Better start your flight training soon...

[Goonie]

The great thing is, you pups make the argument FOR me every time you post. More user fees, please!

pups??

You fly a 737 dude! Its a RJ on steroids so get off your high horse. Everyone in the world besides the US are flying 737's with 250 hours.

Orange Anchor and a select few on this board have the skins on the wall to be calling people "pups". The only difference is they wouldnt...

 

[SteveC]

Takes two to tango, doesn't it?

Which means, what? That someone has to fall for your semantic trap in order for it to be effective? Is that a justification of some sort?

But thanks for rendering your "judgement".

I'm not that powerful. I'm just voicing an opinion.

I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm not the only one that carries the opinion that you lose much of the effectiveness of your case when you use the tactics that you do. I suppose, since I disagree with you on this topic, that it isn't very smart of me to point out shortcomings in this area. I just tend to think that this site runs better, and more intelligent discussion and learning take place when the flame throwers are left at home.

 

[Champcar]

pups??

You fly a 737 dude! Its a RJ on steroids so get off your high horse. Everyone in the world besides the US are flying 737's with 250 hours.

LOL!!!

 

[Champcar]

Yep. But that's not the heart of their argument. They seem to think the military route is "free."

They're welcome to go for it.

Yet, they'd rather pay for their licenses than serve the country. Fine. But, I guarantee you that as long as you pay the money, flight schools will get you your certificates.

They just object to paying the proposed user fees. It might cost them more. Oh well, I guess an agenda is an agenda.

The problem, as I see it, is the GA types have gotten dragged along with the corporate fatcats and their agenda. But, I guess the idea that Americans can be duped by big corporate machines is not really all that far out.

Newsflash. Not everyone can fly in the military, not everyone can pass the medical, some may be too tall or short, fat, have bad eye sight.

I'm sure you'd love it though if everyone came from the same mill as you did, that perfect pilot image is good for your ALPA posters.

 

[MQAAord]

Newsflash. Not everyone can fly in the military, not everyone can pass the medical, some may be too tall or short, fat, have bad eye sight.

I'm sure you'd love it though if everyone came from the same mill as you did, that perfect pilot image is good for your ALPA posters.

Yeah, I wouldn't fit the "image".... I'm old (too old for the military), and too short to be a military pilot. However, at 33 and 5'2", an airline career is still quite within reach with no problem if I so chose to pursue it.

 

[ShyFlyer]

Ok, let's take a time out, shall we?

For those of you saying that military pilots received their training for free, stop and think about that for a minute. Sure, they don't have to rent the T-38 hour by hour nor do they have to foot the bill to top off the tanks in that B-52. But they do have to commit to 8-10 years of service after flight school (at least I think that's the current commitment). Further, the ones that did foot the bill for all that training expect them to be ready, willing, and able to go to any corner of the world and do some really dangerous stuff. Heck, there is a lot of danger in the training alone. Not exactly a "free ride" in my book.

On the other side of the coin, civilian pilots don't exactly get anything for free either. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, every gallon of fuel purchased contributes money towards the NAS. Even the guy who only flies on the weekend and only VFR. But, should he need them, ATC is there (flight following for example) without the added worry of "gee, how much is calling up center going to cost me?" He as already paid for it.

So maybe it's time to stop looking down our noses at each other?

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Holy cow. Five FedEx pilots just piled in to a Lear 45 with an FE tail number!

Charge them user fees! Those rotten fatcats! Damn them to hell!

 

[Polar742]

This thread makes me sad....

We've seriously going against the "community" part that makes JC special, in a rapid manner on this one.

1. Keep your posts professional.
You never know who'll end up as your new chief pilot. Trust me, I know.
4. Be kind to your fellow user.
Take it outside, folks, this isn't cage fighting and 99.9% of the rest of us don't care that you two can't get along on a personal level.
5. Pay it forward.
Did someone on the site help you? Return the favor and help someone on site that needs guidance. "I got mine, pull up the rope" isn't what we're about.
6. Be proactive.
Don't like the direction or attitude in a thread? Well, state your case clearly and concisely. Leave the verbal rocket launcher at home.
9. Don't Post Angry!
It can really make you look like a doofus. Besides, arguing on the internet is stupid. You don't want to be stupid, right?
12. Most importantly, HAVE FUN.
Jetcareers is "edu-tainment". You can have a great time, exchange ideas, actually even learn something about aviation without the stuffy "I have more hours than thou" attitude at other websites. Attend one of our many "Meet 'n Greets" and learn for yourself.

