JetBlue hires violent felon as a pilot

[Soul Brotha']

I know a SWA pilot and an American pilot both busted DOT positive for THC and alcohol. Lost all licenses etc. Fought the results and lost. Both had to start over from private pilot but worked their way back and are flying for those two companies. It stinks but if that person wants to fly it is achievable.

 

[ppragman]

I know a SWA pilot and an American pilot both busted DOT positive for THC and alcohol. Lost all licenses etc. Fought the results and lost. Both had to start over from private pilot but worked their way back and are flying for those two companies. It stinks but if that person wants to fly it is achievable.

Unless a rightwing dingus (Benny) and a bunch of internet malcontents raise hell.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I do have a question for the peanut gallery.

Say there was a pilot, clean as a whistle, that gets popped for a random drug test as he's commuting home. He conducts the test and the proctor says that not only is the sample a few degrees too cool, that it appears adulterated because of a high amount of "something" in the sample.

The pilot is subsequently fired from his regional for the result and spends thousands of dollars and years of court time fighting his dismissal and license revocations. Expert witnesses talking about how the urine samples from ectomorphic endurance runners is consistent with the sample and how these items weren't taken into consideration before deeming it an adulterated sample.

All unsuccessful.

A few years later, in a high(er) profile case, the same situation goes down, an airline gets sued for it's urinalysis subcontractor not being a medical professional and it becomes a generally accepted principle that different body types and various fitness levels will have a tangible effect on sampling...

He gives up, resumes life and his dream of being an airline pilot dies.

A couple decades later, he swallows his pride, starts flying again to get his licenses back and gets hired at a small 135 operation.

Now this person has "Yes" under FAA actions for license revocation, violation and administrative actions taken, the firing from a regional and failing a drug test.

Thoughts?

I've long held that false positives need to be addressed better in the airline industry.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Again, not judging what JetBlue saw in the person-in-question and deciding to give him a (what appears to be temporary) shot, BUT, to be quite honest, anyone has the capacity to respond to a situation violently.

A) A person who has been incarcerated for battery and has a training failure.
B) A person who, in 30 years, has never had a training failure, but just got one.

Who is more dangerous? Honestly, who really knows. It's easy to say Person A because of the history, but how well do we know what Person B is dealing with?

Person A may have coping mechanisms, has previously FAAFO and knows where certain paths and unrestrained inner demons will lead.
Person B might just go postal. Anything is possible.

Again, not specifically supporting JetBlue's hiring decision or the internet's rage against his employment. I just don't have enough information to feel passionately either way.

Well, here's what I do know. In jetBlue's application system, there is one guy above this indivudal, and one guy below this individual, in the list of applications. Hire one or both of those two. You don't NEED to hire an ex-felon.

 

[FlyingAccountant]

I've long held that false positives need to be addressed better in the airline industry.

Especially nowadays for something like THC.

I can't go anywhere with large gatherings of people without smelling weed. The last time I went to Vegas while walking down the strip, it was almost nauseating. I went to the Cards game this past weekend, same deal. The fact that someone could lose their career over inhaling someone's second smoke because maryjane has become defacto legal is terrifying.

However, that's an different issue entirely from the one at hand. Your beef is with the FAA/airline in that instance and you haven't committed a crime. Everyone deserves due process in some form or fashion, sure, but I think you should lose your right to an ATP if you have a demonstrated past of intentionally hurting people.

We don't let guys fly because they take <insert xyz anti-depressant here>, but we're going to permit convicted violent felons to do so?

 

[derg]

Well, here's what I do know. In jetBlue's application system, there is one guy above this indivudal, and one guy below this individual, in the list of applications. Hire one or both of those two. You don't NEED to hire an ex-felon.

You didn’t actually read what you’re responding to.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You didn’t actually read what you’re responding to.

I did. And I bolded the part specifically.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

I've long held that false positives need to be addressed better in the airline industry.

And everywhere else.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

Well, here's what I do know. In jetBlue's application system, there is one guy above this indivudal, and one guy below this individual, in the list of applications. Hire one or both of those two. You don't NEED to hire an ex-felon.

Is that the point, though, of this discussion? Is the person qualified? Do they meet the standards required? Have they "paid their debt" to society?

 

[derg]

Is that the point, though, of this discussion? Is the person qualified? Do they meet the standards required? Have they "paid their debt" to society?

With some knowledge of “The System” - if people think the average new hire is squeaky clean, zero training issues, goes to church every Sunday, “what does the flamingo in the front yard and the upside-down pineapple mean on the cruise ship mean” and never had as much as a speeding ticket when they were rushing their grandmother to the ER, well…

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Is that the point, though, of this discussion? Is the person qualified? Do they meet the standards required? Have they "paid their debt" to society?

My argument is, those questions don’t need to answered when there are many other qualified applicants that are NOT violent ex-felons.

