Pilot shortage
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
In perspective then...Do you know if Surgeons have to sit another operation test before being employed by a Hospital to prove they can do the job?
Do Lawyers do a practise court session for their prospective employer?, does any other profession sit yet another test of their trained skills after being qualified or licensed in the name of safety?
Don't get my wrong, I understand not employing just anyone deemed qualified, just how they go about it in the name of so called standards.
Perhaps you should go and ask todays old timer Captains of the big jets the interview process they went through to get hired, 'back in the day', so don't tell me it's all about safety. ...Coporate brainwashing.
I will say it again, the so called culling process has been given the misnomer of being 'standards' which is not what it really is. The only true standard a airline puts in place is the minimum experience levels to apply for the job!
Do Lawyers do a practise court session for their prospective employer?, does any other profession sit yet another test of their trained skills after being qualified or licensed in the name of safety?
Don't get my wrong, I understand not employing just anyone deemed qualified, just how they go about it in the name of so called standards.
Perhaps you should go and ask todays old timer Captains of the big jets the interview process they went through to get hired, 'back in the day', so don't tell me it's all about safety. ...Coporate brainwashing.
I will say it again, the so called culling process has been given the misnomer of being 'standards' which is not what it really is. The only true standard a airline puts in place is the minimum experience levels to apply for the job!
Nunc est bibendum
What a genius. Let’s not look at a pilot’s history or current capability. Let’s just look at whether they hold a piece of paper. Bonuses all round. Sorry Delta T but you’re a long way wide of the mark.
A surgeon’s ihstory snd demonstrated standards are generally well known in the industry. A lawyer can generally point to significant case work that they’ve done and it’s easily (and quickly) verifiable. (Let’s also leave aside the different structural hoops that people in those industries jump through before they’re offered a job). For a pilot we do NOT generally know their history or current capability. We can infer some things from the airline an applicant comes from but that’s about it- an inference. So a one hour sim is a pretty quick and cheap way to back up the piece of paper and ensure that the candidate has the foundational level of skills upon which they can be further trained.
Interestingly I’ve previously heard that line of argument about lawyers, surgeons and pilots bandied around the place. Normally it’s by people who understand very little about all three professions. No prizes for guessing what industry those people are normally in.
You expect airlines to advertise this? Having worked with people that have recruited pilots for Ansett, AirNZ, Qantas and Jetstar I can guarantee you that at certain times standards have been adjusted downward to ensure that supply continues.
A surgeon’s ihstory snd demonstrated standards are generally well known in the industry. A lawyer can generally point to significant case work that they’ve done and it’s easily (and quickly) verifiable. (Let’s also leave aside the different structural hoops that people in those industries jump through before they’re offered a job). For a pilot we do NOT generally know their history or current capability. We can infer some things from the airline an applicant comes from but that’s about it- an inference. So a one hour sim is a pretty quick and cheap way to back up the piece of paper and ensure that the candidate has the foundational level of skills upon which they can be further trained.
Interestingly I’ve previously heard that line of argument about lawyers, surgeons and pilots bandied around the place. Normally it’s by people who understand very little about all three professions. No prizes for guessing what industry those people are normally in.
You expect airlines to advertise this? Having worked with people that have recruited pilots for Ansett, AirNZ, Qantas and Jetstar I can guarantee you that at certain times standards have been adjusted downward to ensure that supply continues.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who’s partner is in the legal profession I concur with Keg. That being said there’s still fairly significant issues and challenges when recruiting a new lawyer. They would probably benefit greatly from a behavioral style interview after all the relevant information had been checked. For anyone that’s spent time around lawyers, they can be an odd bunch.....much like us!
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“ we’re finding it a bit hard to recruit the numbers we want, I suggest we drop the standard required in the sim or our psychometric testing”..........stunned silence.......” Bryan....we can’t officially drop any of those things without being seen to step away from safety as our highest priority, feel free to have a chat with the recruitment sim pilots and suggest same but I think you will be met with rather stiff resistance.”....... “ OK just a thought”.
A 457 visa applicant exceeding the 'minimum' standard presents an impeccable log book, which duly impresses the HR recruiter. Hire this person they cry..
