TreeA10

It appears the movie Idiocracy really is a documentary from the future.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is normally used to define insanity. And most people have apparently lost their minds. Up to this point, please name any and all restrictions, limitations, etc. on Government spending. I agree the Government needs flexibility but Gumby could not compete with the "flexibility" in spending to date. I'm also for the budget pendulum swinging but it appears to have been propped up, nailed, glued, bolted and chained to the "on" position regarding spending. I'd like to try something different. Anything different. You know, just get crazy, and decrease the rate of programmed increases, i.e. baseline budgeting but, from the sounds coming from Congress, this would entail the sacrifice of the first born, stopping the rotation of the earth, and other bibilical doom and gloom implications. Everything we spend money on is "must have" or planes will fall from the sky, millions of children will starve to death, and old people will die and be eaten by dogs according to The One. Okay, I embellished that last comment but not by much.

Glad to know going Smurf isn't severe. Severe sounds like a good Friday night at the bar so it is a benchmark I'm familiar with.

So if you have a DCS incident, that means you are more susceptible to future incidents therefore you are a higher DCS risk and thus out of the high altitude business?

I guess it depends on how you define the budget and requirements to get the dollars to fund it. Do you set a tax rate and spend what you collect or do you you set a spending level and tax at a rate to get it? The latter reeks of the Soviet 5 year plan which certainly was not based on a rational understanding of human nature and failed miserably. The former requires the ability of our Government to adjust spending to live within our means as the economy fluctuates. The lack of the ability to live within our means is also going to cause miserable failure.

Stakeholder? I don't care what we call it as long as everyone is under the same umbrella, threat, tax, penalty, inconvienience, etc.

I think we need something like a flat tax. Everybody needs skin in the game. With 70,000 pages of tax code, billions spent on calculating your taxes, billions more on collecting your taxes, the idiots in Congress have created a monster. It just should not be so difficult to pay your taxes.

Yes, American did forgo bankruptcy and the employees gave up a lot (something like $10 billion since) to avoid a bankruptcy in 2003. That give back was squandered. The corporate playbook seems to be declare bankruptcy, strip pay and benefits, outsource as much flying as possible, repaint the airplanes, declare success, and the management walks out the door with millions. Horton, soon to be ex-CEO, is going to walk with almost $20 million for a couple years work. Not a bad gig if you can get it.

Yeah, I see your point. The military would be so much better if we had a cadre of warriors who were open to any trendy ideology, a sliding scale of relative morality, and lack of confidence in their education or decision making skills. Oh, and add in some sparkly TIB puffy shirts.

Throw my no vote in for the new paint job. I've seen the 737 and the 777 several times now. The large American written across the windows has a Swiss cheese look. Just for a sense of where priorities are, I offer this: American started down the paperless road using iPads to replace paper Jepps. By their own calculation, this would save $1.2 million in fuel costs. Looking at other cost savings include time to distribute the paper updates in mailboxes, time to do a page by page update, any injuries caused by heaving 30lb+ bags into awkward cockpit locations. Future savings will probably include paper, printers (WTF is up with BRAND NEW dot matrix printers???), and printer ribbons. So all of that is dependent on installing RAM mounts in the cockpits to hold the iPad. 600+ jets means 1200+ RAM mounts and this was supposed to done by December. Well, that deadline was missed. However, the new paint job rolled out to much fanfare, video, updated computer log-in screens, colorful brochures, floor to ceiling posters, and phone apps. New paint costs $80,000 per narrow body and $200,000+ for a wide body. So, which is more important? Operational advantage or pretty colors with song and dance? (This explains why TIB will not die, also.) Looks like new management...eventually. The level of stupidity since 2003 almost killed the airline. The same stupidity was proposed going forward out of bankruptcy which would have killed the airline. And you can't fix stupid even with a Wharton Business degree.

Did these same guys design the MiG-28?

