Gladiator afterall!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kanga:
Your style is starting to look a little familiar. Also nice to see that you are on such friendly terms with "Glads" - hmmm
Whiskery:
Again I ask ...... please tell me about the 747's stick pusher!! We all need to learn from the Master , or is there something you are not telling us????
Your style is starting to look a little familiar. Also nice to see that you are on such friendly terms with "Glads" - hmmm
Whiskery:
Again I ask ...... please tell me about the 747's stick pusher!! We all need to learn from the Master , or is there something you are not telling us????
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kangar as is the case; it is easier for me to answer a question when it is specific.
Your question: Why do I persist with my posts on the web as apposed to wider media coverage.
Answer: From the beginning of the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator case SIA's only worry was the information falling into the hands of other SIA pilots. Other SIA pilots but especially former SIA pilots with outstanding bonds.
The purpose of the posts on the web is for everyone SIA, former or otherwise to have details of the case as it happened word for word. This does not and will not include the final 13-page agreement, which is confidential.
As for media coverage, that is a good one. A lot of people would not fathom SIA as anything less than perfect. It was only a matter of time before SIA's real character was going to be exposed. The investigators will do their job and expose what needs to be exposed.
Your question: Why did I take so long to develop a conscience about illegally flying relief for the Captain, and why did I jump ship after finishing training.
Answer: My employment began on the B-747 (July 1991). Although I sat in the LHS, it happened mostly during training as a S/O and a few times while I was an F/O with another S/O training.
The problem area was the B-747-400 and 3-pilot operations. Double-crew and augmented operations were fine. I finished training on the B-747-400 in Jan 1995. It took six months to digest/ evaluate the situation, decide course of action, etc. I submitted a resume to my present employer in Aug 1995, and at the same time listed my condo for sale. I resigned in Oct 1997. It took two years and two months to find employment. That is 3 months short of three years after I finished training on the B-747-400. Three more months and the bond on the B-747-400 would have expired. Therefore it would not be accurate to say I left after completion of training.
Furthermore the system in the US is different. To gain employment at entry level, first officer, it makes no difference whether I was trained on B-747 or B747-400 or not. The co-pilot rating carries no weight as the carrier has to retrain you, and there is no such thing as co-pilot rating.
Furthermore here in the US (major carriers) there is no such thing as direct entry Captain. Everyone starts as first officer on available junior equipment (In the case of a B747-400 operator with mixed fleet of different type aircraft, never on the B-747 and or 747-400, impossible as fleet movement is based on bidding by seniority). I could have been a Captain at SIA on the B747-400 and it would not have made a difference in my present employment. In fact in a case like mine more weight would have been given to 500 hrs turboprop PIC than 4500 hrs heavy jet SIC. Therefore it would not be accurate to assume my present employment is a result of SIA training.
In fact I met the minimum requirements at my present employment previous to employment with SIA. (I worked for the subsidiary of this company previous to employment at SIA anyway, so in a way I went back to my old job).
If you indeed work for SIA, as I suspect you do, then you are aware that in regards to safety concerns, I could not have just walked into the CP or DFO's office and say, "hey, this is not right and unsafe, it needs to be changed".
Your question: I mentioned in the documents, "SIA lied".
Answer: I mentioned that more than a few times. Therefore which specific area would you like me to expand on? You can refer to the date of post.
In the future I hope to be able to discuss issues in this manner, simple question and answer.
[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 22 November 2000).]
Your question: Why do I persist with my posts on the web as apposed to wider media coverage.
Answer: From the beginning of the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator case SIA's only worry was the information falling into the hands of other SIA pilots. Other SIA pilots but especially former SIA pilots with outstanding bonds.
The purpose of the posts on the web is for everyone SIA, former or otherwise to have details of the case as it happened word for word. This does not and will not include the final 13-page agreement, which is confidential.
As for media coverage, that is a good one. A lot of people would not fathom SIA as anything less than perfect. It was only a matter of time before SIA's real character was going to be exposed. The investigators will do their job and expose what needs to be exposed.
Your question: Why did I take so long to develop a conscience about illegally flying relief for the Captain, and why did I jump ship after finishing training.
Answer: My employment began on the B-747 (July 1991). Although I sat in the LHS, it happened mostly during training as a S/O and a few times while I was an F/O with another S/O training.