Meanwhile the pilot 'token representative' takes a little time to flick through the log book.
Just one question dear applicant, G-BOAF you stated you flew that? Yes Sir I did is the polished reply.
So how many hours on the Concorde have you?
Thread Starter
I have seen in the past traits that the non pilots on a recruitment board thought were a bonus were viewed as a potential problem by the pilots on the recruitment board.
Not surprising really.
Not surprising really.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, never forget Management attitudes nor where they see their role.
The following illustrates clearly Management interest in the bottom line and I concur, as above, standards are, have been, will be adjusted in accordance with the Laws of Supply and Demand.
Amid the extensive, and accurate, reporting of the return to flight of the first Qantas A380, Nancy-Bird Walton, that was severely damaged by an engine disintegration operating QF32 on 4 November 2010 there is one sharp lesson for all airlines when it comes to maintenance and ‘care’.
And that isn’t the one that managements and unions argue about, which is outsourcing.
It is the lesson that says ‘keep in control and keep informed.’
In the considerable heat of events after the serious incident on 4 November 2010, which lead to Qantas undoubtedly correctly grounding its A380 fleet, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce made a number of statements which were repeated in the legal documentation that preceded a settlement of its claims against the engine maker Rolls-Royce.
Those claims were inter alia that Rolls-Royce did not tell Qantas about certain matters related to the upgrading or modification of the Trent 900 series engines fitted to its A380s, leaving it in the dark about certain issues that could affect its performance, and depriving it of relevant knowledge affecting its operations and also depriving it of information which had it possessed would have caused Qantas to seek prompt modification of its engines and been used by Qantas to assess whether or not to change the way it was using the engines.
Those claims were also correct, and acknowledged as correct by Rolls-Royce, in a process that was at times incredibly reluctant and unwilling from the perspective of those in Qantas and in its official guidance to media and investors.
It is reasonable to conclude that the manufacturing defect which directly caused the QF32 disintegration and inflight crisis would most likely have been rectified before the failure occurred in-flight had Qantas known in precise detail what Rolls-Royce was on about in its modifications of the engines.
But all of this leads to another matter.
Whatever the merits of outsourcing anything more complex or costly than regular operational or line maintenance of aircraft or engines, the QF32 incident ought to end forever the accountants dream that out of sight power-by-the-hour arrangements to let someone else, even the engine maker, assume responsibility for ‘total care’, is smart, when in reality it is ‘total stupidity’.
With the benefit of hindsight after what is probably the world’s most expensive repair of an airliner after an in-flight incident that scared the hell out of everyone, outsourcing ‘total care’ without retaining control and knowledge is fraught with brand threatening risks.
The foolish dumbing down of the airline game into ‘virtual airlines’, where everything that used to be integral to an airline’s performance, reputation and brand, gets shunted off to a shed somewhere run by whomever tenders the cheapest price, is a nasty, dangerous piece of work.
And, to be fair to some of the proponents of virtual airlines, that is not what they envisaged either. But the virtuality argument took on a life of its own once it escaped into the wild, and in the process, a great deal of sensible and rational work as to how to successfully run airlines in a world flying into open skies and fiercer competition was lost.
The magic combination of greed and stupidity came into play, especially in much of what passes for supposedly robust financial analysis of airline competition.
QF32 ought to be remembered for being a very loud wake-up call for airlines and air safety regulators worldwide. Airlines can’t afford to be inefficient. But they can’t afford to turn into killers either. In the world beyond Qantas we can find too many instances of airlines where no responsibility, no control, and indeed, no clue seems to summarise the parameters of managements that emerge from business school with a near total contempt for technical or specialised knowledge, and a focus on short term gain that is totally at odds with any industry in which skills have to valued, nurtured, recruited, retained and rewarded.
Qantas can, and no doubt will, continue to outsource just about everything that moves in order to save money. But it must not outsource its diligence, its attentions, and its knowledge of precisely what the engine maker, or airframe maker, or systems maker, is up to for a single minute, because their priorities are not the priorities of Qantas.
