FourFans

You asked me a question. I answered it. I asked you a question...in the airline thread...about airlines...and this is your response? In proper conversation, not to mention debate, the typical course respectful course of events is either analysis of the answer received followed by factual claims backing up your argument OR acceptance to new data and adjustment of your own view point. ...or you can pretend that discussion about airline pilot hiring practices have no place in the thread about... Perhaps you can answer this one then: Why is it that every time I ask a rational counter-question about facts in a realm that might even remotely touch the social upheaval we're experiencing (DEI in the hiring of airline pilots falls squarely in that camp), the individual on the other side of the debate that I question either ghosts me, clams up, claims discomfort with the question, or tries to dodge it entirely (your tactic above). Are you the only one that gets to ask probing questions? I asked you a question. Would you be willing to respond to that question so good dudes and dudettes can better understand the environment their seeking a career in? How does diversity improve airline safety?

I definitely can. Can you you point to EVEN ONE incident where a white pilot who should have been fired was retained because he claimed "you're firing me because of my race or gender"? Melatonin content and wedding tackle should have absolutely no bearing in the hiring process because gender and race have no discernable impact on the capabilities of a pilot. The moment they are introduced as any form of discriminator, the quality of the force goes down, because they stop hiring for quality and start hiring for diversity. That's how DEI bullshit is diluting the gene pool. That's basic logic. Can you not see that? Following your rules, the NFL and NBA would be better if they hired more white guys and asian girls, and the oil fields would be more productive if they had a quota of weak armed trans-men work the rigs. The logic of DEI is completely false. Removing some barriers to entry makes sense, enforces quotas does not. Also basic logic: it's impossible to prove a negative. Asking someone to do so is violently ignorant. If you make your world view decisions primarily based on "statistics", you're putting yourself at the whim of any tool who knows how to twist numbers to his view. Logic and reason. Use logic and reason. When you stop hiring based on ability to do the job, you get a lower quality product. When you DO hire based on ability, you'll get all the diversity you need as a side-effect. You want a stat? Ok. An airplane was crashed (and yes, one is too many) by a man who should have been fired based on his performance but was retained predominantly because of his race. Show me a stat that proves diversity has IMPROVED the safety of the airlines. (that's a positive by the way...those can be proven)

Some good points. Definitely correct about holding onto legacy capabilities rather than developing new ones. Modern JFE is a great example...and I'm a proponent of JFE. Also spot on concerning UAS. I'm surprised he didn't talk more about long range fires and counter-fires, which have been a significant emotional event in Ukraine that we need to learn from. However this article stinks of Army centric vision. He decries that deep strike is a waste...when with modern full spectrum US capabilities, deep strike can almost completely prevent a force from moving TO the jump-off point, not to mention killing them AT the jump-off point. Standard article about "our" joint capabilities...spelled ARMY. Their concept of broad vision means looking at another ground force and saying "they're doing it better" instead of looking at the international arena, and then our JOINT force, and then saying "here's how we can do it better". I've never been impressed with our ground force's ability to actually think outside the box.

Anyone here familiar with the Giant 3591 crash? Yeah, that. The FO hid his training failures during the hiring process, had multiple training failures at Atlas, and was almost scrubbed from their program...which is saying something...but wasn't because he played the 'you're firing me because I'm black' card, and was retained. That asshat had no business behind the controls of a coffee machine, muchless a heavy jet. That's the kind of incident that will become more and more prevalent.

That is a sincere question mark in the whole thing. I seriously share your doubts. I guess I'm leaning on my faith in America as a whole. I'd like to think that integrity and liberty are too deeply ingrained into our national character for this kind of thing to really happen. Perhaps I'm a fool, but I feel that if we get this far, we've been come USSR 2.0 and it'll be too late for us anyways. The first people sent to the gulag were the rich.

Frankly: No I was actively blinded by either arrogant or ignorant air force leadership while I was on active duty about how 'not so awesome' airline life is. I will actively share all the benefits and drawbacks as honestly as I ever can, especially with those still in active service to ensure they can make a decision with full knowledge, as I was not able to for so long. Hence me asking: what are the additional benefits of this U-2 job. Flying the U-2 is great, if you're single, still 25, have no kids to plan for, or don't mind leaving your family in a relatively unappetizing location to live while you continue to hang onto the dream of being the next Chuck Yeager. Make no mistake: We need those men. Those men are the reason the US keeps such an amazing technological edge. But those men also also deserve to understand the opportunity costs they are incurring. Retirement comes for us all. The QOL and retirement benefits of the 121 world are amazing. Is test pilot world really worth it to be 55, thrice divorced, no longer able to hold an FAA medical because of a body that's been broken by hard service, and hardly any pension or retirement to speak of? I'm curious what the contractor world of text pilots offers in return for a life spent so close to the high desert airfields and not much else.

