June 4, 2026 • 14 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Fifty five KR and see the talk station eight twenty nine.
On a Thursday, it's a good time to be tuned
at the fifty five Tharessey Morning Show from my subjective
point of view, because get iHeartMedia aviation expert Jay Rats
to join the program and talk about sometimes quite comical
issues in aviation. My friend, welcome back to the morning show.
It's always great having you on.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Pleasure to good morning to you, my friend.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hey, I can live on what you made in an hour.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yesterday, Hey, Jerry was making dinner. She was making cube steak,
and I was in my office shuffling a few papers,
looked up, saw a couple of stocks that were moving,
and yeah, she was making the cube steak for dinner.
I made that at a ninety two hundred.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Dollars in an hour. I could live on that hourly rate.
Joe Strekker just left the building to go sign up
for your training class on trading.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Anyway.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, that's what Jay does and he does really well
at it. Anyways, pivoty back over to aviation news, which
is why you're really here. A turtle turtle, Yeah, in the.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Dallas Airport, we had a turn that was out sunning itself,
and you had a plane that was departing and had
a rather comical exchange with air traffic control saying that
you know, I got this turtle out here on the
middle of the runway, right on the center line, just
happy as could be, just sitting there. And of course
it's an issue because anytime you've got a plane landing
(01:20):
or taking off, it's a critical moment of flight and
you don't want to have something out there that you're
going to strike that can prevent somebody from taking off,
or an issue with an aircraft landing, so it becomes
a problem. So we have birds a lot of times
we talk about as far as a collision with wildlife,
but we also have deer the jump fences and they're
(01:41):
out there and sometimes get impacted by an aircraft. We
have that happened quite a bit at night. We've had
moose that have been hit, alligators, snakes, fish, if you
can believe it, that aircraft have encountered out on the runway,
and yeah, turtles. So this was a situation where you
had some flight delayed because of a very content turtle
(02:01):
on the runway, and you know, we're at the airport
A lot of times and see those vehicles going up
and down the runway. That's what they're looking for. Any
sort of what we call FOD for an object debris
that might have fallen off of an aircraft or could
be you know, some wildlife or remains of wildlife, you know,
that might have been left there by another.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Critter or some crazy random dude who comes thinks it's
appropriate to go running out of the runway and ends
up getting well mowed over or ingested.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah, that's that's happened. Well, it's breakfast time. I'm trying
to be trying to be delicate here, but yes, it's
it's not a good thing when that takes place.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Okay, since you provided us a list of random animals
and other critters who have been on runways in the past,
I just have to ask, because you know, I've seen
shark nato. I did waste an hour and fifteen minutes
of my life watching that. Any sharks obviously a joke there, Jay,
unless you tell me yes, there's this instance of a shark,
cause you did mention fish not yet.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well, yeah, because sometimes bird will catch birds will catch
and drop them and they'll be on the runway and
that can create a problem if it's sucked into an engine,
because you know, birds and fish and different types of things.
But to my knowledge, in the thirty six years I've
been doing this, I don't think I've encountered a shark
issue on a runway. But you never say never, not
(03:17):
in this world.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Never say never. I will move. Since this is a
lighthearted topic to talk about before we get to United
Airlines and their upgrades and engine fires and that kind
of thing, let's talk about visibly intoxicated passengers. What's this
all about with Alaska Airlines?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Jay, Alaska Airlines have been fine, well, it's a proposed fine.
It's not going to be this, but the FAA, federally
of the AASH Administration is proposing one hundred and sixty
five thousand dollars fine because in the twelve month period
of February twenty twenty four to February of twenty twenty five,
there were eleven instances where passengers boarded aircraft that became
(03:57):
a problem, and in the investigation it was determined, you know,
these people were pretty intoxicated in the in the gate area,
and the airline never should have let them on the
plane because that creates a safety issue for the flight attendants,
for the crew, for the passengers, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So, yeah, they have this proposed fine, and I keep
saying proposed because that's what it is. It's going to
be negotiated down to some insane low number as long
as Alaska promises never to do it again or do
a better job. We have these maintenance sometimes finds of
you know, eleven million dollars that's proposed and they negotiated
down to one million. If they, you know, promise to
(04:36):
change this or that. It drives me crazy because I
want to negotiate down a smeeting ticket, but I don't
think they're gonna let me do that. I can't go
to the irs and say, you know, can we negotiate
this number down as far as what I've got to pay,
That's not going to work. But with airlines, they they're
just no serious consequences a lot of times for some
of the garbage they keep pulling.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Well, I got to imagine this happened, was this would
happen more often considering you know, the restrictions on it.
