Originally Posted by PJ2
We won't debate last October, Greenspan, Bernanke, Bush, Obama here but I know it would be a lively discussion over a few ales. I'm not exactly sure what "politics" I'm a "practitioner" of except to keep watching and thinking, but to me the hypocrisy which on the one hand boasts an unbridled fundamentalist capitalism and which on the other hand swiftly bails out failures of the richest capitalist organizations because to not do so would cause the collapse of the nation, (so say some), simply brings home what I have observed to be a standing rule in the US, less so in Canada, Australia and Europe, of the privatization of profit and the socialization of risk and failure. One is a capitalist and actually believes it and lives by those rules or not but placing oneself in a position of bringing down a nation's (and therefore the world's) economy either because the "government made us do it" or by traditional capitalist greed and institutional avarice is the best of both worlds for the bonussed few while the majority of the middle class, (or what is left of the middle class), have watched their wages, benefits including pensions and lifestyles steadily decline. It was the ultimate capitalist Henry Ford who thought employees should make at least enough wages to buy the product they made. Today, the opposite obtains in an economy run off taxpayer largesse in the greatest re-distributionist scheme ever, just to save a few sorry capitalist behinds. Perhaps we are of a common mind on this.
Yes, I think we are of a common mind here. I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything said in your quote here … and the only place where I twinged was the reference to Henry Ford … who, while not generally discussed, and despite his laudable goal of providing affordable automobiles, has long been known as one of the most virulent anti-Semites in American history. However, lest I be accused of being anti-Ford or anti-automobile industry, let me point out that, to its credit, the Ford Motor Company has done much to reverse the hateful legacy of its founder, through the donation of millions of dollars to Holocaust educational projects and human rights charities. Also, I must say you are obviously an astute observer of things political in the US in that you have recognized what many of my US countrymen feel is embarrassingly hyprocritical of our presently advocated stances on many things … and the “bailout” provisions mentioned are right at the top of my, and many of my colleagues’, list of such things. Unfortunately, there are some very cleaver folks who have managed to secure seats in the US government and have been able to push through legislation that actually made it unlawful, and thereby punishable, to withhold unsecured loans at below prime rates, to persons who would otherwise not be considered for any loan. In these cases, while a financial institution may have desired to allow the free-market system operate, they were prevented from doing so, by law, under the threat of penalties – some of which could have been business-ending.
Please excuse the deliberate side-step from the main theme of this thread, but, like you, I believe that to understand the safety issues currently being discussed, the general philosophy governing business decisions must be understood.
As typically there are two sides of every discourse, in these instances in the US, one side clearly believes in equal opportunity for citizens, ensured by careful, constructive, and minimal government involvement in business practices – essentially providing the backbone for the success enjoyed by the US, and other similarly motivated countries. Also, the other side clearly believes that the US has been as successful as it has been, not because of its citizenry, but because of its government. Therefore, in their minds, the only way to improve the outlook for the US, is to increase the size of the government and the involvement of that government in more and more of the business decisions of that citizenry. I have described this attitude as interpreting the US Declaration of Independence statement of the rights of its citizens to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” by re-defining liberty and happiness as “the possession of equal numbers and qualities of things.” In other words, to be truly as happy as your neighbor who owns a Mercedes, you must be allowed to own a Mercedes as well – to be as free as your neighbor who owns a nice home, you, too, must be able to own a house. Some, in a transparent attempt to “be fair,” have said that the house doesn’t have to be as glamorous, or as large, but everyone who wants one should be allowed to have one – notice, that is “allowed to have,” with no caveats about being able to afford to do so. How then? Such “fairness” would come through increased taxes – supposedly only on the ‘arrogant rich,’ and to some, this is eminently fair. The interesting part is that many who feel this way are now not even trying to avoid the “re-distribution” accusation – rather they are attempting to justify such re-distribution as the goal would be to ensure everyone has been afforded their basic “human rights.”
Taking this premise to the next logical (nee “illogical”) expectation is to recognize that any business has a “right” to be successful. That means – do whatever is necessary to have the balance sheet come out positive. If someone looses his/her job in the process – they would merely have to understand that it’s “not personal, just business.” As I indicated in an earlier post, this is the justification for twiddling with the salaries and benefits of pilots, flight attendants, dispatchers, and mechanics. It’s not personal … it’s just business. Surely (
they say) anyone can understand the necessity of a business being able to make a profit. But it’s the same in almost every industry. Look at the shambles in which we find our current public education system. Who runs that system? Private corporations? No. It’s the government. How can they do that? Through taxes. You may not have to send your kids to “public” schools, but you do have to see that your kids are educated. And if you choose to do that through any system other than the government’s, you have to pay (through taxes) for the ability of your neighbor to send his kids there. If you desire to provide your kids an education better than that provided by the “public” school system – you can, you just have to pay for both. Isn’t that a re-distribution of the funds you have available? Of course it is.