In the long run math for high-income dudes, Roth makes more sense if your goal is to minimize total taxes paid over your lifetime. Traditional is the way to go for minimizing taxes paid right now. Specific to high-earning airline pilots: expect that your income in retirement will be quite high owing to the massive amount of money being put into retirement accounts right now. Most airline bubbas should have no problem hitting the IRS retirement limits (66,500 right now?) every year after year 2 or 3, at least those in the heavy hitting airlines. ACMIs/regionals not so much. Over the course of 20 years, that's 2-3M in that account alone. I personally want the growth on that to never be touched. The other major variable is recognizing that taxes will likely go up as we're at a traditional low right now in view of our country's tax history. Especially if you consider that the current administration has dug us a massive hole, and our government historically tries and tax it's way out of those...even though financial facts and precedent have proven that such a course of action never works...luckily for politicians, facts and precedents bear little weight on their decision making and policy production. As for leaving a big chunk for your kiddos, I believe there was legislation recently passed that makes Roth accounts not live forever, but that they must be paid out within 10 years of your death, or something like that. Worth looking into if that was your plan. In any case, a well-structured trust should be in store for each high-income earner regardless.

Haven't even watched yet, and I already know it's clearly disinformation and requires fact checking because whoever that guy is, he's OBVIOUSLY not from the federal government, therefore cannot be an expert. /s

Your information is dated, and hourly pay is hardly the definition of final annual income in the airlines. Soft pay can be hugely important. Year two is currently 205 an hour, increasing into the 213 range in September, and on up annually until 2025. That's all before soft pay. Year 2 and 3 guys already routinely average around 250-300 (ignoring the 12% DC) without even BFMing the contract rules too aggressively. It's significant. I'd be curious to see the benefits of this U-2 contractor gig.

UPS Pilots:

You're right, my bad.

I won't be surprised to find out that 'pro-ukraine group' had some very 'not ukrainian' help. Lets face it, we're not going to hear the truth on this for about 50 years, and we certainly won't hear ANY truth on it from the current or even the next US administration, even though I have full faith we know exactly how it happened.

@BashiChuni Perhaps I was a little harsh. So we can understand the context of your masculinity...when was the last time you caught a fist to the face? Fair, this was weird. Allow me to rephase it: You sound like a weakling who doesn't understand the need for, or purpose of the use of force. Inter-personally or internationally.

@BashiChuni You sound like both a whiny Boomer and an I-don't-understand-why-the-biden-voted-for-isn't-working liberal. Child. Wake up and taste the suck. You OBVIOUSLY didn't grow up in the 70's...which we're currently re-entering... It's ok. You talk about geo-politics like it never existed before you were born in 1991. It's cool bruh. Chill. Read a book maybe. You obviously don't understand the concept of "know your enemy" to the level that some others here do. Was Ukraine a problem before Russia invaded? YUP. Is it a problem we have to contend with now? YUP. Your solution offers?>>>>NOTHING That checks Your are ignorant of the facts of the debate you've chose to wade into. Stop now. Don't respond. The end. - cluebird

You think "The Congressman" has the balls to show his face on this forum again? After everything I've seen, only one word comes to mind to describe that guy: Coward @congressman

yup. NORAD knew what it was the whole time. The only reason it was addressed is because it was seen. Then it became something that our administrators had to address...and they had to make the best of it.

I don't think he's pointing to an organized plan. He's pointing to the fact that there are innumberable military events in the air and on the sea that get largely ignored or suppressed by the country's leadership due to 'national security considerations' ... until it's politically, personally, or militarily useful to highlight them. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin incident. No one would have ever know about it except that it was politically handy to our 'leaders' at the the time to use as an excuse to get involved. Hell, the Navy has events very often in the Persian Gulf that could easily be used as an excuse to engage Iran if, and only if, that were the hot topic of the day for this administration.

That's fair enough. I will point out that past failures are neither acceptable nor an excuse for future incompetence. We need competence in the FAA and in transportation right now. An administrative leader with some vague experience would definitely help with prioritizing some things in that realm. I'll agree that mastery is not a necessity for administration. However a basic familiarization is probably a good idea. When's the last time an AMC guy led ACC, for example. Your point is fair, and open to opinion. Not mandatory, but again, familiarity is probably good. So, I'm assuming you're ok with this: Reminder, Phil Washington has managed two major airports. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Washington#:~:text=Phillip A. Washington (born 1958,Joe Biden's transportation transition team. Should he be able to answer all those questions? Absolutely not. Should he be able to answer at least one of those questions? DEFINITELY. Any pilot, dispatcher, or certified airfield manager would have gotten at least two of those questions. This guy's been a CEO of Denver and LA Metro, and can't even talk about at least ONE of these topics...especially considering the most recent history of air traffic close calls? That's not lack of expertise, that's just doing your homework before getting interviewed by Senate of the United State. It's simply lazy. We don't need any more lazy. But by your logic, that's ok. The predecessors were ignorant of the specifics, so the next guy can be ignorant. Experience entirely gained by OJT for a federal administrator is cool. But bear in mind that a Senator, who's job is even more general than this guy's would be at the FAA, did some homework and was able to talk with even a fake level of expertise. Again. Lazy. FFS, this guy was an Army CSM. He should know better. This kind of political appointee laziness needs to stop. I don't give a shit how bad they were in the past. I am very concerned about our future. Considering the fact that you have adamantly reinforced that you agree with this administration and all it's been doing: the disastrous and treacherous withdrawal from Afghanistan, our completely opaque and apparently open ended involvement in Ukraine, the suppression of a free investigation into hunter biden's dealing, dismissal of President Biden's own mishandling of classified documents while vilifying Trump doing the same exact thing, a suppression of fossil fuels production in the US for no obvious reason...except...the uplifting of green renewables despite overwhelming science to counter their sustainability, the affirmation of providing gender transition surgeries to minors without parental consent, and in general endorsing an agenda over and over that gender and skin color make a difference in one's ability to do their job, the intentional increase of inflation through endless spending of money we don't have, and on, and on, and on...I'm not surprised.