Alcohol consumptions on planes and you can't buy like nine drinks,
so people load up ahead of time and then get
on the plane, because well, some people are stressed out overflying,
and I can certainly understand that, but this is an
FAA rule regarding the regarding an existing obligation on airlines
(05:17):
to prevent drunks from getting on the plane. They I
mean they knew about this ahead of time.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Yeah, Because if you see somebody acting in a certain behavior,
it's it's it is the responsibility of the airline to
try to keep those kinds of problems off of a
off of a flight that could create a safety issue
or a diverted flight, or something else that might happen
on board an aircraft. Because you know, you can never
say to somebody, you know, you appear to be intoxicated,
(05:42):
I'm not going to let you on the flight. You
can say that they appear to be under the influence
of something that's causing them to act this or that
It could be medication, it could be a whole bunch
of other things that make people act in a certain way.
Somebody may have spilled a drink on them. It may
smell like alcohol, but maybe not had a drink at all,
and it's just a change in medical that's causing him
to act in a certain way. So, but the FAA
(06:04):
saying the airlines are responsible for making sure that you
don't have a problem getting on an airplane, and they
had so many of these in that twelve month period
of time. That's one of the reasons that the find
was proposed. And I can't recall ever that we had
the FAA do this. I'm sure that they have. But
keep in mind these gate agents, a lot of them
are short staffed. You've got a short window, you are
(06:25):
under an incredible pressure to dispatch that silver revenue tube
on time. And oh yeah, by the way, I've got
to stop and look at every passenger comes on board
to make sure they're walking straight. Sometimes that's asking a
bit much of them, given some of the conditions that
we see, at least in today's airports.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yeah, and I would think out of it about it's
a caution for fear that there might be some repercussions
against the airline for erroneously flagging someone that they got
to tread lightly and actually telling someone they can't get
on the plane.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
We went through tons of training on just how to
address that specific conversation, let alone to carry it out.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, let's bring Jay Ratliff back other interesting topics, voting
Europe doing something that Jay Ratliff has been advocating here
on our segment for as long as we've been fifty
five KRC the Talk Station. Have you ever been in
a cockpit before Jay Ratliffs, He's I heard, met the
aviation expert and we get the pleasure of his company
every Thursday beginning at eight thirty for a few segments
talking about aviation. Is Jay Rattler pivoting over? Hey, at
(07:19):
least Europe listen to you?
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Well, I mean, the idea of consequences for your actions
on board a flight, I think is something that makes
common sense. But uh, you know, somebody acts up on
a flight in the United States, especially when it's a
physical altercation. You and I have talked about that so
many times before. It's a shame where somebody pushes a
flight attendant, pushes a passenger something like that, and they're
(07:43):
banned from that airline for the rest of their life,
as they should be, But then they can just skip
down the counter to another airline and off they go.
In Europe, they're saying, if you have somebody that is
aggressively or has assaulted a passenger or a crew member
not only should be banned on that airline, but all
the European carriers. Now. I don't know if it's for
(08:03):
a period of time or if it's a lifetime ban,
but certainly I think, you know, three years, two years,
five years, something. The problem is airlines would then be
required in the United States here to create this database,
to share this database, and it would take time, energy, money,
and they're not going to do it because airlines are cheap.
I remember when the pandemic was coming around, the government
(08:27):
was asking for the airline's help in establishing lists of
passengers on certain flights so that they could provide to
the CDC information on anybody that might have been impacted
or coming from a specific area, and the airline said no,
it would cost too much money. These are the same
airlines where the executives pull hamstrings running to the microphones
(08:47):
talking about how much they care and how safeties are
number one concerned and how blah blah blah blah. But no, no, no, no,
no no. If that were the case, actions would actually
support those kinds of claims which are too often do
not true.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
But I mean, we do have no fly list I mean,
lists are created all the time. It doesn't seem to
be a big ask. You got a person who's obviously
identified that airline itself can ban and does ban individuals
from flying. Ever, again, let's say just have them share
the information like a central database. It doesn't seem like
that huge of an ask.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Jay, It's not, but it requires effort, money and time,
and airlines have pushed back on this from day one.