At the end of the day, whether it ends in a fireball and 469 dead passengers and crew, and a dead brand, or a superb recovery from a ‘tricky situation’, no airline, Qantas included, can outsource its responsibilities.
The following illustrates clearly Management interest in the bottom line and I concur, as above, standards are, have been, will be adjusted in accordance with the Laws of Supply and Demand.
Qantas and the real lessons of QF32 and the rebuilt A380
Ben Sandilands Editor of Plane Talking
Amid the extensive, and accurate, reporting of the return to flight of the first Qantas A380, Nancy-Bird Walton, that was severely damaged by an engine disintegration operating QF32 on 4 November 2010 there is one sharp lesson for all airlines when it comes to maintenance and ‘care’.
And that isn’t the one that managements and unions argue about, which is outsourcing.
It is the lesson that says ‘keep in control and keep informed.’
In the considerable heat of events after the serious incident on 4 November 2010, which lead to Qantas undoubtedly correctly grounding its A380 fleet, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce made a number of statements which were repeated in the legal documentation that preceded a settlement of its claims against the engine maker Rolls-Royce.
Those claims were inter alia that Rolls-Royce did not tell Qantas about certain matters related to the upgrading or modification of the Trent 900 series engines fitted to its A380s, leaving it in the dark about certain issues that could affect its performance, and depriving it of relevant knowledge affecting its operations and also depriving it of information which had it possessed would have caused Qantas to seek prompt modification of its engines and been used by Qantas to assess whether or not to change the way it was using the engines.
Those claims were also correct, and acknowledged as correct by Rolls-Royce, in a process that was at times incredibly reluctant and unwilling from the perspective of those in Qantas and in its official guidance to media and investors.
It is reasonable to conclude that the manufacturing defect which directly caused the QF32 disintegration and inflight crisis would most likely have been rectified before the failure occurred in-flight had Qantas known in precise detail what Rolls-Royce was on about in its modifications of the engines.
But all of this leads to another matter.
Whatever the merits of outsourcing anything more complex or costly than regular operational or line maintenance of aircraft or engines, the QF32 incident ought to end forever the accountants dream that out of sight power-by-the-hour arrangements to let someone else, even the engine maker, assume responsibility for ‘total care’, is smart, when in reality it is ‘total stupidity’.
With the benefit of hindsight after what is probably the world’s most expensive repair of an airliner after an in-flight incident that scared the hell out of everyone, outsourcing ‘total care’ without retaining control and knowledge is fraught with brand threatening risks.
The foolish dumbing down of the airline game into ‘virtual airlines’, where everything that used to be integral to an airline’s performance, reputation and brand, gets shunted off to a shed somewhere run by whomever tenders the cheapest price, is a nasty, dangerous piece of work.
And, to be fair to some of the proponents of virtual airlines, that is not what they envisaged either. But the virtuality argument took on a life of its own once it escaped into the wild, and in the process, a great deal of sensible and rational work as to how to successfully run airlines in a world flying into open skies and fiercer competition was lost.
The magic combination of greed and stupidity came into play, especially in much of what passes for supposedly robust financial analysis of airline competition.
QF32 ought to be remembered for being a very loud wake-up call for airlines and air safety regulators worldwide. Airlines can’t afford to be inefficient. But they can’t afford to turn into killers either. In the world beyond Qantas we can find too many instances of airlines where no responsibility, no control, and indeed, no clue seems to summarise the parameters of managements that emerge from business school with a near total contempt for technical or specialised knowledge, and a focus on short term gain that is totally at odds with any industry in which skills have to valued, nurtured, recruited, retained and rewarded.
Qantas can, and no doubt will, continue to outsource just about everything that moves in order to save money. But it must not outsource its diligence, its attentions, and its knowledge of precisely what the engine maker, or airframe maker, or systems maker, is up to for a single minute, because their priorities are not the priorities of Qantas.
At the end of the day, whether it ends in a fireball and 469 dead passengers and crew, and a dead brand, or a superb recovery from a ‘tricky situation’, no airline, Qantas included, can outsource its responsibilities.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A comment on the above:
`The collective view about the airline as it is currently managed oscillates between despair, disbelief and ribaldry.
