GoJet Interview Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
and my opinion on the matter is based on several friends of mine that are veteran captains (over 20 years) at legacies that HAVE taken paycuts due to the likes of jetblue etc...Funny how CA's that have been doing since before a lot of us were born think unions like ALPA are good.
 
I understand the concept you're all trying to explain. Just because the theory makes sense, doesn't mean that what is actually going on. "Trickle down economics" is an economic theory as well, but jest because I can easily explain to you all how it works, doesn't mean it actually is a factor on the economy.

I'm not the one making crazy proto-scab claims which damage other people's career. Its not my burden of proof.


OK OK last thing. On the contrary I think it is your burden to bare. Everybody else has explained why they have the complaint that they do and why Jetblue is damaging. You have said nothing more than "well in theory this and in theory that" you keep saying that its not happening but you have yet to state why. If you agree that in thoery it can happen then why can't you beleive that it IS happening.

"Yes, theoretically jetBlue's lower wages can indeed play a role in lowering other wages, but is there any actual real-life evidence of this?"

The evidence is in managements decisions. Yes other factors contribute but the evidence is there.

You can be skeptical all you want but if your going to argue wiht someone that is stating why they feel something is true then maybe you should do the same. You have yet to offer anything other than a simple "well it theoretically COULD happen but it probably isn't"
 
I agree I am a little late, I was trying to stay out of this but I have to weigh in with my point of view here. You can not convince me there exists a burden of proof anywhere. I don't necessarily hold the pilots of Jetblue responsible to the same level Velocipede does, however I do agree the United and NW furloughees who ran off with their 320 type ratings knew exactly what they were doing to their colleagues on the same seniority list at that point in history. In the big picture however I think they are just a symptom of the problem.

So maybe Velocipede is angry, disappointed. I don't know, but I know I am. I feel it viscerally when I look in the eyes of my father, A proud former Marine aviator, bullet scars in his neck to prove his service to our nation, 31 years of wrinkles and experiences in the cockpit of United aircraft never to bend a rivet. The change in him since the news broke at 62 years old he would have to sell the house where he and his wife of nearly forty years, recently before diagnosed as terminally ill, planned to spend their golden years. I am disappointed with a society so eager to impale itself on a supposed "free market" it is willing to stack the deck so unevenly in favor of greed and an abject dearth of ethics so it can feel content the "invisible hand" is working. Anyone who believes honestly the past 20+ years our economy has been truly a "free market" and not one regulated for corporations, by corporations, is in my opinion patently wrong. Maybe its just apathy, an unwillingness to take a stand, I certainly dont take it personally, but I am disappointed, and angry.

I don't have to agree or disagree with his tactics to salute Velocipede because the apathy stops at his cockpit door. He is willing to be uncomfortable, to make others uncomfortable to make a stand. I try to draw a line by allowing only certain carriers to be used by my company's travel department easy for me comparatively. If people want to go it on their own, contract pilots, proto scabs, call them what you want, they chose this profession because of stands made by the professional pilots who came before them, union pilots who took a stand-sometimes risking and even losing their careers. So it seems simple to me, no proof needed, you want to go it alone, fine, just dont go knocking on Velocipedes door for what is clearly a benefit won by professionals who were unwilling to bend, break; or fool themselves into thinking going to a low paying, basically subsidized carrier cherry picking routes from higher paying companies with "legacy costs" like thousands of employee pensions, during the worst industry downturn ever, is not hurting the profession.
 
This is the one point that keeps getting made over and over and over again, but not a bit of evidence is presented to prove this claim.

Yes, theoretically if someone is offering a product at below market prices it can drive down prices, but has anyone proven that this is what causes union airlines' lowered wages? Has anyone ever actually proven that jetBlue has directly harmed the industry enough to start a jihad? In actuality there are probably dozens of other factors that lead up to those pay cuts. Blaming the non-union employees seems to be the easiest, so thats where most people reach for...

Like I said earlier, there are a lot of companies in various other industries that offer way lower wages, yet have no effect the industry wages on the whole.

