Strange Bedfellows, Indeed

Well, I had this week’s topic (government intervention) pretty well set in my mind and then, out of left field, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) strays from the Appalachian Trail all the way to Argentina. Now there is one wrong turn, folks! They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is getting out of hand.

Amid calls for his resignation, Governor Sanford is striving to maintain some semblance of order in the operation of his state’s business. Camps are divided between “Who cares” and “When is he leaving”. Personally, I care a great deal. Why? Good question. After all, I do not fall within the blanket of South Carolina government, so why should I lose any sleep over who Sanford is sleeping with?

To answer that, I need to go back to the ’80’s and take a look at the Reagan administration and policies that sprang from that era. As far as I can tell, things began to change during Reagan’s second term when then-Attorney General Ed Meese convened his Commission on pornography. The next thing you know, Southland Corporation (7-Eleven stores) was pulling Playboy and Penthouse magazines off of their shelves.

Up until that point, “Republican” was a reference to fiscal conservatism and the empowerment of the individual. It seems to me that the Republican Party, in trying to prolong and preserve its power, began to see the Religious Right as an important ally in that quest. It took some time and tinkering, but, by the end of the 20th century, they had it down pretty pat: family values and the like with the full voiced support of Republican office holders and candidates. Throwing stones at the left? More like bricks, if you look their response to Bill Clinton’s dalliances.

The only problem in this approach is that all of us, regardless of political persuasion, are subject to straying from the straight and narrow. Now, should a regular guy get caught in a strange boudoir the outrage is relatively tame. But if this same guy historically espouses “family values”, that outrage grows exponentially due to the hypocrisy, if nothing else.

Political sex scandals are nothing new and the distribution among the two parties is nearly split. The Republicans, however, suffer much more through these trials because of their family values stance. No one likes a hypocrite and the right sets themselves up for major retribution by clinging to this holier-than-thou position. Trust me, no politician should waste time claiming to be above any kind of fray.

We should not give a rip about the bedroom or bathroom (in the case of Larry Craig) habits of our elected officials. We should care, however, about the two party system. If the Republican Party continues to concentrate on socially admirable traits rather than the solution to real problems they diminish their importance in the political debates that need their input.

So come on, you guardians of the right: leave the bedroom behind and walk over to the office, where you belong. While I may not agree with some of your proposals, I recognize the need to keep you at the table. Continuing to hang your hat on the nails of fidelity and family will only ensure your limited effectiveness in remaining a viable voice within the political spectrum.

Qualifications

Many of us possess some sort of qualification to perform specific tasks. Probably the most common is the driver’s license: it “qualifies” an individual to operate a motor vehicle. Some qualifications can be found on the walls of doctor’s or lawyer’s offices and they attest to a level of expertise in each case. I carry my qualification in my wallet. It is an Airline Transport Pilot rating, is issued by the FAA, and qualifies me to fly in the left seat of a commercial airliner. It is the gold standard of aviation and every commercial airline captain carries such a certificate.

In recent media reports, much has been made of the Colgan Air captain involved in the Buffalo, NY crash having failed numerous checkrides. It is this point that I wish to dwell on for a few moments and hope you have the time and inclination to read further.

In my thirty nine years of aviation affiliation, I have taken countless checkrides. And a portion of my Air Force career was dedicated to administering checkrides to fellow pilots. I am proud to say that, through a combination of timing, skill, and luck, I have never failed a checkride. That is not meant to portray myself as the brightest bulb in the box. I am far from infallible and remind myself of that fact every time I strap into my aircraft.

To arbitrarily consign an aviator to mediocrity based solely on the number of failed checkrides is to oversimplify a complicated issue to the point where any meaningful conclusion is impossible. I have seen colleagues who are more than capable pilots fail a checkride for a variety of reasons. Generally, the failure is due to the misapplication or poor timing in the performance of a given procedure. A mistake, in other words. While a checkride is only a snapshot of a pilot’s ability, it affords one the opportunity to learn from such a mistake and re-attempt the task. There are many reasons behind a busted ride, but all evaluations have a common conclusion: satisfactory performance.

Did you fail your first driver’s test? How about the bar exam? Or your medical boards? Or perhaps you had more than one failed attempt. We do not look back in such a way after a car crash or an undesirable verdict or an unsuccessful surgery. Why should we after a plane crash? Granted, such failures may illuminate shortcomings in training or ability, but to take the results out of hand and render a blanket condemnation serves no useful purpose.

