If this comes with privately regulated pay minimums then I will hop in the boat for it. I say this because IMO the saying "you get what you pay for" has had a major impact on aviation safety over the last 5 years. Otherwise, I am on the fence leaning towards no thanks.
An Article on Privatising Aviation
- Thread starter JaceTheAce'sDad
- Start date
If this comes with privately regulated pay minimums then I will hop in the boat for it. I say this because IMO the saying "you get what you pay for" has had a major impact on aviation safety over the last 5 years. Otherwise, I am on the fence leaning towards no thanks.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
You know, even Alan Greenspan, who was the biggest advocate of letting the market regulate itself, has backed down big time. And the head of the CFTC is a former Goldman partner who has changed his mind as well. Even the CEO of Morgan Stanley said that regulation is needed because financial companies can't help themselves.
The theory that if you deregulate things, you'll have very smart people making sure things don't get out of control was destroyed by the financial meltdown we just got through.
The instruments that caused the collapse of AIG, Lehman, and Bear Stearns came about in large part due to the deregulation of the derivatives market.
It's one thing for people to lose their jobs and for people to lose their savings. That's bad enough.
But if you let the airlines self regulate, and they push things as far as the financial services industry did, people will die.
The theory that if you deregulate things, you'll have very smart people making sure things don't get out of control was destroyed by the financial meltdown we just got through.
The instruments that caused the collapse of AIG, Lehman, and Bear Stearns came about in large part due to the deregulation of the derivatives market.
It's one thing for people to lose their jobs and for people to lose their savings. That's bad enough.
But if you let the airlines self regulate, and they push things as far as the financial services industry did, people will die.
JaceTheAce'sDad
Flying the Duchess.
Whoa, I can't let this one go. Let's see, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve was an advocate of letting the market regulate itself. Do you mean the market for interest rates as well? Do you have any idea what the Federal Reserve does? Do you know who it is responsible to? No one. Do you think that people with Goldman Saks and Morgan Stanley are telling you the truth when they say more regulation is needed? Really? They are all in bed with our government in all of this. Who got bailed out after all? Jeesh, the men you mentioned are our enemies, not our friends and have screwed us over royally. I don't know what you are reading but you're only half right. Yes, the derivative market was to blame, repeal of Glass Steagall was to blame. The Fed was to blame plus a lot of other people and occurrences. But, to compare our monetary and financial systems with the airline or even the aviation industry as a whole is like comparing Mogadishu, Somalia with Seattle, Washington.
Well, enough of my rant. I agree with part of what you said especially the last sentence but a discussion of economics is for another thread in my opinion. I hope you at least read the whole article.
BTW, we're not done with meltdowns of the financial variety yet unfortunately.
jhugz
Well-Known Member
Dude you really think your crap doesn't stink.
First off you want to lecture about Part 135 flying. To my understanding you flew a sim and a couple VFR legs for Ameriflight. Not quite as qualified to be going on a tangent about rest rules and practices of a 135 carrier vs. a 121 carrier day in and day out in the soup. If anything Pat is as qualified to make this argument as you.
Second I remember a thread a year or so ago when you were talking about flying fatigued in the ERJ and explaining how scary microsleep was for you in the right seat.
Do as I say not as I do.
jhugz
Well-Known Member
Post #2...I'm sure the Juan cover story would hold up John.
Maybe post #4 clears it up a little more just in case.
Maybe post #4 clears it up a little more just in case.
hemaybedid
Well-Known Member
I wasn't motivated enough to get through more than the first few paragraphs. What I did notice was how the author mentioned most people would look at it the same as law enforcement and other public services. I say then why the hell do we not have the quality of life and benefits of those services. Not to mention atleast a pay of atleast four times those professions due to our investment and educational requirements. Keep in mind these professions generally have an age requirement of 21 with on the job training.
JaceTheAce'sDad
Flying the Duchess.
The article is not comparing job benefits between industries but using a comparison of average reader reaction in regards to the idea of privatizing police and fire to privatizing aviation.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
How about bow down to the all holy always CYA.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
You understand wrong, but nice try.
Privatization doesn't mean abolishing any operating rules. It simply means that the airplanes are owned and operated by private citizens and entities. Perhaps you referring to nationalization, in which those airplanes would then be operated by the government. That's why I don't understand why people get so fired up about ATC privatization. Does it really have to be government employee that keys the mike and says "cleared for takeoff?"
400A
New Member
Reinventing the wheel. If a crew or pilot abides by all the rules and limitations, either FAA, ICAO, Aircraft specific, airport specific, etc, there would be virtually no accidents save for unforseeable mechanical failures. Thinking that aviation would be safer just because an insurance carrier requires XYZ be done or accomplished for each and every flight is ignoranat at best.
Any human designed system is going to have flaws and shortcomings. Can you imagine the barriers to flight insurance carriers would put up just to minimize their risk? Look at things like AR/GUS and Wyrn (sp?), or even IS-BAO and SMS.