And the thing that is just blowing more brain cells
than I can afford to lose is aren't you caring
enough about your employees that you would want to keep
somebody that has assaulted I mean, what happens if somebody
(09:42):
assaults a passenger because there's too much to drink or
whatever on one flight, gets on another flight and critically
injures a passenger or another flight attendant. I would just
think from the legal standpoint of what we like to
prevent us from being liable for something, that there would
be a a lot more consideration on what you can do.
(10:03):
But airlines have resisted this, and even in Europe they're
talking about some of the legal hoops they are going
to have to jump through may make this an impossible task,
but the idea that there's consequences for those kinds of actions.
And again, during the pandemic, we talked about this, but
a lot of those were just over verbal disputes and
disagreements and you know, those kinds of things. But when
(10:25):
it comes to assault, totally different ballgame, and I should
have totally different consequences.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Amen, brother, I share that all day long.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
All right.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Pivoting back one more, the force retirement age for pilots.
This issue, I guess has come up again. We've talked
about this one before too.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Jay Ratley, Well, during the you know, the shortage of
pilots and the things that we saw with the pandemic
and everything, it was recognized that we need more pilots
and we're forcing them to retire at sixty five. And
a lot of these men and women are in great shape,
and yet we're forcing them and their experience out of
the flight deck. And that's really become a pro So
(11:01):
we thought that the easyest thing to do would be,
you know, and Lindsey Graham was trying to really push
this a number of years ago, simply raised the retirement
age from mandatory sixty five to sixty seven. It used
to be sixty from the nineteen fifties, and in two
thousand and seven that was pushed to sixty five. And
I think now sixty seven would be great, but a
(11:21):
lot of the airlines are resisting it. The Airlines Union
is resisting it, and I don't understand why. So it's
got to happen. And now we're seeing more bipartisan support
for this, and Brian, I'm really holding out hope here
that something's good is going to happen, because what we
have are seeing far, far, far too often is that
(11:44):
we have experienced pilots that were kicking out the door
that could do the job I think for another five years.
But at least if we raised it from sixty five
to sixty seven, it would allow us to you know,
slow down some of the understaffing that's taking place right
now with a pilot shortage.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Well, I guess it seems to me to be well,
it's this, this this issue suggests that the pilots themselves,
I would hope, are regularly subjected to some sort of
medical tests, the cognitive tests, to make sure throughout their flying,
whether they're thirty years old or sixty five, that they
have the wherewithal to fly the plane.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Oh yeah, they have their you know, their their physicals
that they go through and you have to prove that
you are fit physically mentally to fly and where you go. Now,
sometimes we're a little soft on the mental side of
the evaluations, but it's still there. It's still something that's
in the process. But it's easy for us to do
(12:40):
that and I don't see it as being a problem.
But for some reason, there's been so much pushback from
the lobbying group with with airlines that this thing is
really never pardoned me gotten off the ground, And it
makes no sense to me because it solves a lot
of problems. Plus it allows us to make maintain a
lot more experience on the flight deck because we're bringing
(13:02):
in a lot of really young pilots. So you know,
there's just nothing about it that I don't think is
an issue. But you know, hopefully we'll wake up one
day and we'll actually see this, you know, initiated where
we've got pilots that are going to be able to
fly past the you know six age of sixty five.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Well, as we go into the next break here, I
just have to observe you. I guess there was some
physician up in Washington, DC. That gave Joe Biden clean
bill of health, and we all know how well that
went out. Anyhow, Jay ratlift, don't go away. We got
a couple issues with United and some wake turbulence injuring
some people. So we'll hear from eight forty eight here
(13:43):
fifty five KRCD talk station Brian Thomas with iHeartMedia aviation
expert Jay Rattle, pivoting over artificial intelligence in the airline world,
most notably United Airlines, I guess is using AI to
upgrade their system to deal with delayed and canceled flights.
This is a positive use of AI, Jay, I think.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
So they've got something called every Flight as a Story.
It's a program using artificial intelligence to keep passengers updated
on delays to their flight. And the thought is we
can provide this in a timely fashion. It gives passengers
the opportunity, sometimes quickly to change the reservation to another option,
(14:23):
so that saves their connection. But what they want to
do now is enhance that even more so that you
can communicate not only that there's a delay, maybe a
mechanical
Fifty five KR and see the talk station eight twenty nine.