Stumbled across this: https://www.science20.com/science_2_0/jurassic_beer_how_long_does_it_take_to_get_a_good_brew More articles linked at the bottom.

Is it against their morals?

And finally, you are right. Pregnant women can't deploy. 900 women were unable to deploy in the same 2008 study. Those positions went unfilled and the excess workload picked up by those that could deploy or that position was filled by someone else who might have stayed home. Either way, someone got hosed, Is this fair? Is our nations defense so desparate that we need to even worry about this? From a liberal point of view, it is fair if we hose others, the non-protected class, in the name of fairness. Your point regarding pregnant fighter pilots or Rangers is absolutely correct. Both are useless. Pilots are and Rangers would be immediately removed from operations.

So a woman completing Ranger training is immune from pregnancy? I guess the other 10% that unintendedly get pregnant lack the wisdom, knowledge, and dedication of any woman completing Ranger training. Do they teach contraception only in Ranger school? Must be an SCI program.

In 2008, the female military populace had a 10% unintended pregnancy rate. Seriously? Unintended? Like to know how that stat is arrived at. DUI's is the best you got? You can hand someone with a DUI conviction an assault rifle (the real one not the media "assault rifle") and put that person on the front line. You can not put a pregnant woman on the front line. Try again.

Adding women has done wonders for our military. During the first go round in the desert, 1,200 women, an entire battalion's worth, were lost due to pregnancy. Admittedly, those were "non-combat" fields. That was years ago and I'm sure there are better stats out there somewhere because I'm sure women don't get pregnant any more being the more enlightened and diversity-centric military that we are now.

So you are saying training standards aren't to be enforced in training due to the myriad of accusations that may befall the instructors? And somehow avoiding this by sending a non-performing individual on to the gaining unit and let THEM deal with the problem is a better idea because certainly the failing student will somehow be easier to remove because all the various excuses and accusations will not be used? This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.

Saw a lot of "we didn't change the standards" for genetically different students in UPT. Nothing says quality like busting every checkride in UPT and completing the program with 15-20 extra sorties to meet the minimum training standards.

I've got a T-38 -1 from back in the late 80s...somewhere.

Just to admit women to a lot of fields and then wash them out due to lack of ability is going to cost a boat load of money. Training slots are limited. Assuming the courses only train as many personnel as needed, adding women that have poor odds of passing means we don't have enough people for the job. Adding slots to add women means we waste limited dollars but we are wasting limited dollars either way. The progressive social justice crowd has not problem with this. I'd like to see women having to sign up for the draft because it would get the 99% of women who don't want to be GI Jane into the argument but I'm sure the same crowd would say that is a waste of resources because not all women want to be in the military.

If history proves correct, the drive for equality of opportunity will shift via Presidential and Congressional pressure on our upper leadership for equality of outcome. Social justice is far more important than putting others lives at risk.

I'm all for it because women are absolutely no different than men and can meet any physical challenge except those officially designated as different such as sit ups, running 1.5 miles, and push ups. Oh, and golf. As long as they don't have to compete against the enemy in sit ups, running 1.5 miles, push ups, or golf, I am all for women in combat and see no problem with this idea.

Not personally experienced the Sleep Apnea but have flown with a couple guys who have it. If you end up diagnosed with sleep apnea and require an FAA 1st Class medical, you might find yourself having to complete sleep studies every year and must carry one of those sleep mask things (CPAP?) with you when flying trips in order to keep your medical.

There has been no fighting the budget battle in any form of an appropriate context. The Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years to avoid the discussion and nobody, even his own party, voted for the President's budget. Not much of a fight there. The "fair share" of taxes imposed on the "millionaires" making more than $400,000 is not going to fix the spending problem. Raising taxes on "millionaires" making more than $250,000 is not going to fix the spending problem. Raising taxes on everyone is not going to fix the spending problem. And the Senate and the President have put what serious spending cuts on the table? That would be none. As far as a ridiculous position to take, please check SARCASM DETECTOR - ON.