 

[Boris Badenov]

Thoughts?

Oh, that's EASY, I'll go next! "WHAT is your name? WHAT IS your quest?" "yeah yeah, Sir Robin of Camelot, I seek the grail, blah blah blah"

But seriously, there's nothing like pre-emptive or presumptuous about the expectation that people who commit unlawful violence against other people are likely to re-offend, it's backed up by reams of data (as, again @Pilot Fighter points out). This isn't Opinion, it's Science. And it's especially true when it comes to "domestic" violence.

Let's get down to brass tacks, here. If you hit, beat, shoot, etc. your domestic partner(s), you're rightfully viewed as a future threat of more of the same, because the statistics indicate just how likely that is to happen again *overwhelmingly*. And, no, then you don't get to participate in Society in the same way as the kids who *don't* hit. We all learned this in Kindergarten, I thought? Maybe some of us were spared the Rod a bit too much...

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

With some knowledge of “The System” - if people think the average new hire is squeaky clean, zero training issues, goes to church every Sunday, “what does the flamingo in the front yard and the upside-down pineapple mean on the cruise ship mean” and never had as much as a speeding ticket when they were rushing their grandmother to the ER, well…

View attachment 68093

That’s only gonna get worse. There was a time your shop gave people crap for not being consistent in the address history with Avenue and Lane, versus Ave and Ln. They wanted consistency. Either all Ave and Ln or Cir, or all Avenue, Lane, or Circle.

My, my. How we’ve fallen from arguing English short form to violent ex-felons. It’s quite a pathetic turn.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

My argument is, those questions don’t need to answered when there are many other qualified applicants that are NOT violent ex-felons.

Fair enough.

 

[Kingairer]

My argument is, those questions don’t need to answered when there are many other qualified applicants that are NOT violent ex-felons.

My argument is similar as well.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

While we're at it, I also think we need to address depression much better in pilots. We hear SSRI and instantly think permanent grounding, get rid of this guy, etc.

My MIL and SIL have depression. Zoloft keeps them better. I can tell when they are and not taking meds. They would NEVER hurt someone else, and I have never seen an indication they would hurt themselves. With Zoloft, they go about their daily lives, can operate machinery (cars, lawn mowing, etc). I have zero concern if they were pilots and were flying planes. As it stands today, they'd be grounded.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

Oh, that's EASY, I'll go next! "WHAT is your name? WHAT IS your quest?" "yeah yeah, Sir Robin of Camelot, I seek the grail, blah blah blah"

But seriously, there's nothing like pre-emptive or presumptuous about the expectation that people who commit unlawful violence against other people are likely to re-offend, it's backed up by reams of data (as, again @Pilot Fighter points out). This isn't Opinion, it's Science. And it's especially true when it comes to "domestic" violence.

Let's get down to brass tacks, here. If you hit, beat, shoot, etc. your domestic partner(s), you're rightfully viewed as a future threat of more of the same, because the statistics indicate just how likely that is to happen again *overwhelmingly*. And, no, then you don't get to participate in Society in the same way as the kids who *don't* hit. We all learned this in Kindergarten, I thought? Maybe some of us were spared the Rod a bit too much...

IDK ... during my working years I saw some (a few?) people change. I went to bat for them and they didn't disappoint. There were others I knew I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, so to speak, because - fundamentally - they were the same person who f'ed up once and were going to do so again.

Not one of the people I supported disappointed me (or society) over 50+ years. They acknowledged their wrong, did their time, and became markedly different people, most/many/all of them still regretting that long-ago moment in time when they made a horribly wrong choice.

That moment doesn't define them. The decades since, of change, make them who they are today - and unless they told you, or I did, you'd never know the things they did, or the time.

Grace and forgiveness needn't be blind or offered without intelligent observation and insight. When it is appropriate and well-founded, it matters. The scale of forgiveness is rarely black or white, in my opinion, but covers a range or sliding scale based on who someone is today, and the things they have proven by the years since their transgression.

As always, YMMV.

 

[mikecweb]

That’s only gonna get worse. There was a time your shop gave people crap for not being consistent in the address history with Avenue and Lane, versus Ave and Ln. They wanted consistency. Either all Ave and Ln or Cir, or all Avenue, Lane, or Circle.

The puzzle of your obsession with Delta gets a little clearer each day.

 

[scooter2525]

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

One doesn’t have a felony?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The puzzle of your obsession with Delta gets a little clearer each day.

I'd say I was well kept up on the process for the big 3 from 2016-2018. Only Delta was that anal. Also the only airline while at an OBAP job fair, handed out business cards that had a disclaimer that this is not an interview, just a meet and greet, and being here in no way guarantees an interview. Um, okay? Like I said, I hit the rounds for the big 3 for those 3 years and my comments simply reflect my experience with the process for all 3.

YMMV.