FourFans

Asking for a specific proof as you are is a false premise. You want a specific proof that you know doesn't exist because...again...you can't prove a negative. Is there some playbook of poor debate tools you're reading out of? Fact: Focusing on anything EXCEPT the task at hand (i.e. hiring with DEI in mind instead of solely based on ability) dilutes and diverts your efforts, thereby making your operation less effective and less safe. You as the challenger in that debate bear the burden of proof. In you own words, diversity does not improve safety. Therefore, logic dictates that a focus on diversity thereby distracts from the focus on safety, thereby making the process less safe. There is no proof of this aside from logic, as it's a negative, EVEN THOUGH we've presented examples as proof...which is the only logical way to demonstrate the 2nd order effects of a negative. Have you put no effort into learned logic, reason, or rational thought? End game and back to the topic: the polarization of left and right has led to what I believe are hiring practices that are making the airlines less safe. I've experienced first hand CA's and FO's in the industry who demonstrate sub-par skills, yet are adament that they are being discriminated against due to race, gender, or even political affiliations, when in fact they were simply bad pilots. All of those individuals refused to acknowledge their lack of piloting skills and blamed critics of their skills on biases in other areas. That bullshit makes crews less likely to call out aviation deviations...like taking off without clearance...as the crew members now live in fear of reprisal or even time in court because of perceived slights and biases against the thin-skinned poor pilot they are flying with. It's happened to me first hand and I've watched it happen to others. It's unsafe. If you can produce no evidence to support your claims, not even a single example, that focus on diversity is somehow improving the airlines, I recommend you re-examine your view point.

FIFY

@Smokin I agree with what you're saying. I would like to massage something though: FIFY. Some people have this notion that the military road is somehow in-expensive. It's not. It costs over a decade of your life (minimum), tons of deployments, untold stress on family and relationships, and a significant opportunity cost of what you might have otherwise done with your career on the outside...all with no union or work rights protections of any kind. Make no mistake: any man or woman who has the aptitude to be a pilot in the military can make immensely more money at immensely less personal risk on the outside if the same level of effort poured into the miliary pilot career was poured instead into a civilian pilot career. Is it easy? NO. They are both expensive roads. BTW, the 'traditional' civilian path is no more. No 4 year degree required. From highschool student to right seat in a heavy jet can be as short as 4-6 years now. 1-2 years of zero-CFI land and building time, 2-4 years in a regional with the R-ATP, then ACMI. I know, because I sat next to that guy in my ACMI indoc class. The only reason (by his own account) he was 26 instead of 24 in that class is because he took 2 years after highschool dicking around before he got serious about the flying gig, and his process was hardly streamlined as it could have been. I'd call him an average joe. That dude sat right seat at an AMCI before getting hired by delta. He's 27. He has no student loan debt, and his 'building time' debt is already paid. Zoom out a little. Find me any career where you can make 6 figures in a union protected job within 5 years of starting that path with little to no college or training debt. This isn't about airline pilot hiring. This is about America deciding to not charge the next generation a $300,000 entry fee before they start a career where they can prosper. Removing the 4 year degree requirement did exactly that for the airlines. There's still plenty of barriers to entry, as there should be for a multimillion dollar, high-stakes job that places other people's lives in your hands on a regular basis. But it's certainly not the 'traditional' path any more. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but it's where we are. I will definitely reinforce that America needs to reduce the cost of entry into the higher level, high-skill, high value added work force. That starts by chopping the cost of university education, (imagine if universities didn't pay $13.1M for a DEI department salary...Link) and opening up the aperture to enable the opportunity to enter those high-skill avenues to those who traditionally don't have them. That means removing barriers to BEGIN the process, while retaining the quality control within the process. Equal opportunity is not, and should not mean equal outcome.

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.