 

[WacoFan]

Frankly, its about time. Talk about a WASTE of money and energy resources. "Hey, let's fire up the Piper and fly to Missoula for a burger."

I guess this is the part of Velo's posts that I most dislike. I understand that he is of the opinion that if it helps Airlines and ALPA he is for it. He is simply voting for his best interest that way and his posts are viewed through that filter for me. What I do not understand is Velo's hatred for GA as evidenced in his post. And because HE hates GA, and to raise pilot salaries through diminished pilot supply, there should be this subsidy for the airlines.

Ok...let's do this. Asses user's fees based upon route and destination - and make the airlines pay it as well. That will work - then nobody gets a free ride. You want to fly into the New York area at this time, on this day...great, here is your charge. Slots can go to the highest bidder pitting airlines and GA against each other for access to the routes into New York, Boston, Newark, etc. Obviously lifeguard flights, firefighting, etc are exempt. General aviation can survive without the air traffic control system - in fact, General Aviation produced most of the significant advances in aviation between WWI and WWII. General Aviation didn't come into being with the FAA in 1959 or the airspace system in general. The airlines, and their hub and spoke design however can't live without the current system. So...let them pay for it because without it their industry doesn't exist.

 

[darrenf]

I guess this is the part of Velo's posts that I most dislike. I understand that he is of the opinion that if it helps Airlines and ALPA he is for it. He is simply voting for his best interest that way and his posts are viewed through that filter for me. What I do not understand is Velo's hatred for GA as evidenced in his post. And because HE hates GA, and to raise pilot salaries through diminished pilot supply, there should be this subsidy for the airlines.

Ok...let's do this. Asses user's fees based upon route and destination - and make the airlines pay it as well. That will work - then nobody gets a free ride. You want to fly into the New York area at this time, on this day...great, here is your charge. Slots can go to the highest bidder pitting airlines and GA against each other for access to the routes into New York, Boston, Newark, etc. Obviously lifeguard flights, firefighting, etc are exempt. General aviation can survive without the air traffic control system - in fact, General Aviation produced most of the significant advances in aviation between WWI and WWII. General Aviation didn't come into being with the FAA in 1959 or the airspace system in general. The airlines, and their hub and spoke design however can't live without the current system. So...let them pay for it because without it their industry doesn't exist.

 

[Low&Slow]

For those of you saying that military pilots received their training for free, stop and think about that for a minute. Sure, they don't have to rent the T-38 hour by hour nor do they have to foot the bill to top off the tanks in that B-52. But they do have to commit to 8-10 years of service after flight school (at least I think that's the current commitment). Further, the ones that did foot the bill for all that training expect them to be ready, willing, and able to go to any corner of the world and do some really dangerous stuff. Heck, there is a lot of danger in the training alone. Not exactly a "free ride" in my book.

My dad flew for 23 years in the USAF and I grew up around it, so I'm not unfamiliar with what the "commitment" involves. He loved it, never considered it a burden, and never wanted to do anything else. I'm sure I would have loved it as well.

I don't buy into the BS "Poor me, I'm doing what I love to do and getting paid for it" argument. It's not a sacrifice, it's a choice that they were afforded an option to take. Some guys don't get that choice, so I don't have any (none, zero, zilch, nada) sympathy for those poor guys that get to zoom around the sky on the taxpayer's dime. There are many other military folks that also have a relatively long term military contract, and are away from there families just as often, if not more often, that get paid much less, and have a much more grueling, difficult and dangerous mission. Some of those who were deemed unclean and unworthy to fly in the military still volunteered to serve in the military anyway, albeit in a less than desirable role, because it was important to them and they recognized the importance and necessity of maintaining a strong military. That isn't to say that the guys who were given a chance to fly don't also recognize it, but at least they were given the opportunity to do what they wanted to do.

If I could have flown military I would have been doing it for the past 18 years and wouldn't have stopped until I had at least 30 years in or they made me. However, I wear corrective lenses and am ineligible to even be given the chance to prove myself in initial flight training, which is just ridiculous. There should not be a discriminating ban against people just because they wear corrective lenses, it's nonsense.

 

[MQAAord]

Velo: I've had enough of your condescending attitude and constant put-downs of non-military folks. Your attitude is NOT what we foster here. Think the whole "Doug's living room" thing.

[modhat]This thread is closed cause I'm tired of babysitting it. Maybe it'll open later, maybe it won't. In the meantime, let's let the issues rest for a bit. (Read: Don't start another thread about it right now!)[/modhat]