that QAww believes pilots act like spoilt Hollywood actors or supermodels (except, perhaps, those who are lucky enough to be employed by DHL/EAT). This places QAww in precisely the same category as The Guvnor and his entrepreneurial ilk. ‘Nuff said?
6. “The attitude of the pilots and mangement is the most refreshing I have ever seen.” Since Qaww does not work there, how does he/she say that he/she has ‘seen’ it at all?
Nah, methinks I'll give this one a wide berth. Sounds like a sycophant-infested cesspool to me. But you go on ahead Guv.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, as we have all seen time after time, whilst it is very easy for incompetent pilots to be removed, for those who upset management to be ousted or forgotten in some quiet backwater, and for those who "rock the boat" with safety concerns that would cost money for rectification to be gagged, it is far from easy to remove incompetent managers, nepotistic appointees and unsafe managers.
Interesting quote about Stalin from the book I'm reading at the moment - "Archangel" by Robert Harris.
Quoting Simonov, he describes a Politburo meeting in which the large number of aircraft crashes was discussed.
Interesting quote about Stalin from the book I'm reading at the moment - "Archangel" by Robert Harris.
Quoting Simonov, he describes a Politburo meeting in which the large number of aircraft crashes was discussed.
...the head of the airforce, Rychagov, was drunk. "There will continue to be a high level of accidents," he blurted out, "as long as we're compelled by you to go up in flying coffins." There was a long silence, at the end of which Stalin murmered, "You really shouldn't have said that." A few days later, Rychagov was shot.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guvnor
I am not sure why I even bother replying to your post, but I will just mention a couple of things that comes to mind. I think the majority of pilots in my own and most other airlines would prefer spending their career with one company until retirement.
Contrary to your belief, not all pilots are nomads willing to move around and offer their services to the highest bidder who happens to operate the equipment type such pilot is qualified on.
In your post of 22Nov, you specifically say that if a fleet is being closed out, everybody on that fleet should have their contract terminated.
If you think that is the way to get any loyalty among your troops, then good luck in running your airline!
I am not sure why I even bother replying to your post, but I will just mention a couple of things that comes to mind. I think the majority of pilots in my own and most other airlines would prefer spending their career with one company until retirement.
Contrary to your belief, not all pilots are nomads willing to move around and offer their services to the highest bidder who happens to operate the equipment type such pilot is qualified on.
In your post of 22Nov, you specifically say that if a fleet is being closed out, everybody on that fleet should have their contract terminated.
If you think that is the way to get any loyalty among your troops, then good luck in running your airline!
Guest
Posts: n/a
HugMonster - are you suggesting that poor managers should be shot? Novel idea, and certainly one that puts paid to the Peter Principle!
Seriously, though, the senior management (ie board of directors) are appointed (or not, as the case might be) by the shareholders. If all employees are also shareholders, then they get a fair chance to state their case to the other shareholders as to why X should (or should not) be elected/re-elected.
Poor managers should be as accountable as anyone else in the company.
tilii - as I suspect that QAww's English is a lot better than your Dutch or French, perhaps you'd like to cut him (or her!) a bit of slack on grammatical issues?
I shall be talking with EAT/DHL on Monday to learn more about their employment practices.
Still, I'd be interested to learn what's meant by "high socially intelligent"!
Bamse01 - I refer you to my earlier reply to you:
Therefore - unless a troublemaker or otherwise someone that doesn't fit into the corporate ethos - then I can't see much need for a nomadic lifestyle. Unlike the present seniority system where you are bound to the company by your number, it would be your choice to leave if you were not happy there. That's really the point that I'm trying to get across here.
Seriously, though, the senior management (ie board of directors) are appointed (or not, as the case might be) by the shareholders. If all employees are also shareholders, then they get a fair chance to state their case to the other shareholders as to why X should (or should not) be elected/re-elected.
Poor managers should be as accountable as anyone else in the company.
tilii - as I suspect that QAww's English is a lot better than your Dutch or French, perhaps you'd like to cut him (or her!) a bit of slack on grammatical issues?
I shall be talking with EAT/DHL on Monday to learn more about their employment practices.
Still, I'd be interested to learn what's meant by "high socially intelligent"!
Bamse01 - I refer you to my earlier reply to you:
Bamse01 - you obviously didn't read (or take in) what was said. Retraining from one type to another, under this scenario, would obviously be available to those that merited it. There would be no bonding (which would make tilii happy) and as it's a privilege and not a right it therefore becomes an incentive.
Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.
Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!
The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.
As I said before, it's a win-win situation.
Recurrent training would of course be the airline's cost - though in other industries it is indeed the individual's responsibility to remain current in their speciality.
Read QAww's post on DHL/EAT and you'll see how it works.
Regardless of whether or not you think it's a good idea, I strongly suspect this is the way that things will go. Already you have many airlines requiring people to be type rated - or pay for their own ratings (Southwest and Ryanair are just two) and frankly there's not a lot wrong with that. To do otherwise would be like employing a programmer with Pascal skills and retraining when you need a C++ programmer!
The primary benefit to employees is that they are then free to move around as they please (without the constraints of bonding) and in order to keep the best people the airlines need to look after them. This would include good pay, lifestyle, promotion, and conversion on other types.
As I said before, it's a win-win situation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Guvnor
I am delighted to read your post above.
No doubt DHL/EAT's management are eagerly standing by their telephones to chew the fat with you. We may, then, anticipate your extensive report on 'radical liberalism in airline management' on Monday evening. 
I intended no offence to QAww in challenging his/her chosen words. But they make no sense to me. The point is that I would not attempt to communicate in French or Dutch unless I was able to make myself clearly understood.
I too will be interested to hear how QAww's words accurately describe a practice used in DHL/EAT. I will be even more interested to know how DHL/EAT assess 'high socially intelligent'. 
I am delighted to read your post above.
I shall be talking with EAT/DHL on Monday to learn more about their employment practices.
I intended no offence to QAww in challenging his/her chosen words. But they make no sense to me. The point is that I would not attempt to communicate in French or Dutch unless I was able to make myself clearly understood.
I too will be interested to hear how QAww's words accurately describe a practice used in DHL/EAT. I will be even more interested to know how DHL/EAT assess 'high socially intelligent'.
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
1 Post
Aye Guvnor, you are stirring the pot again?
Wanting to get away with seniority (Like that amateur pilot Yak Yak/Saffa on the other thread) and you want pilots to pay for their own training and conversions?
Great idea from your standpoint, but reality would soon set in: No pilot would come and work for you. (Except for scabs perhaps)
No pilots, no flying, no airline, etc.
I tried that nomadic lifestyle with IASCO, contracts, ferry flights, etc.
It sucks.
No job security. No seniority and the pay was not nearly enough to justify the lifestyle. It was different 20 years ago: One could spend a number of years in the Orient or in the sand-box and retire early with a Swiss bank account. No more.
Seniority is here to stay whether you like it not. Get used to it. (Try it, you may like it as a gay guy once told me.... )
Uh, and another thing you are wrong on:
On the previous page you said: "People with vested interest over seniority are the unions, not the employees and not managment".
Uh, the unions are employees who got organized.
(Perhaps you have seen to many old Hoffa movies? )
So lighten up Gov, support your local unions, hug a pilot.......
Wanting to get away with seniority (Like that amateur pilot Yak Yak/Saffa on the other thread) and you want pilots to pay for their own training and conversions?
Great idea from your standpoint, but reality would soon set in: No pilot would come and work for you. (Except for scabs perhaps)
No pilots, no flying, no airline, etc.
I tried that nomadic lifestyle with IASCO, contracts, ferry flights, etc.
It sucks.
No job security. No seniority and the pay was not nearly enough to justify the lifestyle. It was different 20 years ago: One could spend a number of years in the Orient or in the sand-box and retire early with a Swiss bank account. No more.
Seniority is here to stay whether you like it not. Get used to it. (Try it, you may like it as a gay guy once told me....
)Uh, and another thing you are wrong on:
On the previous page you said: "People with vested interest over seniority are the unions, not the employees and not managment".
Uh, the unions are employees who got organized.
(Perhaps you have seen to many old Hoffa movies?
)So lighten up Gov, support your local unions, hug a pilot.......
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.J. O'Rourke once had a great line - something like this: those who are against gun ownership have never held one in their hand when they were truly afraid.
I would say that those who are against seniority have never had a number.
Please, PLEASE, Guv - put yourself in this quick scenario: your company has announced plans to purchase a fleet of bigger planes. You are scheduled next week for an interview with the chief pilot to move to the new fleet. Then during this morning's first walk-around, your first officer finds a crack in a prop leading edge. You write it up, and the chief pilot strolls out and tells you to just go with it. Your 10,000 hours of experience tell you it is dangerous, but you really want the new position. What do you do?
