Dumb Political Correctness

horninchicago said:
So...won't be seeing you on one of my flights when you get over here?
Click to expand...

Lol. Don't assume that at all. I'm a cheap bastard. I fly Ryanair and EasyJet all the time. Hell, I flew "Wizz Air" from Frankfurt to Budapest two years ago. I just don't notice that big of a difference in service between the discount carriers and the big ones anymore. The big ones don't give you free food and drink (except on long distance flights) and now nickel and dime you on luggage and seat selection. Furthermore, their legroom isn't much better. In light of that, it's hard to justify a $250 ticket on Lufthansa or British Airways when EasyJet will get me to the same place just as quickly for cab fare?

So would I chose Frontier over AA, Delta, or United? Sure. Why not?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Lol. Don't assume that at all. I'm a cheap bastard. I fly Ryanair and EasyJet all the time. Hell, I flew "Wizz Air" from Frankfurt to Budapest two years ago. I just don't notice that big of a difference in service between the discount carriers and the big ones anymore. The big ones don't give you free food and drink (except on long distance flights) and now nickel and dime you on luggage and seat selection. Furthermore, their legroom isn't much better. In light of that, it's hard to justify a $250 ticket on Lufthansa or British Airways when EasyJet will get me to the same place just as quickly for cab fare?

So would I chose Frontier over AA, Delta, or United? Sure. Why not?
Click to expand...
Okay, good.

"Captain HIC here. A special welcome aboard to Mr. Deez. We will do our best to not do anything idoitic and uphauling."
 
horninchicago said:
Does it surprise you that UA lawyers lost out in this and it was allowed to happen? Or are their lawyers just stupid?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the lawyers greenlit this. They aren't stupid. They know what the law says, but they also know that there are decades of court precedent saying they aren't going to enforce the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment as they're written. Well if the courts aren't going to enforce and follow the laws Congress enacts, there isn't much for the lawyers to fear by greenlighting goofy stuff like this. Of course, it also means that there's also no point in writing laws down either.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm sure the lawyers greenlit this. They aren't stupid. They know what the law says, but they also know that there are decades of court precedent saying they aren't going to enforce the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment as they're written. Well if the courts aren't going to enforce and follow the laws Congress enacts, there isn't much for the lawyers to fear by greenlighting goofy stuff like this. Of course, it also means that there's also no point in writing laws down either.
Click to expand...
That's why I figured they flat out don't care that it is illegal when it favors those groups.
 
horninchicago said:
That's why I figured they flat out don't care that it is illegal when it favors those groups.
Click to expand...

Well, the lawyers are there to help the company assess legal risks. When they do that, they're going to look at what courts are actually doing with the law more than at what the law actually says. And I understand that. I did the same thing when I practiced, because what courts do is what actually affects your clients, not what is written down in the code.

However, as a citizen (and as I'd be if I was a judge), the actual written law is supposed to be supreme. Furthermore, there should be no disagreement with what the law says and what courts do, and when there is, you don't have the rule of law. You have judicial tyranny, even if it's couching that tyranny in nice tone and supposedly good intentions.
 
mchammer said:
On the whole, you are correct. But what about extraordinary situations (that is not the blame of the pilot) that requires extraordinary flying skills? This is where you will see the difference but it may only be a once in 5 year event.
Click to expand...
My available heuristic indicates that African American pilots fresh off a bender thanks to cocaine can do amazing things with the stick.
 
I live in San Antonio, aka "Military City". I used to be friends with some of the Air Force pilots, or their wives. We all played on a soccer team together, and after the games we would go out to eat.
Most of the men had their eyes set on a career flying for a large airline. My friend Dayna, would have stayed in the military as a career if they had allowed women to become fighter pilots.

One time Dayna took a few of us to an officers party, and we were allowed to see the area where the pilots spent their downtime. There were pictures of all of their squadrons, and as I checked out all the good looking pilots, it was extremely evident that 99% were white men. There were a couple of women. No POC, sorry to use the term. The issue isn't about discrimination, or bringing diversity, but black people, or women, aren't joining up in the Air Force or Navy.

Now, I know that you can become a pilot at a private school, and I am not bashing anyone who does that. But, and this is an important but to me, I feel that pilots and aviators who train in the military are much more likely to be prepared mentally for that "one moment" that counts when flying an airplane.

