Ameriflight Rocks!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether it's 1200 or 12000 hours, your airplanes make a certain amount of money. You should be paid on what you produce, regardless of your TT count. Period. (there it is again Doug!)

So you disagree with pilots getting yearly raises in the same equipment then? If you truely believe what youre saying, a first year FO should make the same as a 15 year FO in the same equipment? If not, why do the senior pilots "generally" make more money than the new guys on the same equipment?
 
THATS what makes it fun in my opinion!

It's about as fun as driving buzzed: you know you probably shouldn't do it, but you figure the odds are in your favor. Thrilling.


What? Do you have a point to make?

It's UPS, not the feeder company management that causes this. They pick the closest airport to their center, and tell the feeder to fly there.

Don't try to use logic when dealing with big brown, you'll just go crazy.

That's the 99, sir. The Navajo is not doing UPS work out of either of these stupid airports. The 99 could probably accelerate-go. The Navajo absolutely will not.

Agreed, then again I am wired a bit weird. I think we should fly cargo inverted...

For what? 25lbs of bank work out of some meth-town? Sorry, but my career and/or life are not worth that BS.

Of course, I'm a • so I'll just go up there and do it until I find a better job or die when I lose an engine at 80 knots on the the takeoff roll. And when someone does die or destroy an airplane in that scenario, then the company will say "Oh, we shouldn't be operating out of these fields." I really like AMF, but I won't give them a pass on this stupidity.

Think about it: everything else in the company culture is more or less designed to minimize risk, as any operator worth its salt aims for these days. But completely disregarding the margins of accelerate-stop distances is mind boggling to me. Not to mention that if you land at some of these places VFR (the only way in) and the weather drops before departure, you're effed. They'll send a truck to pick up the cargo, completely negating our usefulness to the customer. Why would we put ourselves in such a stupid position??? Especially when there are IFR airports with longer runways a literal stone's throw away.

Sorry, just wanted to vent.
 
I know a great way how to minimize risk, lets keep the airplanes on the ground and truck the freight...
 
I'm with Cal Goat. The fact that there is inherently some risk doesn't mean that you should be willing to accept more risk than what's necessary. Balanced field considerations don't matter on paper for small 135 aircraft, but they do matter when you hit Vr and a motor shoots a piston rod out the side.

The attitude that it's okay to be willing to take on unnecessary risk in order to "move the ______" gets people killed. Our job is risk mitigation, even if that's a boring outlook. Trust me, I've done the hardball stuff and scared the crap out of myself trying to prove to everyone that I was willing to do what it takes. It's not worth it.

By the way, my training on the 402 with Cape was a month long. Excessive? Maybe, but I was able to replicate safe results for the 1500+ flights I flew for them.
 
I know a great way how to minimize risk, lets keep the airplanes on the ground and truck the freight...

That's a very articulate point you make. And you know what? They will truck the freight when the class G airport with no instrument procedures goes IFR. So what's the difference?

FWIW, I was making just north of 50k/year to fly a 99 at Suburban.

That airplane that you love so much? ;)

I'm with Cal Goat. The fact that there is inherently some risk doesn't mean that you should be willing to accept more risk than what's necessary. Balanced field considerations don't matter on paper for small 135 aircraft, but they do matter when you hit Vr and a motor shoots a piston rod out the side.

Thanks, and the worst part for me is that these are the distances we're dealing with:

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=A...Kyay-A;FXJqfQIdaDmz-A&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=13

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=M...QId4kia-CHXzBOvGYuSxw&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&t=h&z=11

Just makes the risk seem unnecessary. :dunno:
 
I'm a fan of Amflight, but the pilots need to unionize. Everyone at UPS is union, by necessity. The feeders should go there.
 
I'm a fan of Amflight, but the pilots need to unionize. Everyone at UPS is union, by necessity. The feeders should go there.

I agree 100% with you. But as a pilot group we don't have a backbone to do that. Most hate AMF and could careless since were all trying to get out anyway. When rumors come around the usual line is that UPS would dump our contracts if we unionize and GR shelf or sell the company.
 
If AMF tried to unionize they would can every pilot on the line and start fresh.

That's illegal. These companies throw these empty threats around to try to scare the pilot group into keeping a union off property. Don't fall for it. If they shut the company down, you'd just go find a new job; they'd lose their cash cow. Don't be afraid to call the bluff.
 
That's illegal. These companies throw these empty threats around to try to scare the pilot group into keeping a union off property. Don't fall for it. If they shut the company down, you'd just go find a new job; they'd lose their cash cow. Don't be afraid to call the bluff.

What's illegal?
 
Simple. They wouldn't fire them for trying to unionize. They would fire them for lack of performance or some other b.s reason. Wouldn't be hard for the company to do.

Then they'll have their contracts taken away for lack of performance. At the very least, it'd cost them millions as they get the operation back up and running.

Seriously, do not fall for the scare tactics. If you feel that it'd be better to unionize, unionize. The company has the most to lose by shutting its doors or "starting fresh."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top