1. Must be willing to pay $5000 training fee for Second-in-Command (SIC) type rating in Canadian Regional Jet (CRJ).
2. Current Drivers License
3. PC with Internet access, and cell phone.
4. Green card (preferred)
5. Positive attitude (team player highly valued)
6. Ability to sleep in narrow aisle way (preferred)
7. Must be able to lift 50lbs.
8. Knowledge of aviation lingo (preferred)

Duties to include:

• Sit in right seat to satisfy Federal requirement.
• Load/unload baggage
• De-ice aircraft
• Perform routine maintenance procedures
• Fuel aircraft (when operationally required)
• Wash/clean galley
• Dump and service lavatory
• Ensure all federal regulations are complied with

Company will provide training on government assistance.
10 company shares of stock to be awarded upon 5 years service with company.

Minimum requirements are subject change without notice, and are not restrictive. Six-year bi-lateral contract required; fifteen thousand dollar early termination fee applies, including training failure event on pilot's permanent FAA record.

There's been lots of wonkish discussion (and even an editorial in the WSJ recently) about "Open Skies" to make it easier for US and European airlines to compete in each other's regions. Of course, anything that makes air travel cheaper is good for the consumer, right?

Been on a passenger jet lately? Comfortable wasn't it? I'm especially impressed with the comfy RJ seats.

I'd rather be a box.

Then there's the airline pilot career field. The above list may be a joke, but it isn't far off. Plus, an airline owner's principal function, given the standard profit margin of 1 to 2 percent in the industry as a whole, is to maximize hours worked and minimize pay and benefits for those actually doing the flying.

While it's grossly unfair, not to mention tedious and unoriginal, to just write them off as evil, rapacious capitalists, there is something to be said for the perennially grotesque relationship between airline management and labor. See Frank Lorenzo for a taste...and note the link is a government website.

Deregulation is, at least hypothetically, a good thing in most cases but the net effect for air travel has been, to put it mildly, somewhat disappointing. I doubt American consumers today are leaning forward in the foxhole to complement the industry as a whole on its efficiency, reliability or reputation for making air travel a pleasant experience. The exception proves the rule.

I avoid air travel as much as possible in my job, and I'm an airline pilot.

Not counting First and Business Class, the best seat is in the front with the special windows that allow one to see forward. Luckily for me, I work in a industry niche where the crews have, to date, been able to avoid the insane scheduling associated with the vast majority of the industry. The regional guys have it the worst...low pay, long hours and an environment that makes mishaps more likely thanks to chronic fatigue. You don't want to know how experienced the guys in front are...or aren't...or how many legs they've flown already that day...or how many mistakes are made in any given flight, despite the number of people on the flight deck.

Alas, management is driven to do what it does by the market and labor is driven to do what they do...by the market. So, while the WSJ editors may celebrate the death, for all practical purposes, of labor unions in the US and encourage a cutthroat competitive landscape among the airlines, my guess is they don't have a clue about the industry at the worker bee level.

But this is the same mentality that sees nothing but good things in a cheap labor pool, whether they be illegal aliens or low-wage foreign airline crews who have little, if any, leverage to insist on safe and sane schedules and competent maintenance practices. Nothing's perfect, not even entrepreneurial capitalism. That's why we have an FAA, but they're overwhelmed.

Just ask their folks that track how the airlines are taking care of their jets--maintenance is now usually outsourced to places/countries you don't want to know about. Maintenance actions are no longer required to be done by fully-qualified Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) techs (FAA-certified aircraft mechanics), just that the final paperwork is signed off by one.

Now, let's extrapolate a bit. If the A&P function can be done by unqualified foreigners, why can't the planes that carry passengers in the United States be flown by unqualified (or shall we say "less experienced foreign") pilots? That's probably not gonna happen, yet. For now, it's too politically explosive because it would be so glaringly obvious in that it would allow the bad guys to eliminate a step in their attack plan. Why storm the cockpit when you can get yourself hired to work there to begin with?

But back to explosives. I wonder how many airplanes could be sabotaged while going through depot maintenance in, say, Pakistan. From the people who bring you world-class customer service for your malfunctioning laptop, I give you...engine overhauls and wingspar inspections by Ali and Mohammed, the Beltbomb Boys! (With apologies to Fred and Mort.) Think Pakistan would be non-starter? OK. How about France? They build the Airbus, which you fly on all the time. They also overhaul them. They also hire high-risk profile individuals to handle luggage at Charles de Gaulle. Maybe the Brits are doing the work...hmmmm. No, I don't think we're immune from this kind of infiltration either, but I think we do a much better job of preserving a society that still favors assimilation over the Eurabian ghettos springing up all over that continent and in that light believe we should stick to US-based and FAA-monitored maintenance depots and their technicians.

So I guess you'll have to forgive me for belonging to a union that lobbies against an unbridaled approach to the US airline business. Now, before you write me off as a bomb-throwing Trotskyite, understand that I don't agree with all they preach. It's fairly obvious they support Democrats uncritically 'cause they're pro-union (and lately, thuggishly so), despite the Party's utter cowardice in the war against the Islamofacsist menace. While I can't prove it (yet), I'm sure some of my dues support the political goals of a Party I find, at times, in almost conscious cooperation with enemies of the West and civilization as a whole. Single-issue mindsets are almost always self-destructive and ALPA's organizational philosophy, while somewhat understandable, is no exception. Moreover, it's hard to argue that the pilots' union, like the auto industry's, has often been its own worst enemy. Conversely, when a company unionizes, I personally think that's a pretty damning indictment of its management. It's a freakin' mess in this business and I had a solution.

Bottom line? The union is a necessary evil in a world where management sees labor as an enemy to be conquered, not an ally to be supported, and vice versa. ALPA, for all its flaws, is right now the only labor-oriented vehicle available that I'm aware of that has any chance of influencing how things are done, I guess.

Now, with all that said, if I ended up with a choice between voting against capitulation in the war on militant Islam or for a Party that thought union issues, national health care, and global warming were more important, I'd go with the former in a hearbeat, even if it meant national policies that reduced my pay, increase my workload...or even cost me my job. BUT, we're not quite there yet. And, given the nature of the industry where I earn a living, the unions are a necessary tool in assuring--or at least trying to assure--that employee working conditions meet an essential minimum level and safety doesn't always take a back seat to revenue generation.

So, how's that for expanding the topics found on a milblog?