I saw a captain put in that exact scenario at ASA in 1998.
The non-seniority world you describe is essentially that of the USAF. I would suggest you find a synopsis of the crash in Dubrovnik that killed US Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown in the early nineties. It was against regulations to fly to that airport, as it was not properly surveyed. But Clinton's White House put pressure on from above, and the pilots would not screw up their careers by saying no.
I would say that those who are against seniority have never had a number.
Please, PLEASE, Guv - put yourself in this quick scenario: your company has announced plans to purchase a fleet of bigger planes. You are scheduled next week for an interview with the chief pilot to move to the new fleet. Then during this morning's first walk-around, your first officer finds a crack in a prop leading edge. You write it up, and the chief pilot strolls out and tells you to just go with it. Your 10,000 hours of experience tell you it is dangerous, but you really want the new position. What do you do?
I saw a captain put in that exact scenario at ASA in 1998.
The non-seniority world you describe is essentially that of the USAF. I would suggest you find a synopsis of the crash in Dubrovnik that killed US Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown in the early nineties. It was against regulations to fly to that airport, as it was not properly surveyed. But Clinton's White House put pressure on from above, and the pilots would not screw up their careers by saying no.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Huck - in that scenario, I'd trust that the pilot would refuse to operate the aircraft until maintenance had either cleared it to fly (the crack being within specs) or had grounded it. If the Chief Pilot tried to force the line pilot to fly the aircraft without such authorisation from maintenance - and/or used his refusal to fly the aircraft as a reason for declining a transfer to the new fleet, then the Chief Pilot would be exiting the building that evening clutching his P45.
Safety comes first.
Same as with the fuel issue that was being debated on another thread - as far as I'm concerned, the Captain is being paid to make decisions about what margin of fuel s/he's happiest with. Not Ops.
Safety comes first.
Same as with the fuel issue that was being debated on another thread - as far as I'm concerned, the Captain is being paid to make decisions about what margin of fuel s/he's happiest with. Not Ops.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're only visiting this planet, aren't you Guvnor?
In Huck's scenario most of us would prefer a union on our side to hedge our bets on the outcome. Being right doesn't ensure employment everywhere.
In Huck's scenario most of us would prefer a union on our side to hedge our bets on the outcome. Being right doesn't ensure employment everywhere.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bamse01, don't worry.
Fortunately The Guv is alone against all the others.
He/she should apply for another forum (may be only for managers with such perspective view).
I recognise the argument is difficult and wide but the attitude he/she has been demostrating during the past make me clear only ONE thing: I will never work with him/her....
CRM should be mandatory for people flying the desk like The Guv.
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
Fortunately The Guv is alone against all the others.
He/she should apply for another forum (may be only for managers with such perspective view).
I recognise the argument is difficult and wide but the attitude he/she has been demostrating during the past make me clear only ONE thing: I will never work with him/her....
CRM should be mandatory for people flying the desk like The Guv.
Cheers.
Fly safe & enjoy life.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Redtail - only one thing is going to assure you of that and it ain't a union. It is - as was promulgated on the first page of this thread - trust between management and staff.
BALPA (aka the British Airways Line Pilots Association) might be fine if it's a non-controversial issue, but if you trawl through the many previous threads on the subject they don't seem to represent their member's interests against BA (in particular) and indeed many of the other airlines either.
As some of the Dan Air people how well they were protected by BALPA when BA took them over!
BALPA (aka the British Airways Line Pilots Association) might be fine if it's a non-controversial issue, but if you trawl through the many previous threads on the subject they don't seem to represent their member's interests against BA (in particular) and indeed many of the other airlines either.
As some of the Dan Air people how well they were protected by BALPA when BA took them over!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd first like to thank for the original post which I thought to be excellent reading. Management could improve a lot by treating pilots and cabin crew as "our guys handling the customers" rather than cost bases (as very aptly described in another post; I work for a beancounter-managed airline as well)
I offer the theory that Guv is actually a (B)ALPA mole offering anti-pilot theories to force us to reason pro-seniority, etc. :-)
Apart from the obvious issue of "safety vs. promotion" (and Guv, your reply to this is really naive) seniority systems create a monopoly of supply for the pilots. The airline cannot hire pilots not on the seniority list and is therefore generally forced to accept the conditions of those already on the list. The bigger the airline is the more efficient the monopoly becomes as relative growth (expressed as a rate of new pilots vs. already employed pilots) is usually slowing as the airline grows.
