Here's a chart showing airline fatalities over the past century. In 1980, at about the same time that commercial airlines began hiring Black and women pilots, fatalities began a 30-year decline to zero:
This is not a smoking gun. Fatalities likely went down for reasons of their own that were unrelated to civil-rights era hiring practices. Nonetheless, it almost certainly shows that "DEI hires" didn't produce any increase in accidents or fatalities. The evidence is flatly inconsistent with that.
So don't worry about the color or gender of your pilot the next time you board an airplane. It doesn't matter.
It's clear that Trump's and Musk's objection to Black and women pilots is that they are racist. No need to dig any further.
You forgot "sexist."
your forgot "dumb"
Find Online Jobs (8000$-95000$ Weekly) safe and secure! Easy Acces To Information. Simple in use. All the Answers. Multiple sources combined. Fast and trusted. Discover us now! Easy & Fast, 99% Match....
open this site ↠↠☛ https://rebrand.ly/workjoin
Yup. White patriarchy. That's all it's ever been about.
Our neighbor is a captain for Southwest. She is an immigrant from Germany. She came here because the path to airline pilot was blocked 20 years ago. She has related many interesting incidents while flying. You don't want to know what goes on up front.
My wife is a pilot. I got her back into flying after 55 years. She is flying the wings off her 172. Both of these women are the types I want to be flying with.
Juan Browne is a good link about aircraft incidents.
A noble effort, but alas, as always with Republicans, mere facts are irrelevant.
It is a central pillar of the Faith that non-cishet-White-males are less capable and therefore less deserving. All else springs from that. If a pilot is female or Black or (heaven forfend!) Trans, then of course he/she/they got their job because of some UNFAIR advantage. And it is an OUTRAGE!
See also any government benefits and any private-sector job. (Exceptions will be made for talented athletes who provide good entertainment.)
I want to fly on an airline that has a good safety culture, and pilots who are well trained (no failed check rides or simulator assessments), and follow the airline / manufacturer / FAA rules and standard operation procedures to the letter. I certainly don't want pilots who are worried about the cost to the airlines of flight delays, go arounds, or diversions.
I am very glad to see Kevin in good enough health to blog. That being said, I will now point out that I think his blog post is stupid:
"This is not a smoking gun. Fatalities likely went down for reasons of their own that were unrelated to civil-rights era hiring practices. Nonetheless, it almost certainly shows that 'DEI hires' didn't produce any increase in accidents or fatalities. The evidence is flatly inconsistent with that."
Just stop. Is the Left even interested in winning? In the aftermath of the cataclysm that was the 2024 election, I am increasingly convinced that it isn't. The Left, rather, seems mainly preoccupied in its attempt to prop up ideologies that are increasingly rejected by a clear majority of the electorate.
If we want to keep losing, by all means keep trying to support DEI, men on women's sports teams, and open borders. But if the Democrats ever feel an interest in winning again, they will have to instead promote merit (not race-based preferences), basic fairness (not the obliteration of women's sports), and serious security measures (not streets, shelters, and hotels overrun with refugees and immigrants).
And I would add that it just doesn't matter who is better on things like immigration according to the charts that someone like Kevin often comes up with. I do in fact find those charts interesting. But you know who doesn't? Most voters! What mainly matters to them are things like rhetoric and perception. And, whereas Biden made statements explicitly declaring that America can just absorb a million immigrants in a heartbeat, Trump's rhetoric obviously calls for more security. And you know which message is more popular? Well, I would say that in the 2024 election, the winning message on immigration clearly belonged to Trump.
So, that's my advice (though I realize no one here likes my advice): knock it off. The Left has lost the public on DEI. It has lost the public through trans rights extremism. It has lost the public on immigration. And if it wants to win the public back, the Dem party will have to moderate on these and other issues.
OK. So what's the correct play? Should Dems continue to support equality under the law for all citizens, but only quietly? Or do they need to join forces with the GOP to deny it to disfavored minorities?
Tell me what "moderation on these and other issues" looks like. Pretend I'm as dumb as you think I am.
@QuakerInBasement:
I think this is a good question:
"OK. So what's the correct play? Should Dems continue to support equality under the law for all citizens, but only quietly?"
But the problem for Dems is that most citizens understand ideologies like DEI to be OPPOSED to "equality under the law for all citizens."
And if any Dems fail to understand that point (see Kamala Harris), then I don't think they have a future in national American politics.
Ignoring racism, sexism, and other biases is the default strategy. It has never worked. If you ask them, people always say they consider only merit. But this default strategy has reserved the perks of society for the authors of oppression. These meritocrats hire Pete Hegseth and his like. It turns our providing an opposing motivation to counter bias works *to counter bias*. But the Pete Hegseths of the world perceive this as prejudice against them.
