JetBlue hires violent felon as a pilot

[ppragman]

I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of the state being able to punish a crime not committed.

Long history of this unfortunately…

 

[Bob Ridpath]

*Checks to see whether there's an ankle-monitor*. Keep it together, Boris, you're just a mild, milquetoast sociopath. They don't know. They don't know. They don't know. And breathe.

Some of us DO "know," though, from education/training through personal experience (running the range from family to complete strangers "on the job.")

And we're not all commie liberals who don't give a damn about society, or whatever.

IDK, I say let the guy fly. If he F's up societally, deal with same accordingly.

You all know I'm technically "outside the fold." Derg allowed me into his living room despite my relative (almost complete) lack of experience on the flight line, and you have generally accepted me into the "family.". When I reply to posts about "airline stuff," I'm very aware that I've only got an opinion and an •.

Having noted that, I have no information about who is flying the aircraft I'm on (on the rare occasions I do these days). I trust - I suppose "blindly" - the overseers and the airline to provide a cockpit crew who wants to get home safely as much as I do, whatever their past might be.

I've done f'ed up in my own life occasionally over nearly seven decades. Made those things right and moved on. Some (and thankfully just a very few) won't forgive that moment in time when I didn't make the best decision, whatever that may have been.

My response is "let the guy/gal fly," if he/she is competent and qualified. None of us in the cheap seats actually knows who might be flying the plane, and that means we ALWAYS have to trust others to make the best decisions about who does.

YMMV.

 

[Wardogg]

I am VERY uncomfortable with the idea of the state being able to punish a crime not committed.

I get it. It's too slippery of a slope.

I think of that movie Minority Report. The first murder they prevent he is swinging the scissors down to complete the act of murder when he is stopped by the police. Does stopping the act negate the fact that the act WAS going to happen?

At what point in the lead up to the act is the point of no return? Obviously, the answer to that last question is never. If act never happened it never happened. I am just not sure the act of attempting to commit the crime should be treated much differently. Especially when the act is stopped so late in the attempt.

That would also resolve the concern about confessions as a result of plea deals.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I get it. It's too slippery of a slope.

I think of that movie Minority Report. The first murder they prevent he is swinging the scissors down to complete the act of murder when he is stopped by the police. Does stopping the act negate the fact that the act WAS going to happen?

At what point in the lead up to the act is the point of no return? Obviously, the answer to that last question is never. If act never happened it never happened. I am just not sure the act of attempting to commit the crime should be treated much differently. Especially when the act is stopped so late in the attempt.

That would also resolve the concern about confessions as a result of plea deals.

You apparently missed the entire point of Philip K. Dick‘s story: the “point of no return“ can only be when a crime has actually been committed. Otherwise we are relying upon someone claiming to know counterfactual futures. If the scissors are on the downswing, how do you know the perp wasn’t going to swerve at the last minute? Maybe he was just trying to scare the person? Unlikely? Yes. But entirely possible. And we can’t punish people for what might have happened.

 

[Kingairer]

I think it’s debatable, as a layman, if someone’s debt to society has been paid if they are still on probation for another 20 years.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

I think it’s debatable, as a layman, if someone’s debt to society has been paid if they are still on probation for another 20 years.

So, there is accountability as the days pass. That would seem a good thing, to me. "I'm holding you, objectively, to a standard. If you 'f' up you're going down, but I want the best for you as I monitor. Don't 'f'' up.

"OK, I'm different these days and am tryin' hard. I accept the accountability."

 

[Kingairer]

So, there is accountability as the days pass. That would seem a good thing, to me. "I'm holding you, objectively, to a standard. If you 'f' up you're going down, but I want the best for you as I monitor. Don't 'f'' up.

"OK, I'm different these days and am tryin' hard. I accept the accountability."

Im not sure what you’re saying, but I don’t see a reason why a major airline would need to hire a felon on probation.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Im not sure what you’re saying, but I don’t see a reason why a major airline would need to hire a felon on probation.

I don’t see a reason why they shouldn’t.

