Dress Code

Don't have personal knowledge about private pilots, but I remember being
astonished to see the ski lift attendants wearing impeccable uniforms in
Austria a number of years ago. I think some sort of convention of dress adds
to respect (and yes, I have been following the thread and understand the
point that we rarely see controllers.)

You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
Even private pilots.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...

If you mean about my respect for the FAA, I'm not kidding. I always
thought the FAA was a bit uptight and anal about certain regulatory
things (okay, a LOT uptight), but I never had any reason to disrespect
the individuals who made up the FAA. To a man, they've always been
smart, kind, and professional.

That has changed.


The individuals who make up the FAA are government employees. You have
clearly stated your disdain for government employees more than once in these
forums.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Is this Mr. McNicoll?
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1...lothes19.0.jpg

:-)


No, the MacNicol tartan is far more colorful:

http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tart...?tartan_id=567



I also like to wear the Irish National tartan to a local sports venue:

http://www.tartans.scotland.net/tart...tartan_id=7941

"Jose" wrote in message
...
One of the things that makes this country a Great Country (I guess I am
sort of patriotic) is the freedoms that we have. I am greatly disturbed
when they are taken from us, and even more disturbed when we willingly
give them up. There are many freedoms here, and most people don't use
most of them. That's ok. There are many freedoms I don't use, and the
freedom to say "yes" is meaningless without the freedom to say "no". But
even if I say "no", I value the freedom to say "yes".

That is fundamental.

Imagine -- they've got a current employee,
on staff, who runs a website solely for the
purposes of impugning his employer!

Imagine that.

I have no quarrel with my employer (after all, I'm self employed), so if
the freedom to impunge my employer were taken away from me, it wouldn't
affect my daily life. But I think it's an important freedom, and part of
what makes this country great.

In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for immediate
termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as you have
described it.

Man, I'm glad I don't work for you. You should be too. I'm in a union and I
work my ass off, but I don't tolerate disrespect from anybody-including my
employer. Without my union, I wouldn't have been there 1 year, let alone the
22 I have been, no matter how hard I worked because I don't show the proper
fear. Of course, you're an employer. And I guess it's not enough for you-or
any employer-to make a profit on the backs of your employees. You expect
them to cower in fear of you and be grateful that you've allowed them to
work for you.

What a pile of crap. Of course, in your narrow mind, no employer would ever
think of abusing an employee-at least not without good reason, right? All
employers are benevelont, warm hearted , caring souls who value their
employees above everything. We employees are just a bunch of blood sucking,
lazy, ungrateful maggots.

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey, these
guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would never
risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the union said
they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of an
understaffed tower? Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
They *are* openly slandering their *employer*

Are you able to provide some examples of the "slander" you mention?

Well, let's start by assigning cutesy, disrespectiful names to the
company CEO on a blog site.

Is that slander? No, I suppose legally it is not. It IS
insubordination, however, and in any other business or company in the
world, would result in immediate termination.

And it should.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

That is exactly why we need unions. Any boss gets his panties in a bunch, he
rides the employee until the employee tells him just what an ass he really
is, so the employee, who is only human, loses his job because of some
egomaniacal twit with a tie.

Employers that make being a yes man a requirement for employment need to be
terminated.

mike

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

In most corporations bad mouthing the corporation is grounds for immediate
termination as is insubordination. There is no such freedom as you have
described it.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because of
an understaffed tower?


No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.



Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.


Yes.

So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.

Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll will write:

Right.



Twit.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

The FAA always does the right thing, like adequately staff towers. They
would never think of saving a few bucks by understaffing because, hey,
these guys just sit around most of the time anyway, right? The FAA would
never risk lives by adding people that weren't needed just because the
union said they were. Oh. Wait. Didn't 50 or so people just die because
of an understaffed tower?


No. 50 or so people did not just die because of an understaffed tower.



Oh. That's right. It was all the pilot's fault.


Yes.

Mxsmanic wrote:
cjcampbell writes:

You know, a lot of countries still require pilots to wear uniforms.
Even private pilots.

Which countries?


I remember reading in one of the aviation magazines, can't remember
which, that pilots in several African and Middle Eastern countries were
still required to wear uniforms.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

So in your twisted, tiny mind, another controller (as per the FAA's own
regulations) could not have possibly influenced that outcome.

Don't bother answering. I'll do it for you.

Steven P. McNicoll will write:

Right.


That is the correct answer. My twisted, tiny mind, understands that another
controller positioned in the windowless TRACON several levels beneath the
tower cab could not have possibly influenced that outcome. Why doesn't your
presumably untwisted, larger mind, understand that?



Twit.


Ah, name-calling in lieu of a cogent argument. Classic.