While this may sound like beancounter drivel it is one of the main reasons guys like Guv dislike seniority. There is no way for airlines to escape their pilots and especially no way to hire cheap "newbies" or "already qualfied" (by whom) pilots and fire the pilots already there.
On the other hand, seniority forces pilots to stick to their airline as every "sidestep" will also be a step back career-wise (unless stepping to an airline not governed by seniorty - despite the shining example set by DHL/EAT that doesn't seem to be a career move fancied by many). This contrasts sharply with the careers in other professions where a "sidestep" is the only way to move upwards because "internal promotion based on ability" is not happening. Especially in the US most pilots are a lot more loyal to their Airline than its managers..........
Seniority has its "gives" as well as its "takes". It is not a free ride but something to be paid for. To give it up would be the most stupid thing we could ever do. Even the simple fact that management types want to remove it should be reason enough to preserve it. It won' disappear by talking it away, even if Guv may think so.
I offer the theory that Guv is actually a (B)ALPA mole offering anti-pilot theories to force us to reason pro-seniority, etc. :-)
Apart from the obvious issue of "safety vs. promotion" (and Guv, your reply to this is really naive) seniority systems create a monopoly of supply for the pilots. The airline cannot hire pilots not on the seniority list and is therefore generally forced to accept the conditions of those already on the list. The bigger the airline is the more efficient the monopoly becomes as relative growth (expressed as a rate of new pilots vs. already employed pilots) is usually slowing as the airline grows.
While this may sound like beancounter drivel it is one of the main reasons guys like Guv dislike seniority. There is no way for airlines to escape their pilots and especially no way to hire cheap "newbies" or "already qualfied" (by whom) pilots and fire the pilots already there.
On the other hand, seniority forces pilots to stick to their airline as every "sidestep" will also be a step back career-wise (unless stepping to an airline not governed by seniorty - despite the shining example set by DHL/EAT that doesn't seem to be a career move fancied by many). This contrasts sharply with the careers in other professions where a "sidestep" is the only way to move upwards because "internal promotion based on ability" is not happening. Especially in the US most pilots are a lot more loyal to their Airline than its managers..........
Seniority has its "gives" as well as its "takes". It is not a free ride but something to be paid for. To give it up would be the most stupid thing we could ever do. Even the simple fact that management types want to remove it should be reason enough to preserve it. It won' disappear by talking it away, even if Guv may think so.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Les Portes du Soleil
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilii:
From ‘Management and Pilots should read this’ (today):
From ‘Clipping The Airlines' Wings Would Do Us All A Favour: John Humphrys’ (today):
Does your wife really have a boyfriend who goes off to drunken orgies in Antigua? Or are you talking about her hairdresser’s boyfriend? How can any of this have anything to do with The Guvnor's 'privileges and not rights'?
I see two possible conclusions for you to draw: either realise that even between native English speakers, communication will never be free of ambiguity, and therefore accept those who contribute to the forum as people who contribute to the debate, or decide that since you, like those others that you criticise, cannot always make yourself understood, you will have to stick to your beliefs and refrain from contributing.
For the sake of debate and wider understanding, I hope you’ll opt for the first conclusion.
Other than this, this is a very interesting thread. May I express the hope that those who contribute read what has been written, before posting replies that show they haven’t?
(edited some ambiguous text...)
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Gantenbein ]
From ‘Management and Pilots should read this’ (today):
I intended no offence to QAww in challenging his/her chosen words. But they make no sense to me. The point is that I would not attempt to communicate in French or Dutch unless I was able to make myself clearly understood.
No need, then, for a terminal 5. No more will my wife's hairdresser and her aircraft refueller boyfriend (sorry ... partner) be able to afford their drunken orgies in Antigua. Flying will become one of The Guvnor's 'privileges and not rights'. Good show!
I see two possible conclusions for you to draw: either realise that even between native English speakers, communication will never be free of ambiguity, and therefore accept those who contribute to the forum as people who contribute to the debate, or decide that since you, like those others that you criticise, cannot always make yourself understood, you will have to stick to your beliefs and refrain from contributing.
For the sake of debate and wider understanding, I hope you’ll opt for the first conclusion.
Other than this, this is a very interesting thread. May I express the hope that those who contribute read what has been written, before posting replies that show they haven’t?
(edited some ambiguous text...)
[ 25 November 2001: Message edited by: Gantenbein ]