Also, its funny that you brought up WalMart. I actually worked there for a summer a few years ago. It actually was my last job before starting my aviation career. Ever since working there I've heard people go on and on about how horrible the job is. I actually loved working there. It was the highest paying job I've had up to that point, the scheduling was great, it actually had benefits, the people were great, etc. Most of the people I worked with felt the same way. Its a perfect example of union-rabid people not having a clue of what they're talking about.

Thank you. It is good for me to remind myself how ignorant people can be. It gives me some perspective. Proof? How about, I don't know, the last 120 years of labor history?
 
Great post Cazadores. It is very easy for young pilots to forget what is at stake here.

Let's also not forget that while his father had to sell the house that he loved, that the top eight United executives split 45 million in bonuses. Think about that: 45 million dollars, when thousands of pilots had to sell their dream homes after long, proud careers.

This is about us vs. them, because they made it that way. If you go to work for less, you are casting a vote in favor of management, because that is what they want you to do: work for less, so they can make more. And when one pilot group does it, other airlines' management will always bring this up to undercut their pilot group's demands. The proof? Because that is the smart thing for management to do: why wouldn't they? It helps their cause to do so. And it hurts our's.

Sorry for the nasty tone on my last post. I hadn't read beyond what I quoted, but I guess that isn't an excuse. My bad. It's just an emotional issue, I saw the look in my mom's eyes when my father, who is pilot, and her decided they had to sell the house they built and swore they'd never leave after the pay cuts began.
 
"Let's also not forget that while his father had to sell the house that he loved, that the top eight United executives split 45 million in bonuses. Think about that: 45 million dollars, when thousands of pilots had to sell their dream homes after long, proud careers."


Yeah, talk about unions-executive cronyism at its finest. Check this out, pays to work for a bankrupt company....

http://www.unitedafa.org/news/IllinoisExecutivePayRanking.asp
 
You can be skeptical all you want but if your going to argue with someone that is stating why they feel something is true then maybe you should do the same. You have yet to offer anything other than a simple "well it theoretically COULD happen but it probably isn't"

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

[...]

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires. The scientific consensus on cold fusion is a good example. The majority believes this can not really work, because believing that it would do so would force the alteration of a great many other tested and generally accepted theories about nuclear physics.

A classic example comes from Criswell's final speech at the end of Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space: "My friends, you have seen this incident, based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?". Considering that the incident in question involved grave robbers from space, the burden of proof is being incorrectly assigned.

A humorous example comes from the television series Futurama during the opening credit gag for the episode Obsoletely Fabulous states regarding the premise of the show; 'You can't prove it won't happen'.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

The proof? Because that is the smart thing for management to do: why wouldn't they?
you too
 
Also, its funny that you brought up WalMart. I actually worked there for a summer a few years ago. It actually was my last job before starting my aviation career. Ever since working there I've heard people go on and on about how horrible the job is. I actually loved working there. It was the highest paying job I've had up to that point, the scheduling was great, it actually had benefits, the people were great, etc. Most of the people I worked with felt the same way. Its a perfect example of union-rabid people not having a clue of what they're talking about.

I think an A320 may be right up your alley there BUTT!
 
And I do understand the above.
Personally I believe that if individual MECs don't agree with a certain airline then they shouldn't have an agreement with them. I think denying a pilot group by getting rid of an agreement or not establishing one in the first place is a more professional way of dealing with the matter.

The unions usually aren't the ones that sign the jumpseat agreements. Airline flight operations departments usually make these agreements. Velo stated it perfectly earlier: a jumpseat agreement is an eligibility agreement, not an approval agreement. The agreement simply means that the company agrees that it's ok for those pilots to occupy the jumpseat. The actual approval for riding the seat, however, comes from the Captain. Too many pilots place too much emphasis on CASS and jumpseat agreements. They have nothing to do with approval for the jumpseat and Captain's authority.
 
I understand the concept you're all trying to explain. Just because the theory makes sense, doesn't mean that what is actually going on. "Trickle down economics" is an economic theory as well, but jest because I can easily explain to you all how it works, doesn't mean it actually is a factor on the economy.

Yes, theoretically jetBlue's lower wages can indeed play a role in lowering other wages, but is there any actual real-life evidence of this?

