The Blame Game

Airline pilots have made the headlines this past week and for all the wrong reasons. As a near life-long aviator and a commercial airline pilot for 26 years (and still growing), I would be remiss to offer judgement on colleagues. I can, however, offer an opinion on the underlying causes for such lapses and how the airline pilot community is far from unique in this regard.

To refresh your memory, last Monday morning a Delta jet landed on a parallel taxiway rather than the runway at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport. The flight was an all-nighter (or red-eye, if you prefer) from Rio. Then, on Wednesday a Northwest jet overshot its destination of Minneapolis by a state before responding to Air Traffic controllers over Wisconsin and turning around. Far be it for me to render any kind of meaningful explanation for these lapses other than stating the obvious: these pilots were not paying proper attention to the task at hand.

Delta and Northwest Airlines, as separate entities, have both visited bankruptcy court and, as a result, the earning potential of all employees has been reduced. Retirement benefits, likewise, have suffered. Now these two airlines are merging and the seniority fallout among the pilot group could well have further negative consequences. Is it any wonder that these four pilots may have had other things on their minds? Many of my contemporaries have taken on other jobs to supplement what once was a comfortable life-style. No more three days “off” between trips: now, those days are filled with other activities to fill a financial void.

The airline piloting profession is not the only career field to experience such challenges. As a matter of fact, I’d say just about every worker-bee out there is filled with some degree of angst when thinking about income and job security. From doctors to lawyers to teachers to any other endeavor, we are being asked to do more with less and for less. I cannot imagine anyone doing high-quality work when faced with distractions and doubts about the future.

The tragedy lies in the fact that our four pilots may never again have access to their cockpit. This may come to pass in an attempt to paint them as aberrations so as to assuage the traveling public’s worry over an unsafe air travel industry. “The system’s fine, folks. It’s just these few bad apples that we need to weed out and then everything’ll be AOK.” This is tantamount to removing a few cancerous cells while ignoring the tumor responsible for their existence in the first place. In fact, they are nothing more than scapegoats to avoid a hard look at the underlying causes for such behavior.

Over-worked, under-paid, over-stressed workers from all sectors of the business world are “weeded out” under the same pretense while the underlying causes are ignored. This is equally bad for the provider of such service as well as the customer. Most of us want to do a good job and all of us want those that we hire to do a good job. But many outside forces are currently conspiring against such high quality results. Perhaps it is to be expected in these uncertain times, but to single out those that fall prey to such distractions as though there were no other mitigating circumstances is irresponsible and does nothing to prevent similar scenarios.

As some sort of stop-gap measure, many workplace environments have installed “fool-proof” safeguards to prevent such events. While this may provide a greater margin against error, there is nothing that is “damned-fool-proof” and it is damned foolish when those entrusted with varying degrees of responsibility allow themselves to be distracted. Not unusual or unheard of or even unthinkable. Just damned foolish. Only constant vigilance and the recognition of the root causes for such deviations can help prevent future blunders.

Full Speed Ahead...To the Past!

Rarely does one make progress while looking over a shoulder. In the case of improving our transportation options, though, I think it might provide the greatest potential for success. Allow me to explain:

Throughout the history of transportation in America as one mode became anachronistic, a newer and speedier mode was ready to replace it. The stagecoach gave way to the railroad and the trains gave way to busses (at least for shorter distances), and they both gave way to the airplane. But there is no new whiz-bang alternative to the airlines, is there? No particle beam transport a la Star Trek. Even the SST has been mothballed. We’re pretty much screwed. Or are we?

California’s Governor Schwarzenegger recently request 4.7 billion dollars in stimulus funds to apply towards a high speed rail system within the state. A step backwards, some might say, if we return to the rails as an answer to our transportation woes. Well, let’s look at a typical trip from Los Angeles to Sacramento. To make this trip by air, plan on arriving at the airport two hours before your flight so as to allow enough time for the poking and prodding of the TSA after standing in a lengthy line leading up to the indignity. The travel time is roughly one hour and fifteen minutes unless weather or other traffic interferes with the schedule. And we all know that either (or both) is a regular occurrence. Now we’re up to at least three hours and fifteen minutes, not including travel to and from our airports. The high speed rail travel time? Two hours seventeen minutes. And the stations will more than likely be closer to our final destination than the airport so the time savings increase yet again.

