242
GOP when is the government suppose to step in and regulate businesses? Your message seems to be all over the place.
Whenever gay happens, duh.
(/s of course)
Don't forget women's bodily autonomy as well.
sigh
Dude don't even get me started. It's so depressing being a woman in this stupid country.
Women aren't allowed to be depressed. \s
The actual reason for a pilot shortage is due to fewer military pilots which used to transition to civilian pilots. It has nothing to do with the Department of Transportation.
The 1500 hour rule means before you can fly folks in these commercial settings you have to have a LOT of hours. The way a lot of non-military folks do this is by being a flight instructor for many years - living on pennies. Then they can finally go work for a regional airline and make pennies.
And the fix from congress has been to weaken training standards, while we’ve seen a string of near-crashes this year
The path for non-military folks to start from private pilot and end up at airline transport pilot is technically there, but unless you've got a bunch of money sitting around, it's very prohibitive. And with pilot salaries being what they are, and not what they used to be, it's an even harder sell.
Any since the reduction of forces since the 90s the number of commercial pilots has fallen.
The other reason, also related to military, is that a couple of months ago the FAA integrated their records system with the VA. Because of some records disparities, specifically health records, thousands of pilots have had their license suspended. This happened to someone I know and they got all their documentation to the FAA in early April and as of 2 weeks ago they were told to expect 3-5 more months of a wait before it’s reviewed because they’re so bogged down
Or the fact that the lifestyle is shit in most airlines. There is a shortage on other continents too, as in Europe where you can fly Boeings with less than 300 hours.
There are plenty of candidates, but they must pay for expensive training and type ratings (specific aircraft model training) that most airlines are unwilling to pay for, they used to.
Most airlines hate pilots because they cost money that should go to shareholders, so they would rather overwork a few than hire more. Conditions worsen year after year.
The constant sleep schedule runaway shaves a good chunk of your life expectancy. You have little control on where you live, no family life. Wanna go to a wedding? Just request that day six months in advance in a web portal and see it tell you it's denied. That thing your kid wants to see you at? We don't care about that! You're married to your job.
Younger generations don't want that kind of life, and also are more environmentally conscious, which doesn't help.
*I have no first hand experience in flying for a US airline but I know it's similar. Edit for typo.
"Far-right Republicans in the House, though, are attempting to use that same bill to attack transgender rights. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) is trying to insert amendments to the bill to “prohibit funding from being used to promote the LGBTQ initiatives and policies within the FAA.” She said that the FAA must be stopped from posting LGBTQ+ content to their Twitter account."
Flight school is outrageously expensive, and once you have your commercial certification, you almost always start out as a flight instructor making too little to handle the loans.
I went to a technical college for commercial flight training. I got as far as getting my private pilot cert and a multi-engine endorsement, then did an entire IFR course in the simulator.... And then I was denied for any more loans to continue the training, so I went like $70k in debt towards a job I could never have.
Not that I was thrilled about the idea of being a flight instructor, either. I don't have the patience for that..
They gotta figure out a way to make it actually affordable or attainable, without needing to join the military and all the bullshit that comes with that.
They gotta figure out a way to make it actually affordable or attainable, without needing to join the military and all the bullshit that comes with that.
The normal way this works is zero-interest federally-back student loans with a path to forgiveness via public service.
For pilots, perhaps include working as a pilot for (n) years means forgiveness.
Isn't it sort of a walled garden that way, an industry captured by and protected by this large barrier to entry which ensures a supply of jobs to those to ex-military pilots? Seems to happen in a lot of industries, artificially limiting supply to protect a pre existing privilege. Or am I just imagining things, I'm not familiar with the aviation industry.
I don't think it's an artifical, intentional limit on supply. More a symptom of a completely demented education "system"
This seems like a great place to create a system where after initial training like yours, an airline could pick up the cost of further training kinda like a lot of trucking companies do. Like I get it, training to fly is a ton different than driving a truck, and the investment into a pilot would be a world different than tucking, but I bet an airline makes a lot more off a pilot than a shipping company does a trucker. So once a person proves their ability to make it through initial schooling, it would probably be a worthwhile investment for the airlines.... Idk.
Basically indentured servitude, though. If a pilot is on the hook to pay it back to the company should they quit before it's worked off, then they can be abused with that hanging over their heads..
I can't think of a better solution other than maybe airlines creating their own schools to train their pilots after their initial training is complete. Do you have any thoughts on how the situation could be made better?
I evatronic's comment above actually!
Would love it too if the government would stop using taxpayer money to bail out these airline companies for their shitty actions. That’s why they can get away with not paying their workers a better wage or have to fix their broken systems.
You see, the thing is, she's a stupid cunt.
Obligatory "she lacks the warmth and depth"
Pretty sure they accidentally used a picture of Twisted Sister's Dee Snider.
She does look shockingly close to Dee Snider in Karen drag.
Pretty sure Dee Snider would not approve of this comparison. ;)
What is Pete doing and how has he not been replaced yet? We can’t have this go on for a decade!
Gee, I dunno, maybe he's doing all of the things he specifically says that he's doing in the same press conference that you're referring to?
Boebert is a redditor, confirmed. Only reads headlines, not the article.
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
242 points (95.5% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4541 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS