The new airline thread

[FourFans]

@Smokin  I agree with what you're saying.  I would like to massage something though:

18 hours ago, Smokin said:

The pure civilian Any path to an airline pilot has traditionally been an expensive ordeal.

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. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by FourFans

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

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?

Because I think it’s unfair to folks who are looking for real, useful information for you and I to turn this into a left/right shitthrowing contest & I regret engaging in the first place. I will answer your last question though. How does diversity improve airline safety? It doesn’t. That’s not the point of diversity. Diversity opens up the career to people for whom it may have been closed in the past. If it doesn’t harm safety (and despite the one off example you presented, statistically, aviation has gotten safer, not less safe since these hiring policies were implemented) then why is that a bad thing? 

[Prozac]

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is bullshit. You asked for some evidence, got it, now you're moving the goalposts. 

Disagree. I specifically asked for statistical evidence and not one-off anecdotal examples. Atlas absolutely got that hire wrong. Doesn’t change the fact that aviation has never been more safe. Blaming “diversity” for perceived a decline in safety that in reality is nonexistent is absolutely counterproductive. 

[FourFans]

23 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Disagree. I specifically asked for statistical evidence and not one-off anecdotal examples. Atlas absolutely got that hire wrong. Doesn’t change the fact that aviation has never been more safe. Blaming “diversity” for perceived a decline in safety that in reality is nonexistent is absolutely counterproductive. 

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.

 

Edited March 13, 2023 by FourFans

[Lord Ratner]

50 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Disagree. I specifically asked for statistical evidence and not one-off anecdotal examples. Atlas absolutely got that hire wrong. Doesn’t change the fact that aviation has never been more safe. Blaming “diversity” for perceived a decline in safety that in reality is nonexistent is absolutely counterproductive. 

It's not nonexistent, because that word has a meaning. The Atlas example makes it existent. You can argue it's small, but you didn't.

 

And considering how few crashes there are now, a single 767 is a very statistically relevant change. You don't like that because you believe the opposite, that diversity helps, but you have zero examples of it helping and the Atlas crash is a major example of it hurting.

 

The increase in safety is obviously attributable to technological advances and human factors training. It borders on absurd to think that a procedural job like flying a plane is benefiting from whatever unique background a pilot would have from being a racial minority.

[FLEA]

There's an irony here that every single military pilot who goes to fly for the airlines is a DEI hire. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by FLEA

[Smokin]

44 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There's an irony here that every single military pilot who goes to fly for the airlines is a DEI hire. 

How so?  Military pilots go through a rigorous flight school and experience a wider variety of problems to solve before being ready to be hired by a major than most civilian path pilots.  While most require some adjustment to the 121 world, very few former military pilots I know (including single seat fighters) have had any issue in training or on the line.  This is the opposite of a DEI hire; hiring an individual that you know to be highly experienced, well trained, disciplined, and more potential than your company needs and with potentially no more training required than any other new hire.

[brabus]

On 3/12/2023 at 12:25 PM, Prozac said:

Do you think there was ever a “meritocracy hiring system”? I don’t. There was a good ol’ boy network, but never a meritocracy. One of the benefits of of diversity is tight there in the description: you diversify your hiring pool. You end up with a larger pool of qualified candidates than you would’ve had before. Does it work perfectly? Of course not. But neither did the old system. You don’t think Billy Bob ever got put in the front seat of an F-4 or 727 because his brother-in-law knew the chief pilot & not because he was the best guy for the job? It’s all well and good to want to hire the best candidate but often times that’s an unrealistic pipe dream. Always has been. Always will be. 
 

Yes I think by and large meritocracy hiring still exists, but it has been eroded further over the years with DEI hiring; at least in the airlines, ANG, and several companies in the defense industry (the areas I have personal experience with). Hiring Billy Bob because he has an in (but is less qualified) is just as bad as hiring someone because they're a woman (albeit less qualified). Yes, Billy Bob has existed prior to DEI, and people slip through the cracks of an imperfect system. However, the difference with DEI is its blatantly done front and center and celebrated by industry. If we're going to celebrate DEI hires, then we should be celebrating "I got hired because I know somebody" hires. Look at how many people have received preferential points on apps because of checking a race box...I think the data shows there are WAY more people getting DEI-related preference than people getting preference for knowing somebody. Both are fucked up, but one is occurring more, and only one is "bad" in some people's opinion.