Can there be any rational argument against investing in this technology? Maybe, from short haul airlines who stand to lose major business to this quick and economical alternative, but that’s economical...not rational. Much of the infrastructure is already in place. Right-of-way problems are now relatively easy to solve, what with the lower values in real estate. No more sky-high prices for the land required to lay out our rails. Give them what the property was worth a year ago and watch them take the offer without a second thought. Other hardware and software technology required for these projects will create the need for companies to provide the necessary materials. Jobs, in other words. The best thing of all is that we’ll be making something. You know: manufacturing. That’s what we did before we made money by selling paper.

Look at virtually any state and the opportunities for high speed rail service abound. (Better yet, Google “high speed rail maps” and take a look at what is being envisioned.) Eventually, these networks connect with other areas to form a national high speed rail system second to none. Driving even becomes a secondary option in certain cases.

Yes, folks, the answer to our transportation quandary lies in the past, albeit with improvements. Climb aboard, literally and figuratively: let’s all go back to the future!

Shaken, Not Stirred

Sorry, but you won’t find martini recipes here. No, I’m referring to the assignment given folks elected to an office in the hopes of “shaking things up”. Mayors, governors, presidents: it matters not because, in each case, we look for one person to turn the related ship of state in a new direction. Others, as my friend, Sam, (who will appear in a later example), are brought into a public bureaucracy (school board or some like commission) with the same mandate: shake things up and get this body moving in the right direction. That’s the idea, anyway.

Unfortunately, the “shaking up” refers to the status quo and many pasts, presents, and futures depend on the continuation of things as they are. Jesse Ventura is a good example of what I’m trying to explain. The electorate of Minnesota apparently became disenchanted with the same old politicians doing the same old thing so they gave a retired wrestler the chance to shake things up. And Jesse tried, by god, but with little success. You see, the true power of any state lies in the Legislature. And that body is made up of career politicians. Now, why in the world would this particular group in Minnesota be interested in allowing an outsider to succeed? Wouldn’t that send a message claiming that just about anybody can do this job? And, if so, what happens to the future prospects of those career politicos hoping to one day reside in the Governor’s Mansion themselves? With these thoughts in mind, is it any wonder that Jesse served only one term? His failure was a higher priority than the citizenry of Minnesota, plain and simple.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is another prime example. Granted, he’s not the first movie star to run the Golden State, but he’s the latest and, in the years since Ronald Reagan’s administration, much has changed. Gridlock trumps progress if the other side of the aisle can claim a victory and California’s legislative bodies have stymied progress on virtually all fronts as the state continues to flirt with economic failure. Arnold gets the credit if they come through with a winning solution just as he gets the blame for their failures. And the blame is more palatable when considering the political fallout of opening future elections up to every common man and woman interested in running.

And finally, we get to President Obama. “Change we can believe in” was the message that got him elected, but, once again, many overriding agendas are best served by thwarting such change. It seems that the Republican Party is currently more interested in blocking anything on the premise that it won’t succeed. But should it succeed, their near-term hopes for regaining control of the Congress or White House are dashed. Once again, allowing your opponent to succeed is just not an option.

I wish it were that simple to get things moving in another direction, but ships of state are behemoths that require much coordination and bipartisanship to create even a few degrees of heading change. And, as I’ve tried to illustrate, many are keenly aware that change may well create a negative change in their own goals and finances.

Sam, whom I mentioned above, has been an educator for most of his adult life. In trying to put students first, he has sometimes been caught cross-wise with principals and school boards from time to time. Recently, he was offered a position in a school district to “shake things up”. Well, things were fine until the school board realized that they, too, would experience some shaking and that was something in which they clearly had no desire to participate. “Sam”, they said. “We meant to say that you should shake that other stuff up...not our stuff!” Needless to say, Sam’s contract was not renewed. So much for the shaking.