 

[knot4u]

The last three times I've changed jobs I've had to go through background checks, including the FBI. I was always kind of impressed and didn't really care because I had nothing to hide and hoped that the checks would ensure my coworkers weren't criminals, but I was disappointed more than once by the quality of my coworkers that would commit a felony and would be subsequently fired. One guy was high on meth riding a sportbike in a police chase, another ended up having his kids testify that he'd been diddling them for years. Never saw them again, and I hope I never will. A felony on a background check is a hard no. It's not that hard to live in the acceptable parameters our society has established, Todds example of a surgeon that commits a felony lacks context, the surgeon is given the one of the highest levels of trust and responsibility we can bestow on someone and regardless of their offense they've broken that trust, they should be stripped of their ability to operate.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

Im not sure what you’re saying, but I don’t see a reason why a major airline would need to hire a felon on probation.

Not sure there was a "need," just don't personally understand the issue.

The last three times I've changed jobs I've had to go through background checks, including the FBI. I was always kind of impressed and didn't really care because I had nothing to hide and hoped that the checks would ensure my coworkers weren't criminals, but I was disappointed more than once by the quality of my coworkers that would commit a felony and would be subsequently fired. One guy was high on meth riding a sportbike in a police chase, another ended up having his kids testify that he'd been diddling them for years. Never saw them again, and I hope I never will. A felony on a background check is a hard no. It's not that hard to live in the acceptable parameters our society has established, Todds example of a surgeon that commits a felony lacks context, the surgeon is given the one of the highest levels of trust and responsibility we can bestow on someone and regardless of their offense they've broken that trust, they should be stripped of their ability to operate.

I personally disagree if they have the qualifications to operate on me successfully. Their past matters less to me than their ability to do "the job" properly when I need it done. Generally speaking, I have no idea what someone's past might be - what their morals are, their religion (if they have one), whether or not they were arrested and served time for something decades ago.

Honestly, I don't even ask, nor would think to.

Truthfully now, do you have any idea of the personal history of your doctors, dentist, lawyer, accountant, or whomever? Do you actually look into that before you enter into a "whatever" relationship, assuming they are qualified? I wouldn't even know where to start that process personally.

If this guy/gal is licensed and qualified to fly, holds a valid ATP, and meets the hiring requirements of the airline, why the hell does anyone care who they may have been a a"hundred" years ago. Serious question.

 

[knot4u]

Not sure there was a "need," just don't personally understand the issue.


I personally disagree if they have the qualifications to operate on me successfully. Their past matters less to me than their ability to do "the job" properly when I need it done.

If given a choice between surgeons with identical qualifications and skills and the knowledge that one was a convicted felon and the other was clean as a whistle which would you choose? That's the quandary people that hire people are stuck in, who is the better candidate?

 

[Bob Ridpath]

If given a choice between surgeons with identical qualifications and skills and the knowledge that one was a convicted felon and the other was clean as a whistle which would you choose? That's the quandary people that hire people are stuck in, who is the better candidate?

How would I even know? Why would I even think to ask? If they are both equally qualified and suited for the job, why would it matter? To answer your question specifically, I would choose the one who had the most recent experience and was best suited for the job - without regard to his/her personal history.

In terms of this specific pilot, someone determined (as is always the case), that they met the required qualifications and could do the job safely and well. I trust, without knowing, that is the case with whomever is up front.

 

[mwflyer]

Some of us DO "know," though, from education/training through personal experience (running the range from family to complete strangers "on the job.")

And we're not all commie liberals who don't give a damn about society, or whatever.

IDK, I say let the guy fly. If he F's up societally, deal with same accordingly.

You all know I'm technically "outside the fold." Derg allowed me into his living room despite my relative (almost complete) lack of experience on the flight line, and you have generally accepted me into the "family.". When I reply to posts about "airline stuff," I'm very aware that I've only got an opinion and an •.

Having noted that, I have no information about who is flying the aircraft I'm on (on the rare occasions I do these days). I trust - I suppose "blindly" - the overseers and the airline to provide a cockpit crew who wants to get home safely as much as I do, whatever their past might be.