I'm not the one making crazy proto-scab claims which damage other people's career. Its not my burden of proof.

I'm absolutely flabbergasted, by this post. How can you both say that you understand the concept of "jacking up the house" and admit that the concept makes sense on both raising and lowering of pilot compensation.

But still demand proof that one pilot groups concessions today, affect the entire industry tomorrow.

Seriously dude, seriously...c'mon already!

:confused:
 
I'm absolutely flabbergasted, by this post. How can you both say that you understand the concept of "jacking up the house" and admit that the concept makes sense on both raising and lowering of pilot compensation.

But still demand proof that one pilot groups concessions today, affect the entire industry tomorrow.

Seriously dude, seriously...c'mon already!

:confused:

There are hundreds of factors that go into pilot pay. GoJet, jetBlue, Virgin and the others play a part in lowering wages, but there is no evidence to support the claim that they solely are the ones responsible.

If jetBlue and the rest had never existed, do you think the industry would have never seen a single paycut?
 
I think it would have definitely been harder for mgmt to obtain much less for the BK courts to agree upon.

it doesn't matter as much if they are or are not soley responsible..I think it's the fact that they continue to play a part and people who apparently don't know any better (?) seem to agree that "it's ok" to which a lot of us agree, it's not.
 
There are hundreds of factors that go into pilot pay. GoJet, jetBlue, Virgin and the others play a part in lowering wages, but there is no evidence to support the claim that they solely are the ones responsible.

No one has claimed that they're solely responsible. They're just a big part of it.
 
No one has claimed that they're solely responsible. They're just a big part of it.

You got that right. They're merely setting the standard. If Skybus is successful at getting all the Captains they need at $65 an hour, it demonstrates to other airline managers they don't need to pay more to run THEIR airline.
 
"Let's also not forget that while his father had to sell the house that he loved, that the top eight United executives split 45 million in bonuses. Think about that: 45 million dollars, when thousands of pilots had to sell their dream homes after long, proud careers."


Yeah, talk about unions-executive cronyism at its finest. Check this out, pays to work for a bankrupt company....

http://www.unitedafa.org/news/IllinoisExecutivePayRanking.asp


Those #'s made me want to throw up considering the sacrifices that were made by the rank and file. Absolutely digusting. The definition of self serving greed.:(



Max
 
There are hundreds of factors that go into pilot pay. GoJet, jetBlue, Virgin and the others play a part in lowering wages, but there is no evidence to support the claim that they solely are the ones responsible.

If jetBlue and the rest had never existed, do you think the industry would have never seen a single paycut?

Nobody is saying that. Your entire post is irrelevant. The point is that working for less is a decision that enables other airlines' managements to attempt (and usually succeed) to make their pilots work for less. The burden of proof should lie with you to prove the opposite, because all other evidence (as well as all logic, common sense, and historical evidence) points to the fact that it does bring down the industry. You prove your crackpot theory, and maybe I'll consider your proposal. Until then, I think I'll continue to believe the obvious.
 
Nobody is saying that. Your entire post is irrelevant. The point is that working for less is a decision that enables other airlines' managements to attempt (and usually succeed) to make their pilots work for less. The burden of proof should lie with you to prove the opposite, because all other evidence (as well as all logic, common sense, and historical evidence) points to the fact that it does bring down the industry. You prove your crackpot theory, and maybe I'll consider your proposal. Until then, I think I'll continue to believe the obvious.

I admit that accepting a job for lower pay can indeed lower pay for the rest of that industry. What I don't agree with, is the assumption that they creates enough "down pressure" to justify this crusade you all seem to have against these airlines. If there are other factors that cause pay cuts, then why not rail against those? Why should GoJet or Virgin employees bare the full blunt? I mean, for such strong feeling to exist here, there must be mounds of evidence to support this claim, but where is the evidence?

If I owned a 1964 Chevy, which is worth $12,000, and I sell it for $2,000, I'm lowering the overall price, aren't I? Am I lowering the price enough to justify every single other '64 Chevy owner to shun me every chance they get for making them lose money?

No one has claimed that they're solely responsible. They're just a big part of it.

define "big"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top