DEI = Racism

#328
#328
SpaceCoastVol said:
Boeing showed their hand when they moved their headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. They don't GAF about making quality passenger airliners anymore. They are all about their military division and they will be as close to the political levers as possible in order to grow that business. The airliner division is merely gravy. The 757 was one of the finest airliners ever built in terms of capabilities, but BA went all in with the 737 because... well... SWA. Then came the politically correct 787 and the POS Max. They aren't even trying anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing any of that but how is the 787 politically correct? Is it those $#@& window shades?
 
#334
#334
The worst possible way to combat racism and remove barriers from people of color is to promote racism and erect barriers for others.

Virtue signaling instead of intellectual practice is the norm of the day. I'm not sure society survives unsustainable idiocy much longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, tbh, ButchPlz and 1 other person
#335
#335
NashVol11 said:
This is an insane thing to say
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. I would narrow this down further. I don't want someone who just meets the requirements. If your goal is to only hire people of specific races instead of the best pilots possible I have a problem with it for a couple of reasons.

1) I want the best guy or gal possible..... regardless of color.

2) I think it's condescending to the pilots of color you do have. As a human being I want to be hired because I'm the best person for the job..... Not some quota target number.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#336
#336
NashVol11 said:
For now, until LibsOfTikTok and End Wokeness move on to the next big scary way to say "the minorities are ruining our society"
Click to expand...
I don't even really think that's what they are saying. I think they are saying discriminatory practices are bad. You don't fix past issues by practicing the same bad behaviors and applying them to others.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and ButchPlz
#338
#338
KB5252 said:
I don't even really think that's what they are saying. I think they are saying discriminatory practices are bad. You don't fix past issues by practicing the same bad behaviors and applying them to others.
Click to expand...
And yet the takeaways from “what they are saying” went from “uh oh, a gay/trans person, probably a groomer coming for your kids!!” to “uh oh, Black/female/gay people in the airline industry, probably unqualified and going to kill you!!”

Endless repackaged ways of saying the same things. Everyone who isn’t a straight white guy is someone you should be on alert for
 
#340
#340
KB5252 said:
I don't disagree. I would narrow this down further. I don't want someone who just meets the requirements. If your goal is to only hire people of specific races instead of the best pilots possible I have a problem with it for a couple of reasons.

1) I want the best guy or gal possible..... regardless of color.

2) I think it's condescending to the pilots of color you do have. As a human being I want to be hired because I'm the best person for the job..... Not some quota target number.
Click to expand...
Right now the airlines are in the midst of the biggest hiring boom in history. When I was hired in 1991, you had to have a college degree/pilot in command (captain) time on a multi engine turboprop/jet. A turboprop is essentially a jet engine with a propeller on the front (think C-130). If you weren't military, you had to come from the regional airlines or corporate world and to be competitive you would need 5-6,000 hours of pilot in command time to even get in the front door for an interview.

Anyone that has ever been in the military knows the phrase "if it doesn't meet the standard... lower the standard"

This is where we are now. A college degree is no longer required. Pilot in command time is no longer required. Turbine time is 'desired' but not required. They are now 'hiring' zero to hero pilots and putting them thru flight schools with zero time and training them up to get the required flight time to qualify for an ATP (airline transport pilots license which requires 1500 hours).

When I got hired, to make it to the left seat of an airliner took a minimum of 10 years and that was if you were lucky and willing to fly out of NYC and live your life in either a crash pad with a ton of other commuting pilots or move to the most expensive city on earth. Today, United Airlines is hiring off the street 737 captains. All that is required is for them to get 500 hours at United before moving over to the left seat. That's about 6 months of experience. Theoretically they could start flying in March, and go to training and never see winter before becoming the HMFWIC.

Meanwhile..... there is a large group of us that are approaching 65 years of age that are being kicked out. To put this into a little more perspective, each of the 3 legacy airlines is 'retiring' some 500 of the most senior, most experienced pilots each year. All of us have at least 20,000 hours of flight time in airliners and if you do the math, that comes out to some 10 MILLION hours of flight hours of experience at EACH airline being kicked to the street EVERY YEAR for the foreseeable future, for nothing more than having a birthday. There is a proposal to increase the 'retirement' age to 67 in front of the senate right now. There are a lot of us old gray haired guys that would really like to stay, but even our own pilot's "union" is against the increase. Maybe because of the now 17,000 pilots at my airline, over half have less than 7 years with the company and the other airlines are similar. We are in their way. We have international captains that were awarded that seat with less than a year on the property. It took me 15 years to get to an international airplane.

