SUBMITTED: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
POSTED: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Attention "Anonymous": 'Res ipsa loquitor' is used in CERTAIN, not ALL (key point here, and definitely not MOST) negligence cases. Obviously your attention to detail is lacking and you seem to be reaching, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur
This Latin phrase was used so by me so that any unbiased person that understands cogency and logic could figure it out in where the truth & myths lie. Obviously you spin and spin is slant and slant is NOT the truth. Just the facts sweetie!
1) We were never in any danger of the FAA closing us down. My dear "wet behind the ears" person: if this were the case, we would have had a formal corrective notice sent to us and this would be part of public records also. So, if I follow your logic correctly, are you saying that the FAA "almost closes" everyone down when they inspect anyone and find minor violations and request corrective actions? We know they have the power to do so, but in practicality (pay attention here since this is the operative word), they never do, since maintenance shops work hand-in-hand with the FAA in keeping standards up to FAA requirements. Seems to me we have here more like a respectful work in process between two entities and not a "Mexican standoff" (which you claim) where the FAA must use it police powers to enforce their standards. Also, did you you know that the company's maintenance record is not attributable to any accidents? Isn't this what the objective of policing maintenance shops is all about?
2) Did you know that in the past ASFA often had NO FUNDS in the bank and was saved by large receivables walking in the door just in time and then met its payroll? Of course you did not. We were expecting large receivables this time too and they did not materialize. Sure, it is not my way of doing business but this is the hand I was dealt. If I was in charge before, there would have been a strong re-organization, lots of unproductive people would have been released or never hired and there would be plenty of cushions to absorb these situations. Problem is I am a forward thinker and the past can not be rectified and utilized here but definitely learned from. Have you never made any mistakes, or is your name Jesus Christ? Here is another recent aviation casualty, reported by a liberal media source, see if you can see any reports of incompetence or negligence here:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/0be283520252dfd69f8f6477239f2938.htm
It's all about cash flow and timing sweetie, so pay attention and you will learn lots.
3) Fair enough, but obviously someone was concerned so this person needed to be enlightened. Now isn't this a valid point?
4) The simulators will be certified shortly. I don't get it, you talk like you are informed but you miss the most obvious points. Probably why you never have risen in in this organization. Let me enlighten you AGAIN my friend. These simulators that are being certified are being done so for the FIRST time, call it "work in process". Do you understand what this means? Anyway, each step of the way that we work with the FAA, they tell us the deficiencies. After that we re-tool and get closer and re-inspect. They have NEVER told us the entire list of deficiencies at once, it has been a work in process on both sides. The last step required, being a diagnostic software patch is the only thing now missing. This software should on start-up analyze that all the controls are properly hooked up & working, and if disconnected in flight mode, will alert the operator of this fact. The only vendor that produces this closed software (operative word here being "closed"), has been putting us off in getting us this patch due to more pressing matters on their side. What can I say? O yes, it is obviously our fault from you eyes because you say it is. Brilliant Watson. Keep thinking like this and they will make you Chief of Police!
5) The proof of incompetence is in unacceptable financials and in the fact that there was never a plan to line up the receivables (with lag time) from the contracts to the budget (also non-existent). Aside from all this, the salaries that were paid, were no in line with to industry norms, spending was out of control, and there were too many chiefs and not enough indians, hence limited productivity. Heck, I'd say that is pretty GROSS incompetence and these are the people that obviously cost you your furlough, reduced pay and shortfall. You all know who I am talking about.
6) You don't care, but slander is slander and the truth needs to be CLEARLY pointed out. Chicken littles are people that just don't get it and will never let the truth get in the way of a good story. These people should move to Hollywood, or maybe even Bollywood. We deal in reality and truths, anything else is unacceptable.
7) You call it "nepotism"; I call it minding the store. There are countless of family businesses that are run very successfully by these standards and last time I checked, the side is tipping to a good move and not an incompetent one. The FAA is not on Air Safety "like white on rice", which is another MYTH! Please refer to above point number "5)" again to further rebuttal your latter point of where the fault lies. Of course, it lies there; these were the architects of what has transpired. The owner's fault was to trust these two implicitly, and the proof is still not out whether this truly was a conspiracy or just plain incompetence. Stay tuned my little chicken.
8) Better humor needs to counter inferior humor. Are you paranormal and have no humor at all? It is a pity since unfortunately this can not be taught. The rest, if you pay attention can surely be cogently rebuttaled and all myths squashed!
9) Chicken little, I am surprised that you are clueless. First of all 100 hour inspections take about 22 person hours (key operative word is "person") to complete. I thought you knew something, afraid not. Secondly, if three mechanics remain, the fleet must be reduced. Bet this never entered your paranormal mind.
10) The term "chicken little" is used with respect to the gloom & doom people that don't understand that life is not all clockwork. Patience and not burning your bridges is most prudent thing to do since we all can not be in control of our destiny all the time. What you should be doing is judging a person's character on how this person has acted in the past and how he is fighting to pull himself out and make everyone whole. By kicking someone that is down or adding salt to there wounds, make you just that, a very BIG chicken little. Now do you understand these points here? The real mettle of a person's character is judged in bad times, not in good times. You all myth makers have clearly proved this. Don't you guys even read the Bible with respect to judgment? With respect to me being breast fed, I was NOT, I was allergic to human & cow milk, but I never resented it. With respect to “What's with the “big company nipple" remark???”, that one is really easy, people that suck “company nipples” are parasites that do very little in return for their pay. I really am quite surprised in your lack of knowledge Ms. Wet.
11) We have communicated effectively. After the November 21st Memo we had meetings with all the employees (that attended) and students yesterday. Last time I checked that was only 4 days ago. How much more do you want with communications? We have also requested everyone that wants to be kept informed to send their personal emails to management. Now, what would you do in this situation, communicate hourly? Sorry, that we took so long to keep you abreast and setting up an effective method of communications. With respect to giving employees a "heads up", we have had a history in the past to prove that receivables did hit us in time. They just did not materialize this time. But if we would have played chicken little each time this occurred, I think we would have made the company very paranoid and unproductive. Also, speaking of heads up, where were you when the reorganization and pay cuts rolled out? Did you have your head in the sand or something? I think your secondary points are all tied very well into my explanation and need no further refinement.
In all seriousness, management welcomes constructive criticism. Just make sure you all have well grounded facts when bringing them up. If you want to communicate to us privately, and need to know the facts, please do so with full confidence. Just remember to keep an open mind and let cogency fill the argument on both sides and not silly unfounded third-hand, hearsay remarks.