[McJay Pilot]

Not to break the current trend, but…

Im looking at commuting my first couple of years post-AF. Since it sounds like there’s a lot of sitting reserve, how crazy of an idea is it to plan on buying a home at the base you’re reserve at with the intention of fixing it up and eventually moving in with the family while using it as a crash pad until then?

[brabus]

If you know you’re moving there eventually, I don’t see a reason not to do that. Of course the big question is why aren’t you moving to that base sooner…are you talking about not getting that base for a while because it’s senior?

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Smokin said:

How so?  Military pilots go through a rigorous flight school and experience a wider variety of problems to solve before being ready to be hired by a major than most civilian path pilots.  While most require some adjustment to the 121 world, very few former military pilots I know (including single seat fighters) have had any issue in training or on the line.  This is the opposite of a DEI hire; hiring an individual that you know to be highly experienced, well trained, disciplined, and more potential than your company needs and with potentially no more training required than any other new hire.

Because your veteran status is a protected status and is reported along with other DEI statistics by your airlines HR to the Department of Labor. This is why veterans often have ERG's and specialized recruiters. 

Companies don't hire DEI because its socially popular. They do it because there are certain advantages under the Work Opportunity Tax Credit and other programs that provide financial advantages to hiring a diverse work force. 

[McJay Pilot]

15 minutes ago, brabus said:

 Of course the big question is why aren’t you moving to that base sooner…are you talking about not getting that base for a while because it’s senior?

Big question and fair! Seniority mostly combined with the wife has a good job here now that may be able to relocate later.

[ViperMan]

7 hours ago, FourFans said:

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?

Dude, just take the W and a deep breath. Non-response / misdirection is stealth acquiescence. You won.

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Dude, just take the W and a deep breath. Non-response / misdirection is stealth acquiescence. You won.

Fair point...but that dead horse over there...ok, yeah, I pumped a few too many missiles into that fireball.  I quit.

Edited March 14, 2023 by FourFans

[FourFans]

12 hours ago, McJay Pilot said:

Not to break the current trend, but…

Im looking at commuting my first couple of years post-AF. Since it sounds like there’s a lot of sitting reserve, how crazy of an idea is it to plan on buying a home at the base you’re reserve at with the intention of fixing it up and eventually moving in with the family while using it as a crash pad until then?

I'll throw it out there that as a crashpad dweller, I would strongly consider not making your long term dwelling in domicile a crashpad before you live in it.  We dwellers are a highly varied breed.  Some are respectful and treat the house as our own.   Others, not so much.  If there were level below 'rental',  it's 'crashpad'.

That said, if you can move your family to domicile, move your family to domicile.  That is a MANY faceted statement though.

Edited March 14, 2023 by FourFans

[McJay Pilot]

6 hours ago, FourFans said:

 We dwellers are a highly varied breed.  Some are respectful and treat the house as our own.   Others, not so much.  If there were level below 'rental',  it's 'crashpad'.

😂 I’m now picturing every aircrew dorm while deployed. I’ll keep it personal and thanks for the advice!

[BFM this]

Don't know what the current climate is, but I was able to extend my retirement PCS move twice before I pulled the trigger and moved the Family to my domicile.

[Prozac]

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Dude, just take the W and a deep breath. Non-response / misdirection is stealth acquiescence. You won.

Wait a minute! I resemble that remark. Actually happy to continue the fight. I just think we’ve stumbled into the airways when we should’ve kept it in the MOA. Like I said, happy to continue the discussion as I think there is a lot of nuance and detail on both sides that all parties may not have considered. Perhaps we should start a diversity/affirmative action thread? 

[Lord Ratner]

18 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Wait a minute! I resemble that remark. Actually happy to continue the fight. I just think we’ve stumbled into the airways when we should’ve kept it in the MOA. Like I said, happy to continue the discussion as I think there is a lot of nuance and detail on both sides that all parties may not have considered. Perhaps we should start a diversity/affirmative action thread? 