Should airlines be afforded the opportunity of reviewing an applicant’s complete aviation history? Of course, but such background investigation has been spotty, at best. Perhaps due to an FAA mentality of voluntary compliance, perhaps due to a supply and demand dilemma at the regional airlines who are finding it increasingly difficult to find would-be employees willing to work long hours for low pay. In either case, there is nothing wrong with a peak into the past so long as it is accompanied with an explanation of any questionable areas.

Ironically, I am currently embroiled in a debate over “qualification” with my employer (a major US legacy airline). The airline has elected to modify the instrumentation of the aircraft I fly from old, “steam driven”, round gauges to a state of the art electronic display . This new display provides me all of my basic flight information: airspeed, altimetry, rate of climb/descent, and the like. In my 24 years at this airline, I have never flown a similarly equipped aircraft. Nevertheless, last November, in my scheduled recurrent training session, I watched a short video on this new equipment and took a short quiz. At the conclusion of this quiz, the instructor told the entire class that we were now “qualified” to fly a jet with this new display. I took exception to this and immediately contacted the appropriate powers-that-be. “Don’t worry,” they said. “You’ll be down for a simulator before you’ll ever see it on the line.”

Unfortunately, that promise rang hollow. I have yet to return for my next recurrent training session and was presented with the new display just several weeks ago. Knowing full well the possible ramifications, I turned and walked off the aircraft. I advised the proper folks that I did not feel qualified to fly with such a novel and untried presentation without first seeing it in a simulated environment. “Well, you’re qualified,” they said. Yes, by virtue of a check mark in a box I was, indeed, technically qualified. On a more pragmatic scale, though, I was anything but fully prepared to conduct a safe and uneventful flight.

We each must hold ourselves accountable when operating under the “qualifications” of any permit, license, or approving authority. Drunk driving or any other careless behavior predicated upon the theory of “it’ll be alright” is a dereliction of the responsibility accompanying the qualification. While my airline (and the FAA) consider me qualified to command an aircraft with a display format I have yet to actually touch, activate, and (yes) make a mistake, I beg to differ. The unwritten contract I have with my crew and my passengers expecting only the best from me holds far more import.

Supply and Demand

The idea of supply and demand reigning supreme in the marketplace is nothing new. Last week, I wrote of executive bonuses and wondered why there are no employee bonuses of any significant size. Supply and demand (theoretically, at least) should take care of the worker-bees, but subtle shifts have caused a mutation in the original theory, I’d say. I offer some examples:

Doctors: Becoming an M.D. is a laborious and expensive enterprise and it stands to reason that anyone entering into this profession would seek compensation commensurate with the time and energy dedicated to a successful outcome. A young doctor today sees limited income potential in traditional areas of General Practice and seeks, instead, a specialty so as to maximize earnings. But HMO’s, promising to solve the health care crisis, have succeeded only by limiting specialized care and lowering payments to physicians in general. As a result, many reconsider a career in medicine. The prospect of national health care and even lower rewards drives even more medical hopefuls into other, more lucrative, areas.

Despite these facts, medical school tuitions remain high and the prospect of making a reasonable return on investment is leading to an increased shortage of qualified doctors for you and me. Where does supply and demand figure into this problem?

Airline pilots: These folks have traditionally come from the military services with long resumes and more than a modicum of flight time. But the military pipeline has slowed to a trickle. Not that one would notice, what with airlines cutting capacity, but the day will come when demand once again returns. What then? Well, we have a supply of pilots at the regional airline level and they have cut their teeth on smaller jets with similar technology. Their move to a bigger cockpit might be an easy transition, but who fills their spot? You’re right...no one. Much like doctors, professional pilots spend a large portion of time and money obtaining the experience required by the airlines. So, as pilots’ wages and benefits have been slashed through bankruptcy court or concessions coerced through the threat of Chapter 11, why spend time and money on a job that is not currently available and, even if it were, offers little or no reward for the effort? With such a gloomy future in the industry, many choose other career fields.

Teachers: Society once thought of an education as something that just happened. Kind of like the sun rising in the east. Not so (as we now realize). As teacher salaries have been decimated, so, too, has the quality of education available to our students. “Teaching” has been reduced to crowd control and passing a test tied directly to funding at the expense of “learning”. Low pay and dismal job satisfaction combine to, once again, force those that would otherwise seek a career in education to look in other directions to secure a piece of the American dream.

The list of career fields that are short on personnel yet still fail to offer incentives goes on and on. Most are technical in nature or require some sort of specialized skill and the day is fast approaching where the supply falls to zero. How? Well, the folks that currently hold these positions worked a good while to attain their current level of success. Unless their eventual replacements see similar rewards, they go in other directions and replacements simply no longer appear on the horizon. The time to create demand through financial and quality of life possibilities is before the supply line dries out, i.e. now. Waiting until there’s a critical shortage only guarantees a crisis of greater proportion.