I've done f'ed up in my own life occasionally over nearly seven decades. Made those things right and moved on. Some (and thankfully just a very few) won't forgive that moment in time when I didn't make the best decision, whatever that may have been.

My response is "let the guy/gal fly," if he/she is competent and qualified. None of us in the cheap seats actually knows who might be flying the plane, and that means we ALWAYS have to trust others to make the best decisions about who does.

YMMV.

Lots of truth here. Plenty of pilots up front with sterling records on paper, but if you knew who they “really” were, you wouldn’t want any parts of riding in the back.

 

[knot4u]

How would I even know? Why would I even think to ask? If they are both equally qualified and suited for the job, why would it matter? To answer your question specifically, I would choose the one who had the most recent experience and was best suited for the job - without regard to his/her personal history.

In terms of this specific pilot, someone determined (as is always the case), that hey met the required qualifications and could do the job safely and well. I trust, without knowing, that is the case with whomever is up front.

That's not what I asked, the question was hypothetical. If both were equally skilled and experienced and you were aware of their history which would you choose?

 

[Bob Ridpath]

That's not what I asked, the question was hypothetical. If both were equally skilled and experienced and you were aware of their history which would you choose?

IDK how to answer that, except to say that (as nearly as I can determine), it really wouldn't matter to me. I've never had to play "dueling surgeons" and would likely (if I somehow know the information) just choose alphabetically or something. For me, the qualifications and experience matter. Maybe (or maybe not) the guy/gal with the history would do a more careful and precise job just to prove themself. IDK ...

I'm not trying to change your mind as much as saying I don't "get" the issue.

 

[knot4u]

IDK how to answer that, except to say that (as nearly as I can determine), it really wouldn't matter to me. I've never had to play "dueling surgeons" and would likely (if I somehow know the information) just choose alphabetically or something. For me, the qualifications and experience matter. Maybe (or maybe not) the guy/gal with the history would do a more careful and precise job just to prove themself. IDK ...

Your response reminds me why I hate hypothetical questions. Context is everything. But I don't think someone convicted of attempted murder as an adult has any "right" to a job flying anyone around for a paycheck. Maybe, and I mean maybe, if a kid was convicted for it maybe they deserve a chance. An adult with a fully formed brain that decides to kill his ex girlfriend and actually tries to do it can't be trusted. I hope he gets fired, that's not like getting a DUI, that's attempted murder. • him.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

If given a choice between surgeons with identical qualifications and skills and the knowledge that one was a convicted felon and the other was clean as a whistle which would you choose? That's the quandary people that hire people are stuck in, who is the better candidate?

That's not what I asked, the question was hypothetical. If both were equally skilled and experienced and you were aware of their history which would you choose?

Your hypothetical is a fantasy, as there are NEVER two equally qualified candidates. Something always sets one person apart on qualifications.

 

[Kingairer]

I’m looking this from the perspective HR hiring board, and if that’s the case there is no way that application makes it to the next level. That doesn’t mean they’re a horrible person, can’t be rehabilitated, a great pilot etc, it’s just a skeleton in the closet that can’t be overlooked for me. Remember when people were worried about what getting speeding tickets would do to their career now we have people arguing that a felony isn’t a big deal.

 

[roundout]

I assume JetBlue had a vigorous “chat” about it, ran it through legal and made a decision we’re not privy to. I really know nothing beyond what I’ve read on the interwebs.

Not some guy vaguebooking in your living room?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I’m looking this from the perspective HR hiring board, and if that’s the case there is no way that application makes it to the next level. That doesn’t mean they’re a horrible person, can’t be rehabilitated, a great pilot etc, it’s just a skeleton in the closet that can’t be overlooked for me. Remember when people were worried about what getting speeding tickets would do to their career now we have people arguing that a felony isn’t a big deal.

I mean, that’s just the way a market works. Supply is down and demand is up. Back in my day, you couldn’t get a Delta invite unless you had a graduate degree, a check airman letter, or knew the CEO. Now they take kids out of RJs with no PIC time. Prepare for it to get worse.