If you want to see an old gray haired guy up front when you are going somewhere, I ask that you call your senator's office and ask them to back the "Let Experienced Pilots Fly" provision of the new FAA authorization bill. Senator Blackburn is an important member of the committee. Take 5 minutes and give her office a call. If you don't live in Tennessee, I urge you to call YOUR senators and ask them to support the bill.

Thank you for reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol737, VolTull and 8 others
#343
#343
DC_Vol said:
Dude…I think the last Falcon 10 rolled off the production line in the 1970’s. Who’s chartering these dinosaurs?? 🤣

Also probably had to make 3 refueling stops.
Click to expand...
Late 90's. Dassault still supports the type so no worries if it's well maintained.
 
Last edited:
#344
#344
evillawyer said:
They have no facts at all to suggest that any of Boeing's current issues have anything to do with folks other than good old fashioned white boys.
Click to expand...
That's actually racist considering the existing diversity of Boeing and their contractors.
You should have stopped at the word 'all'. Charlie Kirk seldom has facts.
 
#346
#346
I think the real takeaway is lots (most? vast majority?) of people get a bit sketchy when they think some kind of push for "equity" could potentially lower standards, especially when it could impact them negatively. This needn't be about color/etc at all. As a total random example if your child were having a health emergency and literally the most qualified and experienced MD available was a one eyed gay black dwarf then that's who you'd want, right? Any sane person would.

Whether they admit it or not if it's something that directly impacted their well being I don't think most people would be all that enthusiastic about any system that jiggers around with the "best person for the job" goal. If X qualifications are the standard why would lowering those standards, for almost any reason actually, be considered a positive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, KptVFL, 85SugarVol and 2 others
#347
#347
hndog609 said:
I think the real takeaway is lots (most? vast majority?) of people get a bit sketchy when they think some kind of push for "equity" could potentially lower standards, especially when it could impact them negatively. This needn't be about color/etc at all. As a total random example if your child were having a health emergency and literally the most qualified and experienced MD available was a one eyed gay black dwarf then that's who you'd want, right? Any sane person would.

Whether they admit it or not if it's something that directly impacted their well being I don't think most people would be all that enthusiastic about any system that jiggers around with the "best person for the job" goal. If X qualifications are the standard why would lowering those standards, for almost any reason actually, be considered a positive?
Click to expand...
If your goal is to kill, maim, injure, or otherwise harm people then you could consider it a positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#349
#349
hndog609 said:
I think the real takeaway is lots (most? vast majority?) of people get a bit sketchy when they think some kind of push for "equity" could potentially lower standards, especially when it could impact them negatively. This needn't be about color/etc at all. As a total random example if your child were having a health emergency and literally the most qualified and experienced MD available was a one eyed gay black dwarf then that's who you'd want, right? Any sane person would.

Whether they admit it or not if it's something that directly impacted their well being I don't think most people would be all that enthusiastic about any system that jiggers around with the "best person for the job" goal. If X qualifications are the standard why would lowering those standards, for almost any reason actually, be considered a positive?
Click to expand...
When you attempt to force/engineer outcomes, it inevitably leads to a degradation in standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 82_VOL_83, tbh and 1 other person
#350
#350
hndog609 said:
I think the real takeaway is lots (most? vast majority?) of people get a bit sketchy when they think some kind of push for "equity" could potentially lower standards, especially when it could impact them negatively. This needn't be about color/etc at all. As a total random example if your child were having a health emergency and literally the most qualified and experienced MD available was a one eyed gay black dwarf then that's who you'd want, right? Any sane person would.

Whether they admit it or not if it's something that directly impacted their well being I don't think most people would be all that enthusiastic about any system that jiggers around with the "best person for the job" goal. If X qualifications are the standard why would lowering those standards, for almost any reason actually, be considered a positive?
Click to expand...
Feelz. Not a ****ing thing more than that
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top