Scudrunners

Agree with the comments on parents. So true.


On pay my response is always, "start a company, risking your own money, working 24/7 to get it started, all while being taxed to death, having everyone you know call you a fool for trying, and I'll respect what you have to say".

In any industry, I don't get those just starting out wanting to make a 100 K a year while working 9-4 and not getting hands dirty.


So when I read comments by those without the guts to start something,  telling others how to run their businesses, I think "what gives you the right to even comment?"




It's a totally different deal when ones own money is at risk.

Another interesting thing is the number of new pilots who think they are entitled to big pay just because they went through the relatively simple process of getting a commercial license.


I am hard pressed to think of many other occupations with that mindset.


When I was hiring pilots and they asked me how much I would pay then, my answer was it is up to you and will be determined by how much you make for me.

[quote author=Chuck Ellsworth link=topic=5879.msg15576#msg15576 date=1490292575]
Another interesting thing is the number of new pilots who think they are entitled to big pay just because they went through the relatively simple process of getting a commercial license.


I am hard pressed to think of many other occupations with that mindset.


When I was hiring pilots and they asked me how much I would pay then, my answer was it is up to you and will be determined by how much you make for me.
[/quote]


What you just said Chuck is offensive to the snowflakes and would get you hauled before the human rights commission.


In the snowflakes world they want to make all the money while having you assume 100% of the risk.


That's why the training bond discussion is so ridiculous. All these guys want the company to pay 50 K for training on a new type, and assume all the cost and risk without any committent from the employee not to jump ship after 6 months.


You gotta be on crack to not require a bond with that kind of investment into the employee.

[quote]What you just said Chuck is offensive to the snowflakes and would get you hauled before the human rights commission.[/quote]

[font=verdana]Yes, the nanny state at its worst.[/font]

[quote][font=verdana][font=Verdana]In the snowflakes world they want to make all the money while having you assume 100% of the risk. That's why the training bond discussion is so ridiculous. All these guys want the company to pay 50 K for training on a new type, and assume all the cost and risk without any committent from the employee not to jump ship after 6 months. You gotta be on crack to not require a bond with that kind of investment into the employee.[/font][/font][/quote]


The reality they have to face is if they want to work for that company they must be willing to invest enough of their time in it to repay the owner / owners for their training.


Or start their own company. :)

Chuck,


My favourite is the phrase politicians love to use, "working people".


According to them, I who started a company, creating jobs and a lot of tax revenue already, am not a "working person".


Instead I should support the TV binge watchers out there who actually don't work -- they are leeches on the system.


But they are esteemed "working people" to the liberal (communist) party of Canada, Comrade.

We are fortunate in one small respect.


Socialism is still sort of under control in Canada.


Wouldn't it be nice if welfare was only for those unable to work.


But if you are healthy enough to work you can collect welfare for cleaning up the garbage and other types of work in your community.


Welfare paid by the hour.

I'm still trying to figure out who's giving whom, the "reach around", between Chuck and Rookie.

Now this is a classic example Chuck, above. 


Edited.  Not even worth giving attention to.

If they had anything worth wile to contribute to an aviation forum they would not be posting adolescent pre teen comments Rookie.