The current CEO pays lip service, as do all those cloned from the same DNA, to service and safety, but is just as obsessed by the bottom line as are his peers.
He has also done something which would have been anathema to his predecessors, and that is to politicise the airline in pursuit of his personal agenda.
This included the printed encouragement on Qantas’s Boarding Passes for the bearer to vote in favour of same sex marriage and the display of a modified boxing kangaroo waving the rainbow flag on the vertical stabiliser of one of the A330’s
One paragraph within Sandiland’s piece needs to be framed and displayed on the trophy walls of all these plonkers.
QF32 ought to be remembered for being a very loud wake-up call for airlines and air safety regulators world wide. Airlines can’t afford to be inefficient. But they can’t afford to turn into killers either. In the world beyond Qantas we can find too many instances of airlines where no responsibility, no control, and indeed, no clue seems to summarise the parameters of managements that emerge from business school with a near total contempt for technical or specialised knowledge, and a focus on short term gain that is totally at odds with any industry in which skills have to valued, nurtured, recruited, retained and rewarded.
Sandilands is right in saying this myopia simply invites the occurrence of other QF 32.
Bus travel has much to commend it.'
`The collective view about the airline as it is currently managed oscillates between despair, disbelief and ribaldry.
The current CEO pays lip service, as do all those cloned from the same DNA, to service and safety, but is just as obsessed by the bottom line as are his peers.
He has also done something which would have been anathema to his predecessors, and that is to politicise the airline in pursuit of his personal agenda.
This included the printed encouragement on Qantas’s Boarding Passes for the bearer to vote in favour of same sex marriage and the display of a modified boxing kangaroo waving the rainbow flag on the vertical stabiliser of one of the A330’s
One paragraph within Sandiland’s piece needs to be framed and displayed on the trophy walls of all these plonkers.
QF32 ought to be remembered for being a very loud wake-up call for airlines and air safety regulators world wide. Airlines can’t afford to be inefficient. But they can’t afford to turn into killers either. In the world beyond Qantas we can find too many instances of airlines where no responsibility, no control, and indeed, no clue seems to summarise the parameters of managements that emerge from business school with a near total contempt for technical or specialised knowledge, and a focus on short term gain that is totally at odds with any industry in which skills have to valued, nurtured, recruited, retained and rewarded.
Sandilands is right in saying this myopia simply invites the occurrence of other QF 32.
Bus travel has much to commend it.'
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current CEO pays lip service, as do all those cloned from the same DNA, to service and safety, but is just as obsessed by the bottom line as are his peers
Who had their logo and brand trashed on the day?
Fortunately no one was killed as no contract remedy recovered brand damage nor the lost souls.
They view pilots and the skill set as a labour unit cost, to be pushed and reduced at all costs
I don’t think dropping a sim check is good for anyone.
I’ve worked for an airline where they didn’t bother with a sim check. Low and behold, they had several ‘pilots’ who were very far from desirable, and definitely didn’t match up to the experience presented in their resumes and logbooks.
On the other hand, I remember doing a sim check for a new job with another potential candidate (he was supposedly a captain from the sub-continent), and it became very obvious that either he was a very deficient captain, or he wasn’t indeed a captain at all! I think the latter is the more likely scenario.
Had there been no sim check, this individual could potentially have gone online flying around the paying public without one ounce of experience and qualifications to do it safely.
Keep the sim check I say.
morno
I’ve worked for an airline where they didn’t bother with a sim check. Low and behold, they had several ‘pilots’ who were very far from desirable, and definitely didn’t match up to the experience presented in their resumes and logbooks.
On the other hand, I remember doing a sim check for a new job with another potential candidate (he was supposedly a captain from the sub-continent), and it became very obvious that either he was a very deficient captain, or he wasn’t indeed a captain at all! I think the latter is the more likely scenario.
Had there been no sim check, this individual could potentially have gone online flying around the paying public without one ounce of experience and qualifications to do it safely.
Keep the sim check I say.
morno
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t think dropping a sim check is good for anyone.
I’ve worked for an airline where they didn’t bother with a sim check. Low and behold, they had several ‘pilots’ who were very far from desirable, and definitely didn’t match up to the experience presented in their resumes and logbooks.
