Funny you brought this up. And what do we see in the granting of
JS on pax aircraft
J1: wife/girlfriends/relatives
J2: other pilots
J3: cabin crew
J4: ground staff
J5: ground staff family
I didn't say that I agreed with that one, either. Most other airlines don't allow you to bring your parents/girlfriends/etc into the cockpit in flight. Why do we? I'm surprised that the FAA even allows that on flights into the US. BTW, on a pax aircraft, we have Cabin Crew to help get your sorry ass out of the plane. On the freighter we don't. You're just another liability for us.
Now that one cracked me up! LOL! Obviously, not seriously pertaining to what were trying to discuss, but I think I did pee my pants a little bit!
FYI: some ground staff are just as qualify as most pilots, if not more qualify, to perform the tasks you mentioned. Some are former CAD/FAA/JAA inspectors. Some have advanced PhD's in aerospace engineering - having a hand in designing the plane you fly in. Some are former pilots with other airlines. Just don't look down on all ground staff as if they are all pencil-pushers and ramp-rats. Some have more education and expertise than some pilots.
That statement just clarified who I'm trying to reason with. What in the heck does an "advanced?" PHD's in anything have to do with anything? All the education in the world doesn't mean crap unless you have current training in the task at hand. That means yearly evacutation/fire-fighting training, and knowledge of what is supposed to be happening in the flightdeck. I'd love for everyone (including Dingle-Berry) to meet these requirements, but unless you're a pilot, I'd hazard a guess that you don't (which is why your so miffed about pilots getting something that you don't, and not about why the company won't allow it when other companies do.)