Prozac

This. I want my representative to keep his home and his family in my district and spend as much time here as possible. Stipend? Show me that there's a need. There may actually be a legitimate justification. Despite the apparent popular belief, congressional representatives aren't exactly lavishly paid. I doubt any are hurting, but there may be a few who struggle with all of the travel and expenses in Washington vs. their districts. Again, show me the need......perhaps a stipend is in order only for junior representatives who have not yet secured alternate living arrangements in D.C. Then again, how do I know they're not spending it all on hookers and blow? Maybe some sort of Congressional crashpad arrangement is what's needed instead.

In short, rescinding the 1500 hr rule will put downward pressure on all airline wages. Big Blue needs to fuck off.

So....golden unicorn showers?

Lucky bastards.

I don't get this argument that the "establishment" is trying to overturn the results of the election. If Trump leaves the office, we are still left with a republican administration and a republican congress. If he does leave, it might give congressional republicans some breathing room in the upcoming midterm.....resigning might be the best thing he could do for the party. I think more and more people are coming to terms with the fact that Trump is a dumpster fire and his administration is a detriment to the nation as a whole.

Can it routinely and reliably catch human mistakes? That's what the other guy is really there for. One person is already capable of flying the airplane, turning knobs, and running the radios. I don't think this thing is somehow automatically better than having another set of eyes, ears, and most importantly, gray matter in the cockpit.

I know certain captains who fall asleep on every single flight. No shit. Good luck with single pilot ops.

I take issue with any argument that says the AF can't afford something. Bullshit. The Air Force will prioritize bleeding edge technology fighters over everything else. If solving personnel issues means one less F-35, they'll take the jet every time.

Summarily fire anyone who gives the slightest fuck about straight or curly quotation marks. Seriously, if we have time to worry about that shit we must have way too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Time to start pruning 0-6s and above in a major way. In my experience, senior officers do more to impede the Capts, Majors, SSgts, and TSgts than to empower them. The AF needs a culture of far fewer senior officers who understand that it's the mid level talent who gets shit done.

Well it's going to be fun watching this thread explode. Chang you troll, did you just like your own ridiculous post?

Sincerely doubt there would be any change to the status quo. By considering stop loss, leadership is signaling that they don't really want to solve the underlying problems. It seems logical to me that if they really can't fill cockpits and "put warheads on foreheads", before they stop loss they should cancel all in residence schools, scrub all staff positions for non mission critical slots, audit all deployed air assets and remove anything extraneous, bring home anyone currently on an exchange, truly eliminate all non mission related duties, etc. All that stuff is hard. It's much easier just to yell "STOP LOSS" and call the problem fixed.

But without all the turnover we'd be taking away opportunities from all those deserving O-6s!

Stop Loss seems like a really easy way to convince anyone sitting on the fence to leave at their earliest opportunity. Incredibly short sighted and just plain stupid--and therefore an exceedingly likely possibility.

I call bullshit. Everybody knows a desert 9 is at best a 6 in the real world.

Charlize Theron kicking ass and a lesbian scene? Uhhhh, yes please. Oh, and also John Goodman.

Below is a post from Albie over at APC. Highly pertinent to this discussion, and , as usual from Albie, spot on: It is not as dumb as you think... Part of the reason pilots are doing so well in contracts now is the pilot shortage has decimated regionals. This move by Goldfein would make the regionals able to hire less experienced and less expensive pilots. This labor shortfall could be significantly reduced by producing more regional pilots sooner, which is his goal in reducing the flight time required for these jobs. If regionals could again hire guys at 250 hours with a commercial, they could fill a lot more right seats...quickly. Until the ATP requirement, young pilots could get a loan for their training and build time for only a short while before being scooped up. There were plenty of pilots in the mid 2000s that would take out a 100k loan to get to that hour mark. Two things stopped that. First--the requirement to have an ATP and 1500 hours. Second, the financial crisis drove a lot of folks out of the loan making business, which funded the "puppy mill" flight schools across Florida and the sunbelt. Many of those schools and programs shrunk or disappeared. 750 hours isn't at easy at 250 and a commercial to acquire, but it is half of what they need now. It is a big cut. If the regionals can start stacking their right seats again, here's some potential ramifications... 1. The bonuses/wage increases we've seen in the regionals might ebb or disappear. The financial barrier for a new pilot to gain 750 hours, while not insignificant, is reduced. So is the time it takes (by 6-18 months) to get those hours as a CFI in those same schools. Those helo transition courses might fade as well... 2. Regionals being better manned will allow some code-share and out-sourced flying to go back downhill to the regionals from mainline. Part of the reason Delta is interested in 100 seaters and bought the 717s from SWA was the lack of reliability and shrinking cost advantage of regional feeders. More pilots to fly those 50/70/90 seaters for less money puts downward pressure on mainline pay and benefits. 3. Once regionals can successfully fill their own schedules, they will again be whipsawed to lower their costs or face losing routes to their regional competitors. The downward pressure on wages when that occurs has already been demonstrated many times since 2002. While it is a tragic story, the fact is one poor regional pilot with a bad training record probably did more to enhance our profession than years of dedicated work and effort by many ALPA volunteers. The Colgan crash put pilot experience and competency into the discussion in the media and in Congress, and also flight time and duty time issues. Subsequent legislation meant to enhance safety like the Part 117 regulations and the 2013 ATP changes not only helped enhance safety, but also gave pilot groups more leverage than they have had in years by shrinking the pool of available labor. What Goldfein hopes to do--as do the RAA and a host of others--is lower the requirements to increase that pool size. In the process, he will take pressure off his manning crisis by not only increasing the of non-military pilots available for airlines, but by potentially reducing our future pay as well. He doesn't just want to keep his pilots--he wants to make the airlines an overall less attractive option. The hero in these stories? The Colgan families. They have never let up in their fight to highlight the issues that affect airline safety. They are on the Hill--even now--quietly walking the office halls wearing their red jackets and adored with a simple button that usually has a picture of the loved one they lost. They are going to need to keep the fight going, along with the help of ALPA and others, if the 1500 hour requirement is to be preserved. https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=14838 Congress tightens requirements for airline pilots - latimes