Dayna used to joke that flying now was basically no harder than driving a bus due to auto pilot,and other features. But, she said the reason pilots made the big salaries, (and had a cushy life of restricting how many hours could be flown during a month, tickets to anywhere for basically nothing, and many other perks) was for that "one moment".

A pilot trained by the military draws people who like order, following instructions, and sticking to a plan. They also endure many types of physical and mental stress environments, and tests, even 2 weeks spent as a POW, that help to create a toughness and poise while under pressure. They are ranked against fellow pilots, and it is an extremely competitive environment. To be hired by an airline, even things like cholesterol are taken in to consideration. It was funny when we would go out to eat, the guys would order salads, the girls hamburgers or tacos, and the waiters would always place the salads in front of the girls, and a musical plates routine would ensue.

My point is there is a way of thinking, a process that molds a military pilot or aviator that takes place over many years. It is something that, in my opinion, would be missing in a regular flight school. Flying safely isn't just about hours flying an airplane, it's about the mental mindset that must click in to gear instantly in an emergency.
Putting ads in magazines and newspapers or social media, begging for diverse people isn't going to cut it. They may fly capably, but they won't have that something special, in most cases, that military training brings to the table.
I sometimes watch a show called, "Air Disasters", the title explains the show!
What always amazes me, is in the moments, or even seconds that count, the pilots are problem solving until the moment of impact. The voice recorders of the event gives you in to a peek of those last moments, and I am always amazed at how calm and matter of fact the pilots are.( * this isn't watching death porn, it's mostly a CSI type show, and they always learn something that makes flying safer, it is freaky how one old and worn screw can bring down an aircraft)
That trait is something you are born with, and can be enhanced with the proper training. It can't come from an ad that brings in every day people looking for a job.
By the way, if you are ever flying American, and your pilot is a tall, unattractive woman named Dayna, you can ask her to fetch you a coffee pre-flight.
She is cool enough to think that is funny, and it happens all the time. And, out of all of the pilots I hung out with, I would trust Dayna the most to be ready for "that moment" 10/10 times over anyone else. It has nothing to do with her being a woman.
 
Holland, any idea what % of commercial pilots are military trained? Curious after reading your excellent message.
 
There is a certain “cost of entry” to be a pilot. The military helps bridge that cost gap and prepares them well from my perception.
 
I don't know the percentage today, I know during the time I knew these pilots, it was around 75%.
Now, since there seems to be a pilot shortage, partially due to the fact that the military extended the time that must be spent in the military pilot program from 8 to 10 years, it is probably less.
 
Hmmmm. Military pilots certainly are not more prepared for any big moments while flying an airliner. Sorry to be the one to dispel that myth here.

I was all civilian trained. Be warned!!!

A bit tongue in cheek, there. We are all equally ready. We aren't going into battle up there, for chrissakes.
 
mchammer said:
This may be the thread winner.

The Difference Between Yams and Sweet Potatoes Is Structural Racism
Click to expand...

I read the article and don't see how the author got to that title. This part is the real title "The mix-up [of a yam vs a sweet potato] has roots in the structural racism that built the country." Africans ate yams at home but were fed sweet potatoes once enslaved in the Americas and the confusion with the names began. Here we are 200 years later and the name confusion remains, not because of structural racism but because it's hard to get people to change their lexicon.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm sure the lawyers greenlit this. They aren't stupid. They know what the law says, but they also know that there are decades of court precedent saying they aren't going to enforce the Civil Rights Act or the 14th Amendment as they're written. Well if the courts aren't going to enforce and follow the laws Congress enacts, there isn't much for the lawyers to fear by greenlighting goofy stuff like this. Of course, it also means that there's also no point in writing laws down either.
Click to expand...
Are those the 2 things that make this illegal or is there other Code?
 
horninchicago said:
Are those the 2 things that make this illegal or is there other Code?
Click to expand...

There are hundreds of laws that prohibit racial discrimination at the federal, state, and local levels. Affirmative action survives, because the courts find the interest in allowing it "compelling" enough to decide not to enforce the law as it's written - especially to remediate for past failures to hire minorities. It sounds benevolent, but I don't think it's right to tell a white guy that he deserves to get ****** today (even though it's against the law), because Pan Am wasn't hiring black pilots in 1955.

From a judicial standpoint, I don't like this sort of thing, because it fosters very justifiable contempt and cynicism for the political process. The reason why is that when laws (like the Civil Rights Act) get passed, the language used is intentional and is a reflection of compromises political leaders make. Screwing with white people wasn't part of that. When the Court disregards that to force its version of justice, it turns all that on its head. Why participate in the process and forge compromise if the judiciary is going to trample all over it?
 
