Female airline pilots fight to get paid more than men

“When the Pilot Is a Mom: Accommodating New Motherhood at 30,000 Feet” (nytimes) is about women who want paid maternity leaves:

At Delta, a group of women pilots have banded together through a private Facebook page and have approached their union with formal proposals for paid maternity leave — unheard-of at the major airlines — because they say they would like to stay home to breast-feed their babies.

Airlines have always compensated crew members per flight hour, which includes time spent on the ground after the door is closed. This is why pilots and flight attendants are so happy when the door is closed and the plane is pushed back from the gate. Now they are getting paid. If the result is sitting on a taxiway for three hours while thunderstorms clear that works out a lot better from the crew’s perspective than sitting in the comfortably air-conditioned terminal.

As few men will be able to quality for “maternity leave” (but perhaps some will in our age of flexible gender?), the result of this change would be that women would be paid more than men for doing the same amount of flying. (A friend points out that women are already paid more in most jobs because, in addition to being paid for more time off work (maternity leave, sick days), they also receive the expected value from filing a gender discrimination lawsuit.) For a given level of experience, airlines already do pay women more. A woman can be hired if she meets the FAA minimums for hours of flight time; a man will have to compete with other men and may require an additional 1,000 hours of flying experience (2-3 years) in order to be hired.

My favorite part of the article:

Consider what it took for First Officer Brandy Beck, a 41-year-old Frontier Airlines pilot, to pump breast milk. Once the plane was at cruising altitude and in autopilot mode, she would seek the agreement of her captain to take a break. In keeping with Frontier policy, the remaining pilot was required to put on an oxygen mask.

Next a flight attendant — to prevent passengers from approaching the lavatory — would barricade the aisle with a beverage cart. Then the attendant would join the captain in the cockpit, in keeping with rules that require at least two people in an airline cockpit at all times.

Only then could Ms. Beck slip into the lavatory for a 20-minute pumping session.

“It’s by far not my favorite place to make my child’s next meal,” Ms. Beck said. “But it’s a sacrifice I knew I would have to accept because I came back to work.”

In other words, it is not the fellow pilot who sacrifices by being forced to wear an oxygen mask for 20 minutes. Nor is it the passengers who sacrifice because they can’t use the bathroom, because they have to wait longer for assistance from flight attendants, or because if there is an emergency they won’t have as good a chance of getting out of the plane alive.

[Currently there is at least one way for a woman to get an airline paycheck in exchange for maternity. If she has sex with a senior captain, for example, she’ll be entitled to $40,000 per year in tax-free child support for 23 years under the Massachusetts guidelines (see the chapter on Massachusetts for a woman who did just that… three times). This will comfortably exceed after-tax compensation for a junior airline pilot (see “Professional Pilot Salary Survey 2016” and also this sample of first-year airline pilot salaries) and does not require investing $100,000 in flight training, working 22 days/month, 16 hours/day, or sleeping in Hilton Garden Inns (except perhaps once).]

Separately, Facebook apparently values workers who identify as “white, male” more than workers who identify as non-white, non-male, or both. “Facebook’s Point System Fails to Close Diversity Gap” (WSJ) tells the story:

Two years ago, Facebook Inc. offered its in-house recruiters an incentive to help diversify its largely white, largely male workforce.

Previously, recruiters were awarded one point for every new hire. Under the new system, they could earn 1.5 points for a so-called “diversity hire”—a black, Hispanic or female engineer—according to people familiar with the matter. More points can lead to a stronger performance review for recruiters and, potentially, a larger bonus, the people said.

When the numbers didn’t move, Facebook sweetened the deal. Starting last year, recruiters earned two points for a minority hire, or twice as much as for white or Asian males, who already were well-represented within its technical ranks.

Even so, Facebook has shown little progress. Last month, the company said 4% of its U.S. employees were Hispanic and 2% were black, the same as the two prior years. Women made up 33% of its global workforce, up from 31% in 2014.

Intel Corp. has paid its employees double referral bonuses for women, minorities and veterans. Other companies take into account how many women top managers hire when calculating their bonuses.

Why wouldn’t the company simply pay the desired workers more? Would it be illegal for Facebook to offer higher pay to the workers that it wants to hire and who have a higher value to the company than white male workers?

Also, in our transgender age, why wouldn’t recruiters game the system by asking interviewees to identify as female? (See this Sacramento Bee article for how California National Guard recruiters responded to financial incentives by helping themselves to “an estimated $100 million in dubious or illegal payments.”)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why do laptops STILL have so little RAM?

About 18 months ago I posted “Why do laptops have so little RAM?” wondering why it was essentially impossible to find a laptop computer with more than 16 GB of RAM. Moore’s Law hasn’t been suspended as far as I know. Laptops are still roughly the same price as a 1.5 years ago. Why do they still have just 16 GB of RAM as a maximum configuration?