On a Thursday, it's a good time to be tuned
at the fifty five Tharessey Morning Show from my subjective
point of view, because get iHeartMedia aviation expert Jay Rats
to join the program and talk about sometimes quite comical
issues in aviation. My friend, welcome back to the morning show.
It's always great having you on.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Pleasure to good morning to you, my friend.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hey, I can live on what you made in an hour.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yesterday, Hey, Jerry was making dinner. She was making cube steak,
and I was in my office shuffling a few papers,
looked up, saw a couple of stocks that were moving,
and yeah, she was making the cube steak for dinner.
I made that at a ninety two hundred.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Dollars in an hour. I could live on that hourly rate.
Joe Strekker just left the building to go sign up
for your training class on trading.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
Anyway.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
Yeah, that's what Jay does and he does really well
at it. Anyways, pivoty back over to aviation news, which
is why you're really here. A turtle turtle, Yeah, in the.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Dallas Airport, we had a turn that was out sunning itself,
and you had a plane that was departing and had
a rather comical exchange with air traffic control saying that
you know, I got this turtle out here on the
middle of the runway, right on the center line, just
happy as could be, just sitting there. And of course
it's an issue because anytime you've got a plane landing
(01:20):
or taking off, it's a critical moment of flight and
you don't want to have something out there that you're
going to strike that can prevent somebody from taking off,
or an issue with an aircraft landing, so it becomes
a problem. So we have birds a lot of times
we talk about as far as a collision with wildlife,
but we also have deer the jump fences and they're
(01:41):
out there and sometimes get impacted by an aircraft. We
have that happened quite a bit at night. We've had
moose that have been hit, alligators, snakes, fish, if you
can believe it, that aircraft have encountered out on the runway,
and yeah, turtles. So this was a situation where you
had some flight delayed because of a very content turtle
(02:01):
on the runway, and you know, we're at the airport
A lot of times and see those vehicles going up
and down the runway. That's what they're looking for. Any
sort of what we call FOD for an object debris
that might have fallen off of an aircraft or could
be you know, some wildlife or remains of wildlife, you know,
that might have been left there by another.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Critter or some crazy random dude who comes thinks it's
appropriate to go running out of the runway and ends
up getting well mowed over or ingested.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah, that's that's happened. Well, it's breakfast time. I'm trying
to be trying to be delicate here, but yes, it's
it's not a good thing when that takes place.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
Okay, since you provided us a list of random animals
and other critters who have been on runways in the past,
I just have to ask, because you know, I've seen
shark nato. I did waste an hour and fifteen minutes
of my life watching that. Any sharks obviously a joke there, Jay,
unless you tell me yes, there's this instance of a shark,
cause you did mention fish not yet.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Well, yeah, because sometimes bird will catch birds will catch
and drop them and they'll be on the runway and
that can create a problem if it's sucked into an engine,
because you know, birds and fish and different types of things.
But to my knowledge, in the thirty six years I've
been doing this, I don't think I've encountered a shark
issue on a runway. But you never say never, not
(03:17):
in this world.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
Never say never. I will move. Since this is a
lighthearted topic to talk about before we get to United
Airlines and their upgrades and engine fires and that kind
of thing, let's talk about visibly intoxicated passengers. What's this
all about with Alaska Airlines?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
Jay, Alaska Airlines have been fine, well, it's a proposed fine.
It's not going to be this, but the FAA, federally
of the AASH Administration is proposing one hundred and sixty
five thousand dollars fine because in the twelve month period
of February twenty twenty four to February of twenty twenty five,
there were eleven instances where passengers boarded aircraft that became
(03:57):
a problem, and in the investigation it was determined, you know,
these people were pretty intoxicated in the in the gate area,
and the airline never should have let them on the
plane because that creates a safety issue for the flight attendants,
for the crew, for the passengers, blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (04:13):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
So, yeah, they have this proposed fine, and I keep
saying proposed because that's what it is. It's going to
be negotiated down to some insane low number as long
as Alaska promises never to do it again or do
a better job. We have these maintenance sometimes finds of
you know, eleven million dollars that's proposed and they negotiated
down to one million. If they, you know, promise to
(04:36):
change this or that. It drives me crazy because I
want to negotiate down a smeeting ticket, but I don't
think they're gonna let me do that. I can't go
to the irs and say, you know, can we negotiate
this number down as far as what I've got to pay,
That's not going to work. But with airlines, they they're
just no serious consequences a lot of times for some
of the garbage they keep pulling.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Well, I got to imagine this happened, was this would
happen more often considering you know, the restrictions on it.