Mr. Deez said:
There are hundreds of laws that prohibit racial discrimination at the federal, state, and local levels. Affirmative action survives, because the courts find the interest in allowing it "compelling" enough to decide not to enforce the law as it's written - especially to remediate for past failures to hire minorities. It sounds benevolent, but I don't think it's right to tell a white guy that he deserves to get ****** today (even though it's against the law), because Pan Am wasn't hiring black pilots in 1955.

From a judicial standpoint, I don't like this sort of thing, because it fosters very justifiable contempt and cynicism for the political process. The reason why is that when laws (like the Civil Rights Act) get passed, the language used is intentional and is a reflection of compromises political leaders make. Screwing with white people wasn't part of that. When the Court disregards that to force its version of justice, it turns all that on its head. Why participate in the process and forge compromise if the judiciary is going to trample all over it?
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm on an aviation board where a few guys are saying it isn't illegal. I have put your previous comment on there, and have said that as long as the courts don't do anything, that's what UA is betting on.
 
horninchicago said:
Thanks. I'm on an aviation board where a few guys are saying it isn't illegal. I have put your previous comment on there, and have said that as long as the courts don't do anything, that's what UA is betting on.
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately it's not "illegal" from a practical standpoint if the courts don't care even if it is illegal from a letter-of-the-law standpoint.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Well, unfortunately it's not "illegal" from a practical standpoint if the courts don't care even if it is illegal from a letter-of-the-law standpoint.
Click to expand...
One guy, a douchecanoe UA pilot said this:

"Anybody who thinks the Aviate Program is discriminatory or somehow illegal should go read section VII of the civil rights act of 1964. Section 703(a)1 reads, in part: [emphasis added]

"It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

I said, well, setting a 50% number who will be hired from certain groups is refusing to hire people nit in those groups. What say you?

Did I mention he's a real douchecanoe?
 
horninchicago said:
One guy, a douchecanoe UA pilot said this:

"Anybody who thinks the Aviate Program is discriminatory or somehow illegal should go read section VII of the civil rights act of 1964. Section 703(a)1 reads, in part: [emphasis added]

"It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

I said, well, setting a 50% number who will be hired from certain groups is refusing to hire people nit in those groups. What say you?

Did I mention he's a real douchecanoe?
Click to expand...

Ultimately he's not thinking it through. Suppose you have 200 airline pilot jobs. If you have 200 qualified applicants and 50 percent of them are minorities or women, then no problem. You meet your goal, and nobody is discriminated against. But let's be honest. That doesn't happen often, and it almost surely won't happen here unless you somehow rig the process (which is also illegal).

Let's suppose something more realistic. Assume you have 400 qualified applicants for the 200 jobs. Suppose 300 of them are white men and 100 of them are minorities or women. If we're looking at a 50 percent quota, then 100 of those jobs are going to be off limits to white men. Well, maybe your douchecanoe can't read what he cites, but that's "refusing to hire" because of one's race and sex.

Suppose we did the reverse. What if we decided we wanted 50 percent of the NBA to be white. Well, that would mean that half the NBA roster spots would be off limits to black men for no reason other than their race. Would you douchecanoe friend understand why that's a problem?
 
Mr. Deez said:
Ultimately he's not thinking it through. Suppose you have 200 airline pilot jobs. If you have 200 qualified applicants and 50 percent of them are minorities or women, then no problem. You meet your goal, and nobody is discriminated against. But let's be honest. That doesn't happen often, and it almost surely won't happen here unless you somehow rig the process (which is also illegal).

Let's suppose something more realistic. Assume you have 400 qualified applicants for the 200 jobs. Suppose 300 of them are white men and 100 of them are minorities or women. If we're looking at a 50 percent quota, then 100 of those jobs are going to be off limits to white men. Well, maybe your douchecanoe can't read what he cites, but that's "refusing to hire" because of one's race and sex.

Suppose we did the reverse. What if we decided we wanted 50 percent of the NBA to be white. Well, that would mean that half the NBA roster spots would be off limits to black men for no reason other than their race. Would you douchecanoe friend understand why that's a problem?
Click to expand...
Funny you bring up the NBA example. Several posters said that and, of course, were scoffed at by the liberals.

Yes, sounds like we are in agreement here. He's a liberal and works at UA. I think he said he is involved in the "program", so he's even more defensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top