The problem area was the B-747-400 and 3-pilot operations. Double-crew and augmented operations were fine. I finished training on the B-747-400 in Jan 1995. It took six months to digest/ evaluate the situation, decide course of action, etc. I submitted a resume to my present employer in Aug 1995, and at the same time listed my condo for sale. I resigned in Oct 1997. It took two years and two months to find employment. That is 3 months short of three years after I finished training on the B-747-400. Three more months and the bond on the B-747-400 would have expired. Therefore it would not be accurate to say I left after completion of training.
Furthermore the system in the US is different. To gain employment at entry level, first officer, it makes no difference whether I was trained on B-747 or B747-400 or not. The co-pilot rating carries no weight as the carrier has to retrain you, and there is no such thing as co-pilot rating.
Furthermore here in the US (major carriers) there is no such thing as direct entry Captain. Everyone starts as first officer on available junior equipment (In the case of a B747-400 operator with mixed fleet of different type aircraft, never on the B-747 and or 747-400, impossible as fleet movement is based on bidding by seniority). I could have been a Captain at SIA on the B747-400 and it would not have made a difference in my present employment. In fact in a case like mine more weight would have been given to 500 hrs turboprop PIC than 4500 hrs heavy jet SIC. Therefore it would not be accurate to assume my present employment is a result of SIA training.
In fact I met the minimum requirements at my present employment previous to employment with SIA. (I worked for the subsidiary of this company previous to employment at SIA anyway, so in a way I went back to my old job).
If you indeed work for SIA, as I suspect you do, then you are aware that in regards to safety concerns, I could not have just walked into the CP or DFO's office and say, "hey, this is not right and unsafe, it needs to be changed".
Your question: I mentioned in the documents, "SIA lied".
Answer: I mentioned that more than a few times. Therefore which specific area would you like me to expand on? You can refer to the date of post.
In the future I hope to be able to discuss issues in this manner, simple question and answer.
[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 22 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I believe your question is answered in the thread relevant to that topic Titan.
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010991-2.html
Why have you requested a reply in a totally unrelated thread my friend?
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/010991-2.html
Why have you requested a reply in a totally unrelated thread my friend?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tita,
I'm flattered that you've become so familiar with my style after only 10 posts, you evidently spend more time reading them than I thought. As for calling Gladiator by an abbreviated term, well sorry if it seems like a term of endearment, but it's handy to use. Fail to see what it has to do with anything, but there you go. The other point to Glads, is that these issues you describe do not just concern SIA, they concern every member of the travelling public that have or will travel SIA, hence the point about going to the wider media. Finally, on the SIA lied remarks, what I am saying is that no matter what, we only get your version, in which case it comes down to who we believe, you or SIA, and why should we believe either? It is said that a liar never believes anyone else, can you see my point?
I'm flattered that you've become so familiar with my style after only 10 posts, you evidently spend more time reading them than I thought. As for calling Gladiator by an abbreviated term, well sorry if it seems like a term of endearment, but it's handy to use. Fail to see what it has to do with anything, but there you go. The other point to Glads, is that these issues you describe do not just concern SIA, they concern every member of the travelling public that have or will travel SIA, hence the point about going to the wider media. Finally, on the SIA lied remarks, what I am saying is that no matter what, we only get your version, in which case it comes down to who we believe, you or SIA, and why should we believe either? It is said that a liar never believes anyone else, can you see my point?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kangar then may I suggest to you that we look into details of some points in my posts with emphasis on "SIA lied".
Furthermore, there is the matter of Singapore Airlines vs. Mike DeMarco. You do remember when SIA publicly (it was on the evening news on Singapore TV) stated that the American pilot lost in a US court to the tune of just over US$200,000. FI also ran an article.
Now may I fax to you documents showing that there was never a court decision in the DeMarco case. The plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement.
After the two year gag order expired, DeMarco himself posted on PPRuNe that he paid US$75,000 to SIA.
Please e-mail me a fax number where I can send proof to you that SIA lied, lies, etc. I will review the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator posts and get back to you on the "SIA lied" details.
[email protected]
Furthermore, there is the matter of Singapore Airlines vs. Mike DeMarco. You do remember when SIA publicly (it was on the evening news on Singapore TV) stated that the American pilot lost in a US court to the tune of just over US$200,000. FI also ran an article.
Now may I fax to you documents showing that there was never a court decision in the DeMarco case. The plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement.
After the two year gag order expired, DeMarco himself posted on PPRuNe that he paid US$75,000 to SIA.
Please e-mail me a fax number where I can send proof to you that SIA lied, lies, etc. I will review the Singapore Airlines vs. Gladiator posts and get back to you on the "SIA lied" details.