[Separately, “Why aren’t SSD or hybrid disk drives more popular in laptop computers?” is a question that I asked 5 years ago. I think the question remains live. Given the low cost of SSDs and vastly higher performance in practice, why is it possible to go to the physical or virtual store and find notebook computers with mechanical hard drives? Are there a huge number of consumers who can’t tell the difference and just look at the number of GB or TB?]

Full post, including comments

Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, and New York family law

I’m not sure why Anthony Weiner’s electronic persona remains front-page news, but apparently the New York Times thinks that he merits it, e.g., “Anthony Weiner’s Latest Sexting Scandal: Here’s What We Know”. This sparked a Facebook discussion about a Boston Globe Story: “Huma Abedin separating from Anthony Weiner after scandal”. Here’s what one Facebooker said about this: “I’m guessing the reason she has not left him before now is that she could end up paying alimony and child support since he has been a stay at home dad, and he could end up with most of the custody. Now with the child in one of his creepy pictures she has more leverage.”

Under New York family law, a judge would try to pick a winner parent and park the cash-yielding child with the winner for approximately 83 percent of the time. The loser parent would babysit every other weekend and pay all of the bills for both the child and the winner parent. Thus Huma Abedin would be at risk of losing one third of her after-tax income, in addition to her status as an actual parent, in the event that Weiner won the “I was a stay-at-home dad and want to continue the voluntary arrangement via court order” sweepstakes.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Even before the latest scandal broke it didn’t seem likely that Weiner could have prevailed in the winner-take-all battle that New York law sets up for separating parents. What’s more interesting to me is that these two are apparently about the best that American society can produce, one having been elected to Congress and the other being a top aide to the spouse of the former leader. Weiner can’t find discreet sexual partners in New York City. Huma Abedin apparently can’t be involved with Islam without also being involved with supporters of jihad against the West (source).

Readers: Reading the Facebook posting above from a friend of a friend, do you think that her argument has merit? Or is it just the “two strikes you’re out rule” being applied?

Full post, including comments

Cost of a measles infection

I’m listening to Medical School for Everyone, Grand Rounds Cases. There are some interesting points regarding what happens when you have an illness that is hard to diagnose. If you go to Specialist X you will probably be diagnosed with a disease within that specialist’s area, regardless of the disease that you might actually have. If the specialists truly are stumped then they fall back on the all-purpose “It is all in your head” and send you to the psychiatrist who gives you pills that you’ll eventually stop taking because they aren’t helpful.

One lecture concerns an unvaccinated American child who contracts measles while on a trip to France. He comes into contact with about 110 other people while contagious. One of them (his unvaccinated brother) falls ill. The rest are hunted down by public health officials who check vaccine status, administer boosters and other prophylactics. The lecturer says that the cost to the local public health agency was over $300,000 and that didn’t count a couple of weeks of hospitalization in a room with negative air pressure for the two children who actually became ill.

Full post, including comments

Burning Man versus College

Burning Man will be starting today without me. A friend recently asked whether I would be going again:

  • me: I would be most enthusiastic about returning if one of my kids wanted to see it
  • him: Would you really want your daughter to see Burning Man?
  • me: Why not? It is a lot less debauched than the average college campus.

To readers who are attending the event this year: Enjoy!

Related:

Full post, including comments

How old can the kids of a “single mother” be?

“‘It’s a catastrophe’: low-income workers get priced out of California beach city” (Guardian) interests me for the linguistic angle:

At first, Jamie Kahn tried ignoring the repeated knocks on her front door. It was September 2015, and the 52-year-old Santa Cruz woman had recently faced an unexpected 40% rent increase that she could not afford.

After missing a rent payment, her new landlords in the northern California beach city quickly moved to evict the single mother and her two children. Kahn thought that if she refused to open the door and accept a summons, she could bide some time to fight the increase from $1,400 to $2,000 a month. She was wrong.

Court records show that a process server repeatedly showed up, and the Kahns ultimately had no choice but to vacate their home of six years.

A sad tale, certainly. Helpless and blameless children are now on the street. But exactly how old are the helpless children?

Her 22-year-old daughter subsequently moved into a small back porch room in a neighboring city. Her 19-year-old son crashed on couches.

Linguistically this could have been described as potentially a three-income household containing three working-age adults. But apparently in 2016 it is still mom and two kids who can’t work. (If the mother didn’t herself work, but instead perhaps had been living on child support profits (that 19-year-old would have just recently aged out of the California system; the mom would have been in better shape if she had sex in Massachusetts where the cashflow continues until the subject of the litigation turns 23), the fact that the children also didn’t or couldn’t work would have been predicted by The Son Also Rises.)

Readers: What do you think? Can a person still be described as a “single mother” once the offspring have become adults?