On the other hand, I remember doing a sim check for a new job with another potential candidate (he was supposedly a captain from the sub-continent), and it became very obvious that either he was a very deficient captain, or he wasn’t indeed a captain at all! I think the latter is the more likely scenario.
Had there been no sim check, this individual could potentially have gone online flying around the paying public without one ounce of experience and qualifications to do it safely.
Keep the sim check I say.
morno
I’ve worked for an airline where they didn’t bother with a sim check. Low and behold, they had several ‘pilots’ who were very far from desirable, and definitely didn’t match up to the experience presented in their resumes and logbooks.
On the other hand, I remember doing a sim check for a new job with another potential candidate (he was supposedly a captain from the sub-continent), and it became very obvious that either he was a very deficient captain, or he wasn’t indeed a captain at all! I think the latter is the more likely scenario.
Had there been no sim check, this individual could potentially have gone online flying around the paying public without one ounce of experience and qualifications to do it safely.
Keep the sim check I say.
morno
L.B
Last edited by "Littlebird"; 6th Feb 2018 at 23:35.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
So a one hour sim is a pretty quick and cheap way to back up the piece of paper and ensure that the candidate has the foundational level of skills upon which they can be further trained.
I have seen in the past traits that the non pilots on a recruitment board thought were a bonus were viewed as a potential problem by the pilots on the recruitment board.
I don’t think dropping a sim check is good for anyone.
Safety is not the utmost priority of an Airline, it's safety to a price.
Last edited by DeltaT; 6th Feb 2018 at 06:57.
Nunc est bibendum
However let me put it another way, if it’s not needed then why do people still fail it as not meeting a minimum standard? I’ll answer that for you. They fail it for the same reason that lots of doctors don’t actually become surgeons, lots of law graduates don’t actually become lawyers or barristers or judges.
Are you seriously suggesting that Air Ambulance don’t do a flying assessment of their employees before confirming their employment?
Last edited by Keg; 6th Feb 2018 at 08:50.
If an Airbus pilot can’t do a sim in a 744 or 737 then they’re not a very good pilot and I’d question their capability as an Airbus pilot too. The same applies the other way too. It’s about rate of learning. It’s about trainability. It’s about core skills.
However let me put it another way, if it’s not needed then why do people still fail it as not meeting a minimum standard? I’ll answer that for you. They fail it for the same reason that lots of doctors don’t actually become surgeons, lots of law graduates don’t actually become lawyers or barristers or judges.
Are you seriously suggesting that Air Ambulance don’t do a flying assessment of their employees before confirming their employment?
However let me put it another way, if it’s not needed then why do people still fail it as not meeting a minimum standard? I’ll answer that for you. They fail it for the same reason that lots of doctors don’t actually become surgeons, lots of law graduates don’t actually become lawyers or barristers or judges.
Are you seriously suggesting that Air Ambulance don’t do a flying assessment of their employees before confirming their employment?
Yet air ambulance operators don't bother. Are they unsafe?
how is that any different from someone flying a SAAB or a Titan? As Keg has pointed out, the assessment standard to reach is the same for everyone
SAAB and Titans have conventional flight controls, Airbus does not.
No pilot shortage if management actions are anything to go by
I’ve been watching with extreme interest, if somewhat distantly, the evolution of certain agreement between the pilots and a contractor to our favourite whipping boy airline and based on what I hear I can only conclude that there is absolutely no pilot shortage! Hoorah!!
Most noteworthy during these negotiations is the appalling lack of integrity from, not only the company, but one of the bargaining bodies too; everyone has a price don’t they!
In a time when a severe exodus in underway and morale is hazardously low, all that is being offered is the same old “we can’t afford to pay you what you’re worth” garbage. The management know that all they have to do is hide behind the Maginot line until the pilots become sick of the uncertainty and fold; A war of attrition of the highest order helped along by a body hell bent on self advancement and unhindered by those who stand by and let the persecution play out. What is most disappointing is that the true role of negotiator has fallen to a small group of individuals who have stood up to represent those pilots who distrust and despise corporate unionism. The ones I speak of know who they are but more importantly, so does ever single pilot. Strength, integrity and the ability to see BS for BS come without a fee, not a single cent! It is a sense of right and wrong that drives these people, not some out of sessions deal.