True to the 21st century, we seem to pin our hopes for the future on one person whose words or deeds rekindle the hope for a better tomorrow. Unless that person is the CEO (or Emperor), I’m afraid that other forces will continue to conspire against any meaningful progress. Does that mean we give up? Hell no, but it should give us a greater insight to the job at hand and perhaps be more patient before we turn to find yet another savior. And one final thought: rarely does “change” look like the “change” we envisioned when we called for it in the first place. Some will lose, but if many more gain then society, as a whole, is all the better for it.

Take Your Pick

Let’s try something different this week: rather than dwell on one subject, how about touching on a few salient topics from the headlines? In perusing today’s (October 3) Sacramento Bee, several things caught my eye:

Chicago loses Olympic bid: I’m surprised that Chicagoans weren’t the ones celebrating in the streets while those “lucky” Brazilians were wishing they were more careful in their wishes. Now, I’m a sports fan, but when I hear the Olympics is coming to town, I make plans to be somewhere else. Just like most everyone else. Promises of profit and opportunity abound and, depending on how you define “profit” and “opportunity”, the promises may be valid to varying degrees. Google “(un)profitable olympic games”. The top of the list will take you to an article from tourism review.com and I think you’ll be interested in the findings. (I’d link it for you, but it opens as a downloaded PDF. Sorry.) One would think that Chicago could put the same money to work in different ways to revitalize the economic maelstrom that now racks its citizens.

And Obama is getting heat from the conservative media types for going to Denmark when there are so many more important things to decide and discuss. (Of course, the conservative media would rather talk and discuss Obama’s trip to Denmark.) Who knows: maybe it was all show and, in the cloak room, he begged the IOC to give the games to those lucky bastards down south! I guess we’ll never know...

David Letterman: OK, here’s a guy who works with women and, over time, has found himself in a personal liaison with some. Who hasn’t? Hell, we’re all working about fifteen hours a day: if you can’t get lucky at work, you’re in deep trouble. True, Dave was in a long-term relationship with his future wife, but that’s between the two of them. The harassment angle is overplayed because no one has cried “Foul” and if someone comes forward now it is only because visions of fame and wealth are dancing in her head. We’ve all shared private time with co-workers (some above us on the career ladder and some below) with little or no fallout. Let’s move on and leave Dave alone.

Roman Polanski: Jesus, is this still going on? Let’s see, he rapes a 13 year old girl, leaves the country, promises to pay her a large sum in a civil suit (which he apparently never does), and now gets arrested to face the original charges. (Am I close?) Well, hell yes, he’s guilty. And of more than one thing and he should face the music regardless of elapsed time or his wonderful career as a film-maker. This has to do with taking advantage of a teenager and refusing to be held accountable. Enough said...

Paul Krugman: Paul writes for the New York Times and the Bee carries his column a couple of days a week. He won a Nobel Prize for economics last year and I find his point of view interesting, if not intriguing. His piece today is titled, “As difficult as it is to sell, spending is what U.S. must do” and it delves into how the government is doing too little to get the economy turned around. Yes, too little. Damn the deficit, full spending ahead! And you know what? I believe him. Picture a normal day in your nice, lovely home when, all of a sudden, a ray of sunshine (or drop of rain) intrudes from a space where intrusion is normally not allowed. That’s right, buddy: time for a new roof. But how can you afford it in these tough economic times? A blue tarp is cheaper and almost as good, isn’t it? Well, we all know the blue tarp ploy will only delay the inevitable and, in the meantime, more and more of your home is subjected to nature’s forces. At the end of the day, you’ve saved nothing and, more than likely, will end up spending much more than you would have in the first place.

Why would our national house be any different? Our financial roof is a mess and we’re trying to jury-rig a solution that will only come back to bite us on our collective backside. We do it all the time with our possessions when money is tight and what happens? We’re generally the worse off for it somewhere down the road. So I’m with Paul on this one. There’s no difference between your roof and our economy: they are both worthy of investment for long term security.

Not bad for one day’s news, huh? Maybe there’s still hope for the newspaper industry, after all.