Could it be possible that the lack of competition for the solicitation and reported, "deficient", documentation supported this simple business decision? On the other hand, I've visited Botswana Africa and driven on "new highways" built by "Chinese" firms that were as smooth as a dirt pasture road and heard conversations (i.e., complaints) from residents about the operational failures of new coal-fired electric generating plants, also built by Chinese firms in Botswana. Perhaps folks in the Philippines are prudent decision makers in infrastructure improvement decisions.

(Written on 29-01-2021)(Permalink)

I realize people can have degrees of "emotional stability", but as for airline travel and inherent emergency awareness protocols, how is an animal safer/better than a communicative human being? Given the foisted logic favoring animal airline travel the alleged "emotional support" animals should also be allowed in hotel swimming pools, workout facility saunas, ambulances, hospital emergency/operating rooms etc., etc.

(Written on 08-01-2021)(Permalink)

Mr. Buck, your response here reinforces the after-the-fact, "form over function", finger pointing procedural exercises and personal titles/certificates that, in and of themselves, are not a substitute for hands-on, take full personal responsibility, decision-making. Thank you for your validation of our federal bureaucracy's "smoke screen". procedural ineptness.

(Written on 21-12-2020)(Permalink)

What is the basis for your opinion the FAA is; "caving and still giving up oversight to industry"? Are you opining about the entrenched infrastructure of Washington D.C.'s Avenue K lobbyist who continue to oppose term-limits and/or a reduction in the ever expanding "administrative state" bureaucracy? The FAA"s alleged "ball dropping" over the 737 MAX issues was not a "one off" failure of a bloated federal government "political class" that continues to hide behind the shield of federal regulation. Throwing more money at a problem rarely solves the problem.

(Written on 18-12-2020)(Permalink)

The return to service "oversight" should be monitored by certified/licensed independent "hired pilots" who are not stockholders of Boeing, friends and family, or have an "axe to grind" bias against Boeing's return to service initiative(s). In turn, where is the taxpayer funded assumed FAA expertise oversight in this discussion (i.e. responsibility for pilot licensing)? The FAA needs to step up and get some skin in the game, or stop taking taxpayer funding as a qualified overseer. "The secret to change is to focus all your energy, not on the old, but on building the new." SOCRATES

(Written on 18-12-2020)(Permalink)

With this reported direct "pilot hire" and real-time inflight operations review, it appears Boeing has decided to take full control oversight of the 737 MAX relaunch to assure the integrity of a legitimate return-to-service program. If the FAA would take a similar move with a focus on hiring actual "field-trained" ground and inflight personnel, perhaps the federal regulatory oversight would be a less "friends and family hire" bloated federal bureaucracy and become a lean, industry literate, effective oversight agency. The media should conduct a thorough "nepotism" review of federal government agencies. From my armchair observations, most of the "after the fact" 737 MAX manufacturer issues, the FAA accused Boeing of, should have been addressed as they occurred not as after-the-fact incident/accident "CYA" counter accusations. An improved efficacy standard for industry should equally apply to federal regulatory agencies; after all, federal taxes are fleeced from citizens to su

(Written on 18-12-2020)(Permalink)

I believe you are spot on. When interested parties "pull the wagon" in the same direction business enterprises, organizations and even marriages prosper. All for one and one for all is still a viable motto referencing loyalty; if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

(Written on 20-10-2020)(Permalink)

The USPS and a for-profit competitive business enterprise (i.e., ("SWA"), in not a qualified comparison. Regardless, my original point deals with management's quality versus quantity. ("SWA") essential employee roster is regulated by direct payroll budget expense/benefit ratio limits. When management payroll expansion ignores direct expense/benefit ratio limits, an out-of-balance/touch situation occurs. There is no limit to how little people can do; a plausible USPS analysis.

(Written on 19-10-2020)(Permalink)

Your assumption is "the conservative values" (i.e., Herb Kelleher's values) remain to be passed on. My point is, had the original "conservative values" been in place, there would be no pay cut confrontation between essential employees and parasitic management. An industry's market vulnerability usually originates with out-of-touch/balance management values versus employee values. In a customer relations-based industry, management should be process promoted up through the ranks. How many retired pilots, flight attendant and/or baggage handlers are sitting in the ("SWA") headquarters "management positions"?

(Written on 19-10-2020)(Permalink)

For those familiar with the "David and Goliath" type story of Southwestern Airlines ("SWA"), you understand that ("SWA") didn't destroy "Goliath" (i.e., legacy carriers); they merely reduced his nutrition (i.e., revenue stream) thereby weakening and diminishing his dominance. Then as ("SWA") began standing tall on the industry's competitive battlefield, they began following the same bloated administrative business bureaucracy growth that made "Goliath" susceptible to revenue stream attacks. Pilots, Flight Attendants, ticket/gate agents, baggage handlers, schedulers etc., etc. (i.e. essential employees), are what made ("SWA") a customer preferred airline. Given the current abnormal industry environment, if ("SWA") reduced the number of Vice Presidents, Union operatives and other non-essential (i.e, non-customer-related) fixed-cost administrative bureaucracy, then and only then, should a "Pay Cut" for essential employees be placed on the table. If ("SWA") made such a decision the

(Written on 16-10-2020)(Permalink)