Weird. It's almost as if having your transportation department focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, social sensitivity, skin color, gender, and other such things instead of focusing on proper procedures in the operations of aircraft, trains, trucks, and ships...they end up focusing on diversity, equity, inclusion, social sensitivity, skin color, gender, and other such things instead of focusing on proper procedures in the operations of aircraft, trains, trucks, and ships. There's only so much bandwidth in the human focus. DEI and other wokeness is distracting technicians from focusing on their technical skills, and is further severely cluttering the CRM on flight decks, in ATC centers, and other technical environments. When you're more worried about offending someone's delicate sensibilities than you are about making sure the job is done correctly, safety gets easily compromised. It's a slippery slope, I've experienced it first hand, and it needs to stop. Immediately. Is DEI and woke garbage the root cause in these cases? Nope, in one case it's a tower controller issuing, and the crews accepting, a landing clearance without sufficient spacing (6 miles dude). In the other...without the flight deck tapes, who knows...but obviously distractions. Any professional in technical employment or the heavy machinery industries knows that you don't simply ignore distractions. You actively eliminate as many as possible because there will be more than enough that you can't eliminate. So no, these accidents are not the fault of DEI, but that garbage is definitely a loud background distractor that is being forced into the system by our administrators, and one that is low hanging fruit that could be easily culled. Beyond that, it's an analysis of correlation vs causation. We have administrators who were clearly picked for their political reliability, their diversity, gender, etc...INSTEAD of their expertise. Our current transportation secretary is a political appointee, not an expert in transportation. He is responsible to set the policy and priority for the transportation department...and now we're experiencing lots of mishaps in that department. Correlation? Definitely. Causation? Not easily proven, but not to be ruled out either. Why is he still employed in that job?

So long as there's no break in service between AD and IMA/AFRC status.

FilthyLiar Disappears...Chang Reappears... Coincidence?

@TheNewGazmo What these two dudes above said. If you want some solid, no-nonsense advise that's written in a form even a pilot can read quickly, read "The Simple Path to Wealth" by J.L. Collins. He discusses all this stuff in there.

Yes.

@FLEA So I'll lead with this: I agree with you on the problem. ANY hierarchy structure that allows older/stronger to prey on younger/weaker is not a responsible structure. An argument could be made that in these JROTC units, even without rank structure...there'd still be rank structure in the form of 8th grade vs 9th vs 12th grade...etc. That's not going away. I'm betting JROTC definitely exaggerated the problem by providing a backed-up rank structure to work within. Yup. That's a problem. It's also been a problem in the active duty. Your experience as an aircrew member is BY FAR not the norm in historical standards. Having a Col as a Nav who has to listen to you as an aircraft commander is overwhelmingly weird in the history of ranks structure, even in modern militaries. Because we're technicians who are also officers, things get sideways real quick, thereby making our experiences a poor example. 10 minutes of observing US Army up close will show that. Read your Robert Heinlein for excellent clarification about the heart of officership. My real argument here is not the problem that you've admired and spelled out so well. My issue is with your solution. You point out a correlation (rank structure and abuse) that may, or may not, be causal. Contributing? Definitely. But there is so much cultural specific influence going on here that it's very difficult to breakout the root cause. The solution is very simply though. Why, for the love of pete, do you come out with the solution of "ban all ranks in all JROTC"? Aside from the obvious fact that you don't like them because...well you obviously don't seem to understand them at a macro level (which is fine). The obvious answer is shut those units down. Permanently. If they are a detriment, get rid of them. It's a localized problem that requires a localized solution. You don't kill a man for a broken leg. You deal with the leg. Your supported answer is akin to saying "don't ever let this man outside again". It's foolish and mis-aimed. There are plenty of JROTC units with NONE of these problems. You quoted 50% OF INNER CITY UNITS. That's a localized problem. What's the number come to if including all units nation-wide...which is where you would apply your answer? You are calling something systemic that is, in fact, due to a local unit culture problem. Put in other terms, if 50% of T-6's go landing gear up, should we change to T.O. for every single airplane in the air force, regardless of their gear-up landing numbers? Or perhaps make everyone fly around with their gear down because retractable gear are stupid and I don't understand why we need them! The analogy breaks down, but hopefully you see the point. The obvious answer is if the units are a detriment, shut the units down. The end. Instead you choose a solution that should be implemented country wide without any thought to 2nd or 3rd order effects.

Thanks for the references! @nsplayri'll let you know if we go down that road.