I think you are entirely wrong. People are getting a crash course in who is competent and it isn't the anti-DEI folks. There is going to be a huge correction and the bigots will be back in the wilderness again for a time. And I for one want to be on the right side of history.
@dfhoughton:
LOL!
"But this default strategy has reserved the perks of society for the authors of oppression."
It is just astounding to me that the Left doesn't get it, but if you keep talking about the "authors of oppression" then you will continue to discredit yourself and, ultimately, to self-destruct.
If the Democrats are to have a future as a national party, they need to break from the Leftists who remain obsessed with supposedly "systemic" power structures of oppression.
And if Dems can no longer come up with a viable national candidate who breaks with that ideology, then they are effectively done.
Isn't it weird the resident bigot wants to make sure that bigotry isn't punished and that those from diverse backgrounds aren't included, and see no equity in treatment?
Say the words, Leo.
There you go again.
Americans support equality of treatment, not equity.
See, that's where you are flat out wrong. Americans SAY they support equality of treatment, but only some of them do. Mainly, the LEFT you like to pillory.
"most citizens understand ideologies like DEI to be OPPOSED to "equality under the law for all citizens.""
Only the really stupid ones think this. Like you.
@ColBatGuano:
Trump has positioned himself on the side of the common man. His executive order (or at least one of them) ending DEI is called: “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity”
And by casting himself as the foe of racial discrimination and the champion of a merit based society, Trump appears as the moderate. The Dems (and this appears to include Kevin) who continue to insist on a DEI system that forces us to make race-based determinations, appear to be the dangerous radicals. And in this case, as in most cases, the perceived moderate will win.
That same dynamic plays out with trans issues and with the border. Trump has adopted the moderate positions and the Left is apparently determined to continue portraying itself as the extremist. Trump will win again.
So if the Dems want a future, they must break with the dogmatic Left. That's all there is to it.
"That same dynamic plays out with trans issues and with the border. Trump has adopted the moderate positions"
OMG, this is hilarious. Punching down on trans people is MODERATE? Separating families is MODERATE?
Policy based on fear of others is not moderate. It's cowardly, cheap, easy, lazy, and ignorant, but it's not moderate. Punching down on groups in no position to defend themselves is bullying, nothing more.
Your stupidity just keeps increasing.
Trans women in sports impacts an very tiny number of people so anyone all exercised about this (either pro or con) needs to get with the program. This is an exceedingly minor issue easily solved by local school districts and sports organizations.
As for DEI, the way you are scare mongering this makes me think you are a very very concerned concern troll. Maybe I'm wrong. But "DEI" simply means diversity, equity, and inclusion. It's possible, like any effort to make things better, that certain DEI efforts have gone too far in some cases. But the idea that it is some dangerous ideology out to destroy equality under the law is just absurd. Though I agree that the right has done a good job of scare mongering the term.
To illustrate just how ridiculous this fear of DEI is, just look at the elite colleges, where being a part of a traditionally excluded class (women, minorities) is can not be considered, but being a legacy or having a Dad rich enough to donate a new wing the library, well I guess that's just the meritocracy at work.
The people pushing this fear mongering are racist Nazis like Elon Musk or woman hating nerds like JD Vance. Please get a grip.
@realrobmac:
You offer a good summary of why the Democrats lost to Trump in 2024.
"Trans women in sports impacts an very tiny number of people so anyone all exercised about this (either pro or con) needs to get with the program. This is an exceedingly minor issue"
Kamala Harris made almost the exact same assertion, referring to trans rights (or the questions raised by trans rights extremism) as a fringe issue. And, in case you didn't notice, she lost.
Dems and the Left keep pushing these same points even after these very points helped elect Donald Trump (of all people!) to a second term, and that is simply one of the greatest and most inexplicable wonders of my entire life.
How do you not see a lost cause and a losing platform when it is simply staring you right in the face?
Comments like yours help to convince me that we might be looking at another 1980s scenario: Republican presidents for more than a decade!
I agree that trans panic had an impact in the election. I don't know that the issue of girls' sports was so important so much as people being afraid of yukky looking trans people (and a lot of men in drag) in the anti-Kamala ads that the Trump campaign ran, along with her extremely stupid and ill-advised unprompted statement that the government should fund sex-change operations for illegal immigrants in prison.
Yeah, she said that. It was incredibly stupid and not a policy I would in any way agree with. And also this (granting free sex changes to illegal immigrants in prison) is not something that has ever happened. But whatever. Who cares about democracy when you might have to think about a yukky trans person, right?
Leo (and now you are) is spreading fake news.
No trans immigrant had surgery paid for, none requested any surgery. And no, Harris did not say they'd pay for 'sex change surgery' which is just a misnomer in itself.