There are two areas that still provide opportunity and they lie at opposite ends of the employment spectrum: executives and clerks. I would like to think that today’s unemployment rate would create an opportunity for many businesses to get rid of the recalcitrant clerks, indifferent attendants, and other unpleasant employees in favor of someone who needs a job, wants a job, and realizes the qualities that make for a desirable applicant.

Conversely, doesn’t everyone want to be the boss? With that kind of supply, why the need to create demand? It stands to reason that executive pay would come down to a point where the two were relatively equal, doesn’t it? (Don’t hold your breath on this one, though.)

We depend on many folks with various skills that combine to make our economy and society work. Neglecting them on the premise of corporate productivity and profitability does nothing to ensure a continuing supply of similarly qualified employees.

Financial Pheromones

Close your eyes and take a deep breath. Can you smell it? Try again. “Smell what?” you ask. Why, the smell of money. After all, there is nothing more important than money, is there? Why else would so few be receiving so much? In the economic turmoil of the past several years, we’ve become all too acquainted with the ever-burgeoning executive bonus. These additional payments, we are told, assure the corporation’s ability to attract the best and brightest business-types to their ivory towers rather than lose them to a potential competitor. Could someone please tell me how “best and brightest” is defined? And then, could someone tell me why many of these bonus paying entities are in such dire financial straights? Hell, if they’ve got the cream of the crop in their boardrooms, why aren’t they achieving a higher degree of success?

We all know, on some level, that this rationale is nothing but a gimmick to explain away rewarding a small faction with very large sums regardless of their performance. Plain and simple, but how do we move away from this construct? First, we have to accept the basic premise as false and here’s a place to begin reconnecting with reality:

We all have a given quality of life. Some of that quality is due exclusively to the numbers written on our paycheck while other parts entail more subjective components: working conditions, geographic location, neighbors, proximity to family members, schools, and the like all add in to the mix that ultimately creates our level of satisfaction with that quality. Would you move across the country for a 10 % raise? Perhaps, if other factors appeared to be more favorable. You might even take a pay cut to get to a better position with a better future in a better area, wouldn’t you? And it goes without saying that many of us would find a way to go anyplace and work for anybody if offered a substantial raise. But not all of us and maybe not even most of us.

“You can’t buy happiness” is an appropriate adage to introduce at this juncture simply because it is true. Unless, of course, you see money as a pathway to every possession that, in theory, will make you happy. There’s a few lottery winners out there that might fall into this category, but most of us define our quality of life in more diverse terms. As a result, bonuses to attract the best possible executive should be unnecessary if the whole package offers a great opportunity.

And what about the best and brightest employees? Where are the bonuses to bring in the best auto workers, or municipal clerks, or doctors, or airline pilots, or anything else? Don’t we need the brightest and best on every step of the corporate ladder? It would seem so since many companies are floundering with supposedly exceptional leadership.

How about letting these would-be corporate wizards test the job market out there and see how desirable their skill sets are? Do you really believe most executives would leave a great job at a great company if their bonus were to disappear (or at least diminish)? I don’t, but it’s high stakes poker and the suits are not only dealing, but they can see everybody else’s hand. The shareholders fold and the rest is financial history. The Board of Directors? Nah, they’re in on the scheme and hang on to their perks only so long as they enable the largess flowing to the management teams.

How about embracing the idea that money, while important, is not the be-all and end-all in the boardroom or the trenches?Once we realize that the smell of money is not all that intoxicating, we can start to reshape corporate philosophy through specific shareholder resolutions and, in the meantime, refusing to blink when threatened with the departure of some omnipotent, omniscient CEO.

Auto Emissions

Who could have ever predicted the demise, or nearly so, of Chrysler and General Motors? An easier prediction, in light of those failures, is a complete, or nearly so, revamping of the US auto manufacturing industry. What an opportunity to introduce some new technology. Auto emissions are a hot topic today (no pun intended) what with global warming, but I think we should also address another emission that, so far, has escaped scrutiny: noise.

Horns have been standard equipment on cars since the days of Henry Ford and there was a time when they served an useful purpose. But that time has gone. The “time” I mention had no drivers with cell phones or ipods nor cars with deluxe sound systems. Yesterday’s driver would give the horn a honk when pulling up to the curb so as to alert any would-be passenger. Today’s hi-tech automotive operators wouldn’t be caught dead without a way to call or text ahead and announce their impending arrival.