[email protected]
Guest
Posts: n/a
SIA has deep pockets. Hmmm, well that just about sums up the whole intent of the Law system!
PILLOW, the law doesn't like bullies. SIA got its arse kicked all the way from the USA to pathetic Singapore by Gladiator. It would seem they are about to get it kicked again from Perth.
Were you the one who isn't old enopugh for the cadet scheme?
PILLOW, the law doesn't like bullies. SIA got its arse kicked all the way from the USA to pathetic Singapore by Gladiator. It would seem they are about to get it kicked again from Perth.
Were you the one who isn't old enopugh for the cadet scheme?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gladiator
We wont know how much SIA pays their lawyer . So there is a lot of guesswork here which may lead to unneccessary words . I will leave the subject here
Titan
I wish it was me . Anyway , law is one area I would like to avoid discussing .
This is obviously familiar territory to you .
Good luck to you mate
We wont know how much SIA pays their lawyer . So there is a lot of guesswork here which may lead to unneccessary words . I will leave the subject here
Titan
I wish it was me . Anyway , law is one area I would like to avoid discussing .
This is obviously familiar territory to you .
Good luck to you mate
Guest
Posts: n/a
PILLOW:
Well talk about the obvious! There aren't too many Singaporeans that like talking about the law as it scares them senseless. The pathetic LKY passed a law limiting the number of lawyers in Singapore; can't have too many people knowing their rights can we? Or challenging the the PAP through the Courts.
Well talk about the obvious! There aren't too many Singaporeans that like talking about the law as it scares them senseless. The pathetic LKY passed a law limiting the number of lawyers in Singapore; can't have too many people knowing their rights can we? Or challenging the the PAP through the Courts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PILLOW:
Civil Law is based on case history. It is because that people like me are out there putting our arse on the line that people like you can sit safely in your cocoon and be protected by the law should your sweet little world ever turn to sh*t.
As I said; you are Singaporean through and through.
How old are you PILLOW?
Civil Law is based on case history. It is because that people like me are out there putting our arse on the line that people like you can sit safely in your cocoon and be protected by the law should your sweet little world ever turn to sh*t.
As I said; you are Singaporean through and through.
How old are you PILLOW?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mental or chronological?
There was an enlightenting current affairs programme, "Talking Point", aired recently in Singapore. The debate focused on the question...Are Singaporeans mature enough to talk about taboo subjects?
70% of Singaporeans surveyed by TCS 5 answered that they were not mature enough and that 'taboo' subjects should be best left to 'experts' to talk about.
This explains a lot about pillow et al doesn't it?
There was an enlightenting current affairs programme, "Talking Point", aired recently in Singapore. The debate focused on the question...Are Singaporeans mature enough to talk about taboo subjects?
70% of Singaporeans surveyed by TCS 5 answered that they were not mature enough and that 'taboo' subjects should be best left to 'experts' to talk about.
This explains a lot about pillow et al doesn't it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Titan
you should really get a grip on your emotion . Its bad your your health and staying healthy is essential for your job . You will find Centrelink a lot different from CES . The last Titan I know did not do very well . Last heard she went down very fast in the North Atlantic.
You should think positive and think of all the good things in life .
You can start by thinking about all the things you can do or buy if/when you get your command !!!
Cheers
[This message has been edited by PILLOW (edited 01 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
All of this arguement is just silly. The only reason that the Singaporeans even reply to the likes of Gladiator and Titan, is that they really know the truth. They believe they are the best because LKY says so. They are too scared to debate the issue. Let us examine the elections and the results of those elections on the Singapore community for proof of that theory.
But they really know the truth. That being a underlying knowledge that as flight crew, Singaporeans really are deficient in all the aspects and abilities needed to make good pilots in today's modern world. This is the reason they must defend the accusations and lie. I lived there for some years. The only good feeling I had was that I lived amongst 3 million Singaporeans and knew for sure that I was totally superior to each and every one of them. They know that. That's why they are so offended by this rumour network. And that is why they are the most racist people I have ever met.
But they really know the truth. That being a underlying knowledge that as flight crew, Singaporeans really are deficient in all the aspects and abilities needed to make good pilots in today's modern world. This is the reason they must defend the accusations and lie. I lived there for some years. The only good feeling I had was that I lived amongst 3 million Singaporeans and knew for sure that I was totally superior to each and every one of them. They know that. That's why they are so offended by this rumour network. And that is why they are the most racist people I have ever met.