Don't be fucking ignorant.
she said something i interpret as exactly what realrobmac said:
The questionnaire asked: “As President, will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?”
She responded yes, adding that “it is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-transgender-operations-illegal-aliens-debate-claim/story?id=113584635
And that was not a good answer politically, whether you support the underlying policy or not.
Also, let's get with the program here. Kamala did not exactly lose Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale style. She lost by about 1.5%. Or looked at another way, by about 100,000 votes in 3 key states. (And if you are keeping score, in the last 9 presidential elections the Democrats won the most votes in 7).
Fear of inflation, the Biden administrations failure to take credit for anything good that happened in the past 4 years, and just a lot of people's general hesitation in voting for a woman to be president likely had a MUCH greater impact than this trans and DEI stuff.
If we are on the cusp of 12 years of Republican rule it will have more to do with the fact that Republicans may not allow us to have elections, or if they do, they will decide who gets to vote and who counts the votes and make sure that all of that adds up to Republican victories. After all they love Putin and Victor Orban and that is their playbook.
Well said!
Just want to point out that the repeated assertion that ""trans women in sports impacts an very tiny number of people" is not accurate.
The bulk of the complaints about allowing trans women to compete on girls' teams comes from cis girls and their families/representatives, as trans women have been accused of supplanting qualified cis women in key team positions. Whatever the merits of this argument, it remains untrue that "only" trans persons are impacted.
Citation definitely needed regarding what "most citizens understand."
But that aside, the notion that "equality under the law for all citizens" somehow magically occurs when, to use John Roberts's famous phrase, we "stop discriminating based on race" is laughably naive, to the point that I suspect it's invoked mostly in bad faith.
Racial -- and sexual, and religious, and identity-based --discrimination is widespread and material today, as ongoing research in, eg, hiring and housing shows consistently and routinely. DEI, and similar efforts, are means of ensuring "equality under the law for all citizens."
SOME people -- including privileged people who not only don't recognize their privilege but believe they're entitled to its benefits -- may think otherwise, but they are at best ignorant and at worst shamefully bigoted.
You didn't answer. No surpirse there.
There really is no way to interpret this comment beyond, "Democrats have to be comfortable with allowing discrimination against women and people of color."
In other words, Leo continues his tradition of bigotry.
+1
“It worked for a hundred years during Jim Crow. Both Democrats and Republicans just ignored all black people’s and most women’s wants and needs and the country’s politics ran just great!” - a future Leo post, undoubtedly.
+1
Please do not insult our intelligence by using the collective pronoun "we" when referring to ..... something that you think you belong to. It surely can't be "The Left", so it must be "the Democratic Party". If so, it's the "Democratic Party" of 1918 and Woodrow Wilson.
Leo is how Germany managed to democratically elect Hitler and the Nazis to power. Leo is how both major parties in America ignored Jim Crow for a century. “Being antisemitic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and generally ignorant on every topic is what the voters want! So the parties should give it to them! There’s no room for a party to have any morals whatsoever, winning is all that matters.”
Leo’s soul - if he even has one - is that of a total whore. Anything you must do for money and/or power is good. I’d rather lose elections than lose my moral integrity and human decency like the Leos of the world have.
Dude, seriously, you need to spend less time online!
Actually, we need you to spend less time online.
"I am increasingly convinced . . . "
You? Who are you?
"the cataclysm that was the 2024 election"
I love how the first time in a generation that a republican presidential candidate manages to actually win the popular vote (although still only a *plurality,* not a majority of votes, unlike the last three times a Democrat got elected, which each time involved an outright majority for the Dem) gets spun up as some sort of epochal-disaster repudiation of any and every little thing associated with the Democratic party.
The 2024 election was very close. A lot of it was due to Americans being upset because Egg Price Too Big. And, yeah, it might be helpful if Democratic talking points about how it sure would be nice if the government weren't dicks to trans people was couched in terms of universal rights and how here in America, people get to do and be whatever they want and that's awesome.
But, while I fully agree that the Trump presidency is an unfolding cataclysm, pretending that a narrow election in which the Dems actually picked up a couple of House seats was some sort of sign that the Democratic party is forever deeply unpopular is just not rational.
The 2024 Dem candidate for President didn’t just lose, she lost to Donald Trump. Not Reagan. Trump!
If the Dem party cannot wrap its head around what an utter repudiation that is, and adjust accordingly, then they’re dead in the water, and they deserve to lose again!
There are lots of stupid racists like you in this country.
The persistence in people's belief that, contrary to all evidence, Trump is a weak candidate means that they do not understand American politics at all. So, Leo is an ignorant bigot.
Fatalities likely went down for reasons of their own that were unrelated to civil-rights era hiring practices.
