jetcareers - View Single Post - Public Appeal to user: ERJ-135-ATA's Gary Grell

cmorgan · March 25th, 2003, 17:04

Well, Its been awhile but felt the need to respond. ERJ-135, you seem alittle defensive, wonder why.

You and I have had numerous postings back and forth when you questioned whether I was actually a previous student in 2000-2001. I responded with very accurate details regarding the training and airport used. In turn you called me a liar. You sir (I use this with no respect in the normal sense) are just as wrong as the owners. You continued telling people that 10 months they would be at the airlines yet in your current response you stated that it was in the students best interest to have it (unknowingly) delayed therefore the students were intentionally and knowingly mislead with the amount of time they would be there. You stated that the owners should have been up front with the students, you and Steve were the ones students were referred to when they telephoned so you and Steve provided the inaccurate time frames with the knowledge it wasn't true. Regarding the sale ads in the magazines, does the term False advertisement mean anything " qualify for an airline interview in under 500 hours and 10 months..." Flying mag. 02-03. By staying employed there and continuing to promote the business you, in my opinion are just as wrong as the owners. 9/11 only made closing happen faster, students were bailing prior to 9/11.

The promotion as you described, of decrease in ASII from 30K to 15K was offered to me in 03-2000 but I refused because they couldn't meet that agreement/promise for my 7 month finish time let alone 10 months. Yes, 7 months I should have been at the airlines, would I complain now? No because I would be employed, furloughed but employed. The current airline employees (graduates) can't complain as you mentioned earlier because they have no complaint, they are at the airlines.

Offered the 15K reduction but not offered the refund until after the completion of ASII, Why. Just another fact to consider during the legal proceedings. I would love to be on the civil jury or just a witness for the complainants.

If any of the students are reading this (MARCUS) print off the last post of ERJ-135 for your case. Its amazing whats in it. Better yet, I will and you can contact me if needed in case he edits it.

Soley my opinion, ERJ-135 you were incorrect in the information provided to prospective students and according to your post knowing it was incorrect for the time frame. ATA continued to give the impression (pre 9/11) in 2000-early 2001 the airlines would continue to hire at the current rate. ATA cannot be blamed for the down turn after 09-11-2001, but in turn needed to inform the students of the outlook. I mean the true outlook, everything I thought would happen has happened with the airlines down turn and I only have one friend that is employed at AA.

Any other responses ERJ-135?

March 25th, 2003, 17:04	#17
cmorgan Newbie Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 3	Re: Public Appeal to user: ERJ-135-ATA\'s Gary Grell Well, Its been awhile but felt the need to respond. ERJ-135, you seem alittle defensive, wonder why. You and I have had numerous postings back and forth when you questioned whether I was actually a previous student in 2000-2001. I responded with very accurate details regarding the training and airport used. In turn you called me a liar. You sir (I use this with no respect in the normal sense) are just as wrong as the owners. You continued telling people that 10 months they would be at the airlines yet in your current response you stated that it was in the students best interest to have it (unknowingly) delayed therefore the students were intentionally and knowingly mislead with the amount of time they would be there. You stated that the owners should have been up front with the students, you and Steve were the ones students were referred to when they telephoned so you and Steve provided the inaccurate time frames with the knowledge it wasn't true. Regarding the sale ads in the magazines, does the term False advertisement mean anything " qualify for an airline interview in under 500 hours and 10 months..." Flying mag. 02-03. By staying employed there and continuing to promote the business you, in my opinion are just as wrong as the owners. 9/11 only made closing happen faster, students were bailing prior to 9/11. The promotion as you described, of decrease in ASII from 30K to 15K was offered to me in 03-2000 but I refused because they couldn't meet that agreement/promise for my 7 month finish time let alone 10 months. Yes, 7 months I should have been at the airlines, would I complain now? No because I would be employed, furloughed but employed. The current airline employees (graduates) can't complain as you mentioned earlier because they have no complaint, they are at the airlines. Offered the 15K reduction but not offered the refund until after the completion of ASII, Why. Just another fact to consider during the legal proceedings. I would love to be on the civil jury or just a witness for the complainants. If any of the students are reading this (MARCUS) print off the last post of ERJ-135 for your case. Its amazing whats in it. Better yet, I will and you can contact me if needed in case he edits it. Soley my opinion, ERJ-135 you were incorrect in the information provided to prospective students and according to your post knowing it was incorrect for the time frame. ATA continued to give the impression (pre 9/11) in 2000-early 2001 the airlines would continue to hire at the current rate. ATA cannot be blamed for the down turn after 09-11-2001, but in turn needed to inform the students of the outlook. I mean the true outlook, everything I thought would happen has happened with the airlines down turn and I only have one friend that is employed at AA. Any other responses ERJ-135?