In today’s world, we need the horn for the express purpose of alerting others to our impending arrival into their bumper or side panel or (god forbid) windshield. We push the appropriate portion of our steering wheel, the appropriate klaxon blares into space, but the signal is rarely received because most drivers are rocking out to the latest tunes on their 8 speaker, maxi-bass, entertainment system better suited for the Hollywood Bowl. The only folks receiving the alert are pedestrians and the poor bastards with no sound system, air conditioning, or other buffer keeping the outside world at bay. While members of these two groups may well benefit from the blaring of the horn, they are both endangered species and will soon die out, regardless, so why further delay an inevitable extinction?

OK, we won’t cull out those folks, but how about this: we limit the scope of the good old car horn. If the car is stopped, you can get but one little beep out of the thing to politely alert the driver in front of you that the light has turned green or something similar. If the car is moving, a slight increase is warranted in both volume and duration so we can all beep-beep when we leave the latest family reunion or similar scene of good fellowship and frivolity. Anything louder is dependent solely upon the amount of braking action being applied. As brake pressure increases so does the volume of our not-so-distant early warning system. And, when the brakes are released, the screech of the horn disappears right along with the screech of the tires. All of a sudden, we’ve quieted our city streets and made a leisurely stroll more enjoyable. Of course, pissed off drivers must now find a new button to push in order to release their inner tension.

But let’s not stop there: while we’re at it, let’s put a sensor on the exterior of our “cars of the future” that monitors the level of music coming from the interior of the vehicle. This little wonder will modulate the volume (and, most importantly, bass) of our aforementioned sound systems when their emanations start to echo beyond the confines of the passenger compartment. We can now pull up to another car at an intersection confident in the knowledge that we will not be assaulted by random woofers and tweeters.

Small problems, you might think, as you mull over my proposition in the quiet of your home, or bath, or bathroom. But re-mull the next time you’re out in the real world surrounded by a million of your closest friends. Wouldn’t it be a nicer place without the never-ending blare? I think so.

Bigger...but Better?

Last Tuesday evening found me in New York City. Being a life-long Yankees fan, I thought it a great opportunity to take in a game and see the new, improved Yankee Stadium. I’ll return to touch this base, but let’s first look at the larger picture.

There seems to be an unwritten rule that dictates recurring events are not desirable without yearly increases in size, spectacularity, or participation. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about the local county fair or the Super Bowl: if this year’s ain’t bigger than last year’s, it ain’t better. ABC News reported last week that Brockton, MA cancelled it’s annual Memorial Day Parade for lack of funds. The next day they followed up with a story that reported the town had a change of heart (in response to an overwhelming cry of dismay) and would, indeed, proceed with the parade, albeit in a scaled-down version. The”scaling down” apparently revolved around the decision to forego a paid, big-time marching band and allow the local high school band to enjoy top billing.

Why would any town in America eschew local participants in favor of out of town, paid performers? Bigger and better, that’s why. Small town celebrations, regardless of the holiday or reason, are attractive because they care not about bigger and better. They concentrate on community and consistency. The crowds grow bigger over time due to that very fact. Specific acts may come and go, but the overall theme survives and that is a good thing.

How about Christmas? Now here is a great holiday, regardless of your religious affiliation. Gifts, food, drink, flashing lights: it’s got something for everyone. When I was a kid we’d wait not for Thanksgiving, but for the day after Thanksgiving because that’s when the Christmas season began. Literally overnight, the stores would pull out their Christmas displays and the buying spree would begin on the fourth Friday of November. The street decorations would go up earlier, of course, but nothing was turned on until the appropriate evening following the appropriate day. This was a hectic and happy period. Hectic because we had roughly five weeks to get all of our shopping and cooking done and happy because we knew that, by the end of that five weeks, we’d be more than ready to start our New Year’s diets and such while putting away the Christmas decorations for another eleven months.

Not any more, folks. The day after this year’s Christmas represents the first day of shopping for next year’s Christmas! Is it any wonder that we’re way beyond burned out by the time December 25th rolls around? Most of us are saying, “Jesus Christ, can I rest now?” with no pun intended. We’re beat, broke, and bent on avoiding the same maelstrom next year, but the powers that be conspire to defeat us before we’re out of the starting gate. Marketers start up their after-holiday sales pitches at one minute past midnight on December 26th and it’s all downhill from there.

Presidential politics is falling into the same trap by expanding the primary process to a point where it could well take four years to conduct a campaign that once involved only several months. In the 2008 election, two states (Florida and Michigan) were so bent on being the first on their block with a primary that they violated party guidelines, timing-wise, and created a hullabaloo over the status of their delegates. Without the appropriate respite between the slinging of barbs, accusations, and mud is there any wonder why voters shun the polls when election day finally rolls around?