This agreement is one of many currently undergoing renewal and they are all following the same draconian path. My observations have lead me to surmise that there are a couple of options open to us in Australia at present regarding the pilot shortage. (A) Either there is simply no pilot shortage, or (B)employers of pilots and/or their behemoth benefactors are simply willing to expose the travelling public to the perfect storm of exhausted, demoralized, stressed, distracted, overworked pilots to the ever increasing possibility of adevastating accident. Yes I take it personally because these bastards sit in their boardrooms earning their exorbitant salaries fully aware of the pressure they create by denying decent pay and conditions. They deny the organics of economics, safe in the knowledge that if one of my colleagues has a bad day, the money is already in the bank.
The discontent and feeling of worthlessness is sinking in very fast now and the airlines have very limited time to reverse those sentiments. They should be coming with their best deal today, not something they think will creep over the line, because by year send it could be too late.
Fly safe and learn to say “NO”!
Most noteworthy during these negotiations is the appalling lack of integrity from, not only the company, but one of the bargaining bodies too; everyone has a price don’t they!
In a time when a severe exodus in underway and morale is hazardously low, all that is being offered is the same old “we can’t afford to pay you what you’re worth” garbage. The management know that all they have to do is hide behind the Maginot line until the pilots become sick of the uncertainty and fold; A war of attrition of the highest order helped along by a body hell bent on self advancement and unhindered by those who stand by and let the persecution play out. What is most disappointing is that the true role of negotiator has fallen to a small group of individuals who have stood up to represent those pilots who distrust and despise corporate unionism. The ones I speak of know who they are but more importantly, so does ever single pilot. Strength, integrity and the ability to see BS for BS come without a fee, not a single cent! It is a sense of right and wrong that drives these people, not some out of sessions deal.
This agreement is one of many currently undergoing renewal and they are all following the same draconian path. My observations have lead me to surmise that there are a couple of options open to us in Australia at present regarding the pilot shortage. (A) Either there is simply no pilot shortage, or (B)employers of pilots and/or their behemoth benefactors are simply willing to expose the travelling public to the perfect storm of exhausted, demoralized, stressed, distracted, overworked pilots to the ever increasing possibility of adevastating accident. Yes I take it personally because these bastards sit in their boardrooms earning their exorbitant salaries fully aware of the pressure they create by denying decent pay and conditions. They deny the organics of economics, safe in the knowledge that if one of my colleagues has a bad day, the money is already in the bank.
The discontent and feeling of worthlessness is sinking in very fast now and the airlines have very limited time to reverse those sentiments. They should be coming with their best deal today, not something they think will creep over the line, because by year send it could be too late.
Fly safe and learn to say “NO”!
An assessment of a candidate is looking at basic skills, SA, and the ability to improve where there is an obvious issue. To transition from a B7XX to an A3XX takes a short discussion on what the SSC is doing, and if the auto thrust is to be used, which would be slightly unfair, then how that functions. Otherwise, they all fly the same. They also fly more or less like a Cessna 310. They are vastly less interesting than any Lear, particularly 24's, they rotate without the wackiness of a Westwind. The instruments are more or less the same. This also applies for an MD11, B717, MD80, FK100, etc. They are all better than link trainers, and that is still a reasonable method of assessing whether a person can comprehend instrument displays and manipulate a control system to achieve a semblance of the desired outcome, and whether basic CRM skills exist. If you happen to know the Smiths or Honeywell FMC, FMGCS, FCP etc, then all the better, but it is not the primary point of interest. Having said all that, transitioning routinely from a high inertia aircraft B777/B747/A340 etc back to low inertia plane, A320/B737 does end up with a period of learning on glideslope maintenance, which is still not very long to sort out
Good luck with whatever you drive. In the end it is not what you are flying, or even where you go, it is who you are with that is memorable.
Good luck with whatever you drive. In the end it is not what you are flying, or even where you go, it is who you are with that is memorable.