I'm going to differ on that. Certainly there were reasons unrelated to hiring practices, but I'd like to suggest that hiring practices at least contributed to the improved safety record. Why? If you broaden your pool from which you hire to include females and non-whites, you're going to have a bigger pool and likely more qualified candidates than if you restrict your pool to only white males. That's the inherent contradiction to the criticism of DEI: a bigger pool will give you more qualified candidates, not fewer.
Is DEI solely about broadening the pool, or is it also about choosing from which parts of the pool to pick? Ostensibly, with this broader pool, a selection process which was otherwise blind to matters of race or sex (yes, assuming such a thing were really possible) should be just fine.
In practice, an enterprise using DEI as their highing policy would select a diverse candidate from among roughly equally qualified individuals. If your white male candidate is clearly the best candidate, he gets the job.
How rough is roughly? The rougher it is, the more it would seem DEI is about from which parts of the pool to pick.
i can't help but wonder what % of people actually believe DEI is causing plane crashes because they are racists and sexists, vs what % don't believe it but say it anyway because they are racist and sexist.
And what percent say it so as not to become of a target of the gun nuts always threatening Second Amendment solutions.
Kevin unsure if skin tone affects piloting ability
dude, that's such a disingenuous take on what kevin's saying i'm embarrassed for you.
When I’m getting on a flight and see a female pilot I’m always relieved because I figure at least one person in the cockpit isn’t a macho asshole. And female pilots are still rare enough that I still figure she had to be extra good and extra dedicated to get to the level of flying a large commercial jet.
I agree. The country is so sexist that any woman in a highly skilled "man's" job is likely to be above average.
I can’t speak for today but 30 years ago I built an astonishing career by being twice as competent as the men around me (which frankly, wasn’t hard). You can resent the fact that you have to be twice as good or you can just do it and reap the rewards.
This. The very few female pilots I’ve had seem to actually communicate more about what’s going on - “folks we have some turbulence ahead that we’re going to try to get around” - and seem less likely to be embarrassed to do go arounds or take their time during takeoffs and landings. Men are risk takers and all the really rough flights I’ve taken had all male cockpit crews.
My father helped me with the purchase of a small motorcycle when I got my learners driver permit - which did not allow me to carry a passenger till I got my full permit. My mother was not pleased, but he said it was safer than my having a car because: "At least I know there won't be more than one asshole in the vehicle!"
That isn't what I'm worried about.
I'm worried if there will be air traffic controllers, or if the system will work stably after Musk's boy geniuses have hacked around with it.
Part of the problem for the collision in DC was because Congress hadn't appropriated enough funds so the air traffic controller was working two channels, and didn't have time to confirm all of the communications with the helicopter.
Since apparently the helicopter didn't hear all of the orders.
From https://abc7ny.com/amp/post/dc-plane-crash-reagan-airport-traffic-control-tower-combined-2-positions-1-ahead-deadly-collision/15850073/
The problem is having Army helicopters flying in congested airspace under visual flight rules, for which the pilots were responsible for separation under "see and avoid" rules. Flying at a required altitude of under 200 feet when jets are in final approach at approximately 400 feet, is a ridiculously small safety margin.
70+ years of commercial aviation has shown that see and avoid does not work.
The choice then would seem to be between cancelling the "continuity of government" (get the politicos the hell out of dodge) program/training of the Army/military, or closing DCA.
This. To which I'd add that there is absolutely no fucking reason for a military helicopter to be flying training maneuvers at night right next to a busy civilian airport.
In sane times, we'd be demanding Hegseth's head and there would be public outrage putting pressure on the administration to fix the problem. Instead, the incident from last month is largely already forgotten.
Correct. Let them buy a few more multi million dollar simulators (with all that DOGE savings) and have military pilots train flying the Potomac at night in safety. Right now Reagan International AP flights are facing long delays whenever Mango Mussolini is flying in Marine One.
Perhaps another solution is to put military flights on IFR subject to ATC control whenever they approach busy civilian airports. Better that than to rely on eyeballs at night, traffic warnings from ATC, and 200 feet of altitude clearance (with both aircraft being flown manually at that time).
There had to be an article about this?!
Likely as not, Kevin is still stuck in bed. Either at home, or at the hospital. What else has he got to do? Play golf?-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVDYulgH4NY
There is an ongoing court case about the FAA’s hiring process (link below). The plaintiffs allege that the FAA engaged in hiring discrimination, but not that the FAA did anything that would result in an unqualified person working as an air traffic controller. Regardless of the fairness of the hiring process, once a person is hired, they go through two or more years of training and evaluation. If they make it through this process successfully, they start working as an air traffic controller. So a hypothetical “DEI hire” will either demonstrate the ability to be an air traffic controller or will be let go.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4542755/brigida-v-united-states-department-of-transportation/