Woke thread 

[Smokin]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:54 PM, McJay Pilot said:

Not to break the current trend, but…

Im looking at commuting my first couple of years post-AF. Since it sounds like there’s a lot of sitting reserve, how crazy of an idea is it to plan on buying a home at the base you’re reserve at with the intention of fixing it up and eventually moving in with the family while using it as a crash pad until then?

I would not.  Assuming that hiring continues along the current trend and you're going to a legacy passenger airline, you won't be forced to sit reserve very long.  Commuting to the worst line is usually better than commuting to reserve.  Once you get a line, you'll have a decent chance of either commuting in or home, so your nights in domicile on your own dime could realistically be under 6 within a reasonable amount of time and possibly down to zero within a year.  I just stayed in a hotel when I commuted to reserve (roughly 5 months back in 2019) and only spent maybe $100-200 more a month than most my buddies that had crashpads.  For that price, it's worth it to me to have my own room, a shuttle on demand, and every 4-5 days paid earns enough points for a free night.  Also opens up the opportunity to pick up cross town trips for a bit extra pay and just commute straight into the cross town airport.

[FourFans]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:08 PM, Smokin said:

Words of wisdom, truth., and money making facts.

Let me underscore: Employment in the airline industry RIGHT NOW will secure you for a future that is fraught with landmines of uncertainty.

Social history says that our 'global society" is headed for pain.  

I have met the dude who was #2999 of 3000 at UPS Airlines...for SEVEN YEARS.  (I can't remember the exact numbers, but he was literarily #2 from the bottom)   And that ended.  still  SEVEN YEARS of crap schedules, commuting to the  base you didn't want as a home so you decided to keep commuting...AND not knowing if you will be the first one cut.  FOR SEVEN YEARS........yet he stayed....

....he hung on.  I'm telling you a fact that cannot be disproven: The sooner you get your number, the sooner you furlough-proof yourself. 

Is it impossible?  no.

The next couple decades are going to suck bigtime, there is no way around that.  But if you are in the best job 'we' can possibly have, at the time, then you are the lottery winner my friend. 

Seriously dude.  Airline pilots will make money, and live a better life (15 days at home BAby!!!)   in our lifetime.  AI is coming...FAST for us.  But not yet.  Make hay while the sun shines.  You're a pilot, get after it!

 

After 3 years of no more than 15 days a month at work:

This is the best part time job I've ever had.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

The dirty secret: If it was 25 days a month, we'd all be happy so long as we weren't living under communism...

Edited March 17, 2023 by FourFans

[VolFan]

14 hours ago, FourFans said:

The dirty secret: If it was 25 days a month, we'd all be happy so long as were weren't living under communism...

Uhh…No. Gone for 3/4 of the month consistently?  I’d find other work thanks. 
 

This is a great job, but I can’t imagine being away from the wife and kids that much. 

[SocialD]

2 hours ago, VolFan said:

Uhh…No. Gone for 3/4 of the month consistently?  I’d find other work thanks. 
 

This is a great job, but I can’t imagine being away from the wife and kids that much. 

 

 

Honestly, I can't even imagine working 15 days/month at the airline.  Homie do play that game...12 days is about my max.  Much prefer to be down around 6-9.  In base reserve or line holder, dropping trips is where it's at.  Life's too short to be working that much, especially at our pay rates. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by SocialD

[FourFans]

20 hours ago, VolFan said:

Uhh…No. Gone for 3/4 of the month consistently?  I’d find other work thanks. 
 

This is a great job, but I can’t imagine being away from the wife and kids that much. 

I'm guessing you don't understand what life in a communist country is really like.  I'd rather work 25 days a month and be free to quit or find another job rather than live under the tyranny of the USSR or the CCP.

[uhhello]

7 hours ago, FourFans said:

I'm guessing you don't understand what life in a communist country is really like.  I'd rather work 25 days a month and be free to quit or find another job rather than live under the tyranny of the USSR or the CCP.

Go ahead and take a knee, drink some water, and maybe a change of socks.