NATCA Going Down in Flames

On 5 Sep 2006 05:56:50 -0700, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
.com:


It wouldn't be a problem for some pilots, but it might be a problem for
Jay. It would mean he can no longer fly in to AirVenture.

If he's based at a towered field, it would also mean he wouldn't be
able to get a taxi clearance to takeoff effectively grounding him.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.


Do you understand you'd also have to remain clear of Class B, C, and D
airspace?


Or get weather briefings...

-jav

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


If the FAA can't even dictate a ban on flip flops in the workplace
without generating a union uproar (and open insubordination), the FAA
is irretrievably broken and *should* be privatized. What a shame it's
come to this.

Or the union has outlived its usefullness.

Ron Lee

Emily wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:
So.. how much would you be willing to pay, per use, for this privatized
ATC that you advocate?

Zero. I would fly VFR, without them.

How could you get away with flying VFR 100% of the time?

Easy. It is all I do. 300 hours last year so it must be doable

Ron Lee

("Tom Conner" wrote)
Grow up. Your immature rants are getting tiresome.


Explain, please.

Curious about the 'immature' and 'Grow up' aspect. Thanks.


Montblack

You said "... and ties are a safety issue, they can get caught in machinery. Yet employers mandate them."

And I said, "name on company who makes machinery workers wear ties"

Yes, I know what we said. My statement was in response to (and a
parallel to) a prior poster who said that flip flops were a safety issue
[and therefore were banned]. And machine workers are not the only ones
who work near machinery. A tie can get caught in a copy machine too.

The safety issue of flip flops is chimeral. People who can't walk in
flip flops don't choose to wear them. We don't need workplace rules to
tell us how to dress.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
...

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

wrote in message
oups.com...



Have you ever seen a controller dressed like that?


I have and it was at a safety meeting. People left the meeting laughing
at him and his unprofessional demeanor. He earned and received no
credability.
I remember the media pictures of the controllers on strike in 1981, dressed
like crap, while picketing. It sure didn't lend them any credibility.

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
Sometimes I work naked.


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...e/fatcruze.jpg
"Cleared for takeoff ...I love saying that."


Montblack

No, my position is an extension of my disgust with arrogant employees
who, while being paid handsomely, can't seem to keep their mouths shut
and their minds on the job.

They had their mouths shut and their minds on the job until their
employer told them what to wear.

...your untimely insubordination means...

So now it's "insubordination" to complain about a draconian dress code?
(see, I can use inflamatory words too)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Why should government employees that aren't even seen by the customer
be forced to wear dockers and a nice shirt to work while private sector
employees that must interact with customers, like those at the Alexis
Park Inn, can dress like bums?

Your position appears to be solely based on your noted dislike of
government employees.

Steven, I am not sure that his position is based upon dislike. But if
it is, maybe it is just unionized "babies."

Ron Lee