Alcohol consumptions on planes and you can't buy like nine drinks,
so people load up ahead of time and then get
on the plane, because well, some people are stressed out overflying,
and I can certainly understand that, but this is an
FAA rule regarding the regarding an existing obligation on airlines
(05:17):
to prevent drunks from getting on the plane. They I
mean they knew about this ahead of time.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Yeah, Because if you see somebody acting in a certain behavior,
it's it's it is the responsibility of the airline to
try to keep those kinds of problems off of a
off of a flight that could create a safety issue
or a diverted flight, or something else that might happen
on board an aircraft. Because you know, you can never
say to somebody, you know, you appear to be intoxicated,
(05:42):
I'm not going to let you on the flight. You
can say that they appear to be under the influence
of something that's causing them to act this or that
It could be medication, it could be a whole bunch
of other things that make people act in a certain way.
Somebody may have spilled a drink on them. It may
smell like alcohol, but maybe not had a drink at all,
and it's just a change in medical that's causing him
to act in a certain way. So, but the FAA
(06:04):
saying the airlines are responsible for making sure that you
don't have a problem getting on an airplane, and they
had so many of these in that twelve month period
of time. That's one of the reasons that the find
was proposed. And I can't recall ever that we had
the FAA do this. I'm sure that they have. But
keep in mind these gate agents, a lot of them
are short staffed. You've got a short window, you are
(06:25):
under an incredible pressure to dispatch that silver revenue tube
on time. And oh yeah, by the way, I've got
to stop and look at every passenger comes on board
to make sure they're walking straight. Sometimes that's asking a
bit much of them, given some of the conditions that
we see, at least in today's airports.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
Yeah, and I would think out of it about it's
a caution for fear that there might be some repercussions
against the airline for erroneously flagging someone that they got
to tread lightly and actually telling someone they can't get
on the plane.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
We went through tons of training on just how to
address that specific conversation, let alone to carry it out.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
Well, let's bring Jay Ratliff back other interesting topics, voting
Europe doing something that Jay Ratliff has been advocating here
on our segment for as long as we've been fifty
five KRC the Talk Station. Have you ever been in
a cockpit before Jay Ratliffs, He's I heard, met the
aviation expert and we get the pleasure of his company
every Thursday beginning at eight thirty for a few segments
talking about aviation. Is Jay Rattler pivoting over? Hey, at
(07:19):
least Europe listen to you?
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Well, I mean, the idea of consequences for your actions
on board a flight, I think is something that makes
common sense. But uh, you know, somebody acts up on
a flight in the United States, especially when it's a
physical altercation. You and I have talked about that so
many times before. It's a shame where somebody pushes a
flight attendant, pushes a passenger something like that, and they're
(07:43):
banned from that airline for the rest of their life,
as they should be, But then they can just skip
down the counter to another airline and off they go.
In Europe, they're saying, if you have somebody that is
aggressively or has assaulted a passenger or a crew member
not only should be banned on that airline, but all
the European carriers. Now. I don't know if it's for
(08:03):
a period of time or if it's a lifetime ban,
but certainly I think, you know, three years, two years,
five years, something. The problem is airlines would then be
required in the United States here to create this database,
to share this database, and it would take time, energy, money,
and they're not going to do it because airlines are cheap.
I remember when the pandemic was coming around, the government
(08:27):
was asking for the airline's help in establishing lists of
passengers on certain flights so that they could provide to
the CDC information on anybody that might have been impacted
or coming from a specific area, and the airline said no,
it would cost too much money. These are the same
airlines where the executives pull hamstrings running to the microphones
(08:47):
talking about how much they care and how safeties are
number one concerned and how blah blah blah blah. But no, no, no, no,
no no. If that were the case, actions would actually
support those kinds of claims which are too often do
not true.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
But I mean, we do have no fly list I mean,
lists are created all the time. It doesn't seem to
be a big ask. You got a person who's obviously
identified that airline itself can ban and does ban individuals
from flying. Ever, again, let's say just have them share
the information like a central database. It doesn't seem like
that huge of an ask.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Jay, It's not, but it requires effort, money and time,
and airlines have pushed back on this from day one.