No, “bigger and better” or “new and improved” are nothing more than marketing schemes aimed at roping in more money while delivering less. To buy into this ever-increasing philosophy invites eventual disappointment and the longing for simpler times. The one exception may involve the “enhancement” of specific parts of the male and female anatomy and I’d say that discussion is better left for another venue.

So let’s return for a moment to Yankee Stadium: it is a glorious place with state of the art electronics, more comfortable seating, and almost unlimited choices of sustenance and libation. My seat in the second deck (just outside first base) was $95. A burger, fries, and a beer was $25. New and improved doesn’t come cheap, you know. They kept the dimensions of the old stadium and tried to duplicate the theme, succeeding to a large degree. It is a smaller, but more comfortable stadium and includes, of course, luxury boxes absent from it’s predecessor. But is it better? That is a relative term to be decided upon by the individual. It is different and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Those of us that have lived long enough to see the comings and goings of hallowed locations are the only ones who notice the change. Younger eyes and minds will have to wait their turn to bid adieu to old standards while welcoming the new, bigger, and (hopefully) better.

A-mazed

The federal government has long suffered from the reputation of being too big, too slow, and too ineffective. Far be it for me to argue many of those points. I wonder, though, if the reputation is attached more to the particular entity instead of the trait it shares with many other organizations we deal with: bureaucracy.

We’ve all seen the rat in the maze as it desperately seeks out the cheese awaiting after a successful maneuvering through the labyrinth. And I’d say we’ve all felt the same way in trying to find the right person to answer our questions or concerns. Almost impossible, isn’t it? And it matters not whether we deal with a government agency or a corporate counterpart ensconced in layers of departments, divisions, and districts. The question arises whether these hierarchic obstacles are intentional or unintended consequences, but, regardless, they do not serve the customer near as well as they serve their own purposes. A few cases in point:

Homeless people in New York City will soon be faced with the requirement to pay rent at shelters where the stay was, historically, free. The city says it is merely following the orders of the state. The state says it is merely following the orders of the courts. And there you have the perfect bureaucratic storm: three different entities, leaving each to point to the other two. (You see, what with only two arms, we can point you, the customer/complainant in two different directions simultaneously. Three becomes cumbersome.)

Extended airline ground delays have created a call for a Passengers’ Bill of Rights. Once again, there are three parties involved: airports, airlines, and the air traffic control system. The airports blame the controllers and the airlines. The controllers blame the airports and airlines. And, you guessed it, the airlines blame the controllers and the airports. See what I mean? Anyone seeking answers soon becomes dismayed and disoriented in this never-ending blame game and surrenders long before satisfaction is achieved.

Looking for those that authorized torture in Gitmo and elsewhere? Good luck, because the same dead-ends and constant twists and turns that we see in the maze will wear us down long before any definitive conclusion is reached. Anyone involved will earnestly point in another direction and, in this case, there is no lack of suspects so the public will grow weary long before any indictments are handed down.

Here’s one with a slightly different slant: the recent investigation into the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, NY has brought about a cry for a change in the work rules and pay provided to regional air carrier pilots. The cry comes from the public and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and is directed at the FAA who writes such regulations. The NTSB, unfortunately, has no power to alter existing or introduce new regulations. That is the FAA’s job. The FAA has another job: to promote the air travel industry. So now, when such changes are considered, the airline industry lines up outside the FAA’s door and cries that they will go broke under such onerous demands. And the FAA is screwed (along with everybody else) because they cannot address safety while ensuring a profitable air carrier industry. So, generally, they do nothing.

Granted, my examples all fall somewhere within a governmental system, but think of your dealings with those whom you do regular business. “Oh, that’s not my department” or, “The person you need to talk to is out right now” or, “It’s out of my hands”. You name it, we’ve heard it. The bureaucracy successfully wards off the questioners, investigators, and prosecutors while protecting the precious status quo that is it’s life blood.

“So what’s the use?” you ask. A good question, perhaps, and I am hard pressed to provide a meaningful solution. To do nothing, though...to shrug and walk away serves only to embolden those that would favor obfuscation over simplicity. Keep looking for that responsible nabob who is wreaking havoc in your life. In so doing you’ll send a message that someone is paying attention.

One last thought: we are hearing alot about “transparency” as an answer to our confusion. This is supposed to provide everyone a closer look at the goings-on within any bureaucracy. While that may be true, it does nothing to address the circuitous routes and endless u-turns found in the aforementioned rat maze. So what we now have is a maze whose walls are clear rather than opaque: we can see the cheese, but we are no closer to our nibble than before. Feel any better?