Any human designed system is going to have flaws and shortcomings. Can you imagine the barriers to flight insurance carriers would put up just to minimize their risk? Look at things like AR/GUS and Wyrn (sp?), or even IS-BAO and SMS.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Weather changes rapidly and without warning. Following the rules may sometimes get you killed. Accidents don't just happen to cowboys or "rulebreakers." They happen to everyone.
400A
New Member
Ok, sometimes I think you argue just to argue, or to try to make some point about some far fetched situation that has either no statiscally chance of happening or appeared to happen when in fact there were many other contributing factors.
Example please of how following all the rules and procedures can get you killed?
Example please of how following all the rules and procedures can get you killed?
JaceTheAce'sDad
Flying the Duchess.
Wow, what are all those things? And, I love your avatar (72 Virgins)LOL.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Flight and duty is an example, you can be perfectly legal, and be totally unsafe to fly. Another example is being in a VFR only airplane in bad weather, you can be legal and unsafe. Rapidly changing weather can lead to some interesting situations where it may be safer to climb into the soup and call for a popup (if available) than to drop down to a couple hundred feet and scud run in. You're illegal before you have your IFR clearance, but you're safer. That's why the FAA let's you deviate if its an emergency.
Not all procedures are equivalent in every situation, so a procedure from one sector of aviation may not be effective in another. In 40kt winds I've been known to dump the flaps and reconfigure in the flare so I don't get picked up off of the runway. Nothing standard about that, but its kept me from bending an airplane.
People CFIT fairly often, hell, one of the approaches up here turned you into terrain until we notified the FAA. You could be perfectly following the approach and slam into a mountain. CFIT. What I'm saying is that just because you're following the rules doesn't mean you're not going to have an accident.
You could follow a vector into a mountain. What I'm saying is that you may have to deviate from "procedure and regulation" to stay alive. So I guess you're legal because of 91.3, but you may have to think on the fly to stay alive at times.
Typical quick, witless one liner with no rebuttal. I remember something like this from another thread. Kinda reminds me of Mrs. Pelosi. Real dodgy.
Edit to add: According to your profile, you either did exactly as James says, or you worked for a few hours as an FO with an airline. 1200tt for IFR 135 PIC, and your profile only lists 1400. So it either was 135VFR, or you had just enough time in the 121 relm to require your uniform to be steam cleaned?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
My history is pretty well know, and I'm kind of sick of detailing every 2 weeks when some new guy doesn't believe a word I say. If I keep quiet about it I sound like some know it all who doesn't have a leg to stand on, but if I detail what I did as a professional pilot then I'm tooting my own horn and won't STFU. So against my better judgment here we go, one last time.
-Part 91/141 flight instructor for I dunno, 9 months before moving on? I don't remember exactly. 100% pass rate for all my students.
-Part 135 training captain, Piper Chieftain. VFR PIC/IFR SIC, taught in the Chieftain aircraft, Chieftain FTD, ground/parts of indoc, SIC on the line when I wasn't doing anything in the office, IFR SIC on the Beech 99 when I wasn't doing anything, IFR SIC in a King Air 200 when I wasn't doing anything. What does this mean? It means I had to take and pass Part 135 IFR PIC training with around 600 hours, then TEACH that same stuff to the trainee's during offline operations. When I wasn't doing that, I'd fly around as an SIC on three different aircraft. If teaching ground/sim/flight at a part 135 air carrier doesn't qualify somebody to discuss part 135 operations, then I'm not sure what does. Did this for about a year. Oh and again, 100% pass rate. Never had a trainee bust anything, ever, part 91 or 135.
-Part 121 FO for about a year. Hired with something like 850/500.
Started flying in 1998. I've built time slower than anybody else I know, but I've been at this gig 12 years this summer. My certificates don't exactly have wet ink on them.
Want a copy of my resume too? Maybe an affidavit from the Pope explaining that I can read part 91/121/135 rules? Letter's of recommendation from captains I've flown with on here (there are two)? People I've trained at said part 135 company that post on here regularly (JayAre)? Copies of my 135.340 letters?
EDIT: Just so you guys know, I'm really sick of the wang measuring contest on here. I've done more than some, less than others, but in the end I know what I know. If somebody cites to a regulation and it's met with "WTF are you doing talking about this? You only have XXX number of hours (even though it's twice the time the person questioning it has)," then the educational aspect of this website is completely lost.
This is why many people here don't like to have a conversation with you. Quite frankly, your attitude stinks. I can remember a post where I was looking for some help in the 135 world when I hit 135 mins, and you absolutely slammed me for having put ice on a 172. And that was my intro to you. So you can see my disdane for you style of posting.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Oh you were the guy that was talking about putting ice on your 172 down in Socal, right? Yup, still think it was a dumb move.
Also, you have no idea what my attitude is until you meet me. Many people have, and I'd recommend you do the same in Vegas this fall. It's a quick drive from LA, I've done it before and I'd be happy to hang out with you there.
But until you get to a few M&G's and meet some folks here, I'd say your impression of this website, the people on it, and the people that make it run are woefully inadequate.