And the thing that is just blowing more brain cells
than I can afford to lose is aren't you caring
enough about your employees that you would want to keep
somebody that has assaulted I mean, what happens if somebody
(09:42):
assaults a passenger because there's too much to drink or
whatever on one flight, gets on another flight and critically
injures a passenger or another flight attendant. I would just
think from the legal standpoint of what we like to
prevent us from being liable for something, that there would
be a a lot more consideration on what you can do.
(10:03):
But airlines have resisted this, and even in Europe they're
talking about some of the legal hoops they are going
to have to jump through may make this an impossible task,
but the idea that there's consequences for those kinds of actions.
And again, during the pandemic, we talked about this, but
a lot of those were just over verbal disputes and
disagreements and you know, those kinds of things. But when
(10:25):
it comes to assault, totally different ballgame, and I should
have totally different consequences.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
Amen, brother, I share that all day long.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
All right.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Pivoting back one more, the force retirement age for pilots.
This issue, I guess has come up again. We've talked
about this one before too.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Jay Ratley, Well, during the you know, the shortage of
pilots and the things that we saw with the pandemic
and everything, it was recognized that we need more pilots
and we're forcing them to retire at sixty five. And
a lot of these men and women are in great shape,
and yet we're forcing them and their experience out of
the flight deck. And that's really become a pro So
(11:01):
we thought that the easyest thing to do would be,
you know, and Lindsey Graham was trying to really push
this a number of years ago, simply raised the retirement
age from mandatory sixty five to sixty seven. It used
to be sixty from the nineteen fifties, and in two
thousand and seven that was pushed to sixty five. And
I think now sixty seven would be great, but a
(11:21):
lot of the airlines are resisting it. The Airlines Union
is resisting it, and I don't understand why. So it's
got to happen. And now we're seeing more bipartisan support
for this, and Brian, I'm really holding out hope here
that something's good is going to happen, because what we
have are seeing far, far, far too often is that
(11:44):
we have experienced pilots that were kicking out the door
that could do the job I think for another five years.
But at least if we raised it from sixty five
to sixty seven, it would allow us to you know,
slow down some of the understaffing that's taking place right
now with a pilot shortage.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Well, I guess it seems to me to be well,
it's this, this this issue suggests that the pilots themselves,
I would hope, are regularly subjected to some sort of
medical tests, the cognitive tests, to make sure throughout their flying,
whether they're thirty years old or sixty five, that they
have the wherewithal to fly the plane.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Oh yeah, they have their you know, their their physicals
that they go through and you have to prove that
you are fit physically mentally to fly and where you go. Now,
sometimes we're a little soft on the mental side of
the evaluations, but it's still there. It's still something that's
in the process. But it's easy for us to do
(12:40):
that and I don't see it as being a problem.
But for some reason, there's been so much pushback from
the lobbying group with with airlines that this thing is
really never pardoned me gotten off the ground, And it
makes no sense to me because it solves a lot
of problems. Plus it allows us to make maintain a
lot more experience on the flight deck because we're bringing
(13:02):
in a lot of really young pilots. So you know,
there's just nothing about it that I don't think is
an issue. But you know, hopefully we'll wake up one
day and we'll actually see this, you know, initiated where
we've got pilots that are going to be able to
fly past the you know six age of sixty five.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Well, as we go into the next break here, I
just have to observe you. I guess there was some
physician up in Washington, DC. That gave Joe Biden clean
bill of health, and we all know how well that
went out. Anyhow, Jay ratlift, don't go away. We got
a couple issues with United and some wake turbulence injuring
some people. So we'll hear from eight forty eight here
(13:43):
fifty five KRCD talk station Brian Thomas with iHeartMedia aviation
expert Jay Rattle, pivoting over artificial intelligence in the airline world,
most notably United Airlines, I guess is using AI to
upgrade their system to deal with delayed and canceled flights.
This is a positive use of AI, Jay, I think.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
So they've got something called every Flight as a Story.
It's a program using artificial intelligence to keep passengers updated
on delays to their flight. And the thought is we
can provide this in a timely fashion. It gives passengers
the opportunity, sometimes quickly to change the reservation to another option,
(14:23):
so that saves their connection. But what they want to
do now is enhance that even more so that you
can communicate not only that there's a delay, maybe a
mechanical
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.