The idea of "super dispatchers" cracks me up. Dispatchers are already overworked. The other night I showed up to a flight that had been dispatched to a runway with no instrument approach and wx~300/1 so no circle either. Our automated flight planning software is supposed to catch things like this and our dispatchers, who are working several flights at a time, rely heavily on it. It's yet another piece of the puzzle that's far from ready for single pilot ops. I think the super dispatcher concept would have to be limited to a couple of flights max to be anywhere near viable.

While I agree with Mark1 in principle, I don't think this argument will hold water. From what I understand (and I am certainly not a legal expert) Washington and Minnesota are arguing that the order would do irreparable harm to their citizens and legal residents and that there is no historical precedent of attacks from the seven countries involved, nor is the federal government willing to share whatever intel it is using to justify the ban. The administration on Friday declined to appeal further and stated a new order may be forthcoming. If they use their heads and actually consult the right people first, I think you'll see an order that stands up to legal challenges. I still have some major heartburn with the fact that 1) Those on the right who decried Obama's use of executive orders as unprecedented and an abuse of power now seemingly have no problem with an orange hued draft dodger who thinks executive orders allow him to treat our democracy like a banana republic, and 2) Supposing a second ban sticks, what's the timeline to get this "extreme vetting" program in place? With the federal hiring freeze, my guess is it's going to take a long, long time. Will the ban really be indefinite?

You didn't have the paying public onboard when you were doing those crossings. Also the USAF's oceanic training and procedures are a joke. Something like 30% of GNEs for 5% of crossings comes to mind.

He has wide latitude to be sure, but wide latitude does not equal unfettered power. The man has a history of provocative statements regarding Muslims. It's no wonder his plan has alarm bells going off. There is legitimate concern that this was an abuse of power. Add that to the way the ban was haphazardly implemented and it should come as no surprise to anyone that there are legal challenges to it.

Exactly. Yet the 9th District is being portrayed as having made a highly politicized decision. Their only position is that the judiciary does in fact have the right to weigh-in here, which is a win for separation of powers, something that many here have professed to value greatly. I happen to think that it's likely the ban will be upheld, perhaps with some significant changes and clarification. However, the administration is arguing that the court should have no say, even going so far as to question the validity of the judiciary. To me, that is far more concerning than the ban itself.

So is the next step for the USAF to lobby the FAA to stop the Commercial Pilot or CFI equivalency programs? That would certainly serve to place another barrier up to try and stem the tide. Should Goldfein lobby individual airlines to stop adding .3 to military resumes? Should he lobby them to stop accepting military time altogether? There are real debates to be had about the 1500 hour rule and its effects on the aviation industry. Solving the USAF's pilot shortage should not be the driver of that discussion. Goldfein is out of his lane. He should concentrate on the myriad of issues that he CAN effect WITHOUT help from the FAA or airline industry.

Rest assured, my airline pilot colleagues and I are dead set against any effort by the USAF to impede our quality of life. Congress and the FAA passed the 1500 hour rule to address the safety of the flying public. I'm pretty sure the USAF's pilot retention problem does not trump public safety. Repealing this rule would signal a return to regionals hiring at substandard wages, commuters showing up to fly with little rest, and generally drive down wages and QOL in the airline industry as a whole. If I may, I would suggest those of you currently employed in the industry contact your union representation and urge them to oppose this underhanded effort by Air Force leadership.

Agree with snoopy. When I was competing for a pilot slot I thought there could be no more rewarding job in the world than being an Air Force pilot. I was not alone in this opinion. 12 years later I was exhausted, fed up, and burned out. If Big Blue can't figure out how to make this job rewarding enough to keep people around, I have little sympathy.

Should Trump also state that he has great respect for Kim Jong Un and blatantly refuse to criticize the North Korean regime for fear of starting a war? It is possible to criticize a leader without it leading to outright hostilities. Putin is a strongman who is not afraid to brutally silence his critics, order his military to openly attack civilians, and disrupt the free and fair democratic process in The West. He absolutely should be criticised by the leader of the free world. Instead, Trump thinks the US is right in there with him. WTF? The man is off the rails. "Any negative polls are fake news"????? I have little doubt that Trump would just love to be half the strong man Putin is.