I’m not saying that all government is bad. There are some things that only governments can – or should – do for the population. Police forces. Fire protection services. There should be building codes and speed limits. Not everyone should be able to drive a car – there should be some sort of training and licensing system to allow that. You find someone who doesn’t want to get a license but says he needs to get to work? Tell him to buy a house within walking distance of his job. Not everyone should be allowed to fly a plane. Particularly if that person is flying a plane on which passengers have paid a price for that transportation. There should be stringent (but fair) requirements levied on that pilot. If we allow an airline to advertise and sell seats, shouldn’t there be some regulation governing some, many, most (?) of that operation to reasonably ensure that passenger that he can get to his chosen destination safely for the price he paid? It’s a tried and true realization. “Supply and demand” works. However, when there is an over-supply of anything – the demand is affected and so is the “going price.”
Originally Posted by PJ2
Let me ask you, AirRabbit, what intelligent person in his or her right mind, (naivete regarding the industry excepted for a moment), would spend that kind of money to merely qualify one for a profession that has one away from home every important family day, pays poverty-level wages instead of a living wage and increasingly lousy, crappy wages even for senior members, is wholly disrespected by one's employer, their accountants, the organization's investors and increasingly the flying public, (because "automation" does it all so why should they be paid a high wage?), provides a minimum of training, has their pensions "stolen" through favourable bankruptcy laws and demonstrates in negotiations that pilots (their wages and benefits) are a significant liability in achieving profit and who, in one swift second can find themselves either dead or in court defending themselves against charges of "negligence" or worse in most countries of the world? One can only survive a short period of time on the "love of flying". Being an airline pilot today is extremely nasty, unpleasant, unpredictable business and many who I know have retired miss their compatriots, the flying and the layovers but not the industry. Captain Sullenberger said it best (and continues to do so); …
I suspect that you would like me to answer your question with a response something like “Surely, no one would.” But, the fact is that there are something like 600,000 pilots in the US flying for the airlines.(
Edit: Woops - sorry. That reference is to pilots World-Wide, not just US - the US figure would be closer to 27 - 30 percent of that number ... or about 180,000. That's what I get for trying to rely on an over-used top-noggin - at least that's my excuse!) However, even with this impressive figure, I’d tend to agree that, with the reputation of some airline salaries and the regulatory/governmental inquiries ongoing at just about any time, the prospect for future airline pilots may not be as robust as it once was. But, you tell me, if tomorrow American, or United, or Delta were to announce they were hiring 600 pilots over the next 8 months, do you think the employment office would be closed for lack of interest? Colgan probably has the dubious position of being the “hottest” airline, in a negative way, at the moment. Pose the same question … what if Colgan announced a similar pilot hiring effort (of course, it probably wouldn’t match the 600 in 8 months level in the other examples) would you think there would be pilot candidates show up for the interview? Do you think they would be ignorant of the salary, schedules, requirements, vacations, sick leave, life and health benefits, etc? All of this notwithstanding, however, after all of this is addressed and the pilot agrees to provide his/her time in exchange for his/her services, here is where I think the government CAN and SHOULD play a significant role.
It shouldn’t make a lot of difference who Colgan (as an example) hires. The airline has an FAA-approved pilot training program. Any pilot completing that program should be able to meet the expected requirements. This is where the “rubber meets the road.” Does the pilot have the competence to do the job? Are the training program requirements stringent enough? Are those requirements stringently upheld? What is, or should be, the expectation of pilots who complete that program? Do they merely have to complete the hours required? Or, is there a proficiency standard that has to be met? If the proclaimed standards are not met within the scheduled program, what happens? Does the pilot graduate anyway? Is there any remedial training? Is it possible to not make it through the program? Do ALL pilots hired make it through the program? Should there be a review of those programs – of similar programs of all airlines? How frequently? What should those requirements actually say?
Once these issues are resolved, we can look at things like duty day, rest periods, route structure, leg lengths, clock times for start of duty day, commuting to work – and I understand that the US FAA is feverishly working on just such a program review – as I think you mentioned – at the behest of the US Congress.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Shorter posts are certainly desirable but simply cannot be done if even a reasonable discussion is to be had in this kind of format. I have attended enough safety conferences and made enough presentations myself to see the reality of these factors, all of which find agreement among those doing this work.
Well said – and I’m fully in agreement. It is for exchanges such as these that I find myself returning to this forum. My hat is off to you sir.