Full post, including comments

General aviation safety: in a holding pattern

The latest AOPA Nall Report has been released (PDF) and it shows (page 6) a decade of essentially flat accident rates for every kind of general aviation (flights other than scheduled airlines). That’s kind of sad considering all of the technology advances that we’ve enjoyed over the past 10 years, including glass cockpits for new aircraft, retrofit glass cockpits for legacy aircraft, synthetic terrain (“flight simulator”) displays, and advanced software for drones.

Who went to Oshkosh this year? Based on the press releases it seemed as though hardly any interesting new products were announced or released.

Full post, including comments

Can someone explain why Hillary Clinton and her fans are upset about the EpiPen price?

My Facebook feed is alive with Hillary Clinton fans complaining about the price of an EpiPen and also about the high income of the CEO of the company that makes the EpiPen. Here are some samples:

It’s one thing for a new experimental drug to be expensive to pay for all the failed attempts. Makes perfect sense. But buying up long established technology that by all rights should have come off patent by now and price gouging consumers is just hideous and I don’t think you want to be defending that kind of behavior? The original epipen patent is from 1977. Patent lengthening is one of many games pharma companies play to extend their monopolies as long as possible. As for regulation preventing competitors, safety matters, otherwise any snake oil salesman could sell you a would be epipen (see e.g opioid epidemic). So making blanket claims against regulation doesn’t really help here. This is a specific example of this problem and it could be solved by the government treating it as an unfair monopoly and forcing them to break it up by e.g. licensing their remaining patents to competitors.

[after a commenter pointed out that competitors couldn’t get FDA approval for their devices] Maybe, but we still have anti-trust laws. Whether the market or government regulations prevent competition is irrelevant. At some point the greater good requires the destruction of the monopoly.

[after a question about why there isn’t competition] Various alternatives have been tried but none have passed regulatory muster. Free-market zealots like to depict this sequence of events as “government regulations killed the competition.” Consumer safety advocates might use a different spin on the same phenomenon: “government regulators prevented inferior and potentially unsafe alternatives from hurting consumers.” Who’s right? Who cares? If there is a monopoly, and if the current product is the only version deemed safe and effective, nothing prevents the government from forcing the monopoly to break apart. Two companies selling the identical product could still drive down prices, just as is the case with e.g. automobiles (is a Honda Accord really that different form a Toyota Camri?). The original patent expired long ago, but follow-on patents allow the monopoly to artificially continue. The drug itself is dirt cheap but a rapid and safe delivery mechanism is critical to efficacy.

Monopoly is defined by pricing power. In this case the company happens to be abusing the patent system. But that’s irrelevant. The evidence is not that they have a patent, the evidence is that they are price gouging, and that no reasonable competition exists or can come into existence quickly enough to prevent them from price gouging. The government is under no obligation to protect your monopoly just because you have a patent. The government can decide that you have recouped your investment and profit and are now just exploiting the patent system at the expense of consumers.

Friends who love to complain that women don’t get paid as much as men (i.e., that you could make near-infinite money by starting a company that hired only women) then began to complain about Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, getting paid $19 million in one year. Yet their complaint was not that, like virtually all other American women, underpaid. Apparently, despite having successfully moved Mylan to the low-tax Netherlands via an inversion, Bresch was overpaid.

[Given her family connections to the rich and powerful, could she have made more money without working at all? Wikipedia says that she has four children so let’s assume she wanted four children and had each of those kids with a different father, thus maximizing child support profits. Assuming that she keeps $10 million after taxes each year, she needs to get $2.5 million from each father in order to match her Mylan income. If she could have had sex with four men, each earning $14.7 million per year, in Wisconsin, for example (child support is 17 percent of gross income, without limit), she could have matched her most recent Mylan compensation.]

Hillary Clinton says “I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens.” (statement)

How can we explain this? The same folks who want The Great Father in Washington to regulate drugs are now objecting to a company being compensated for navigating the regulatory labyrinth? People who think The Great Father in Washington should give out monopolies via patents object to whatever particular monopoly enables the EpiPen to sell at a high price? So an official such as Hillary Clinton should decide which patents should have economic value and which should not?

Readers: Why is it that Mylan can charge a high price for these EpiPens? Why aren’t there profits sufficient to attract competitors competent to romance the FDA bureaucrats into approving a substitute?

Full post, including comments

What equipment does a leading architectural photographer need these days?

One of the pleasures of flying helicopters at East Coast Aero Club is that sometimes I get to fly aerial photographers (the alternative is flying with a student at the controls!).

On a flight this summer the photographer was one of Boston’s leading architectural photographers. I asked him what he was using for his day-to-day work. A view camera with a digital back? An SLR with a bunch of perspective correction lenses? He responded with “I’ve got 14 view camera lenses that are beautiful paperweights at this point. I do almost everything with a Nikon D810 and the 14-24mm zoom lens.” Perspective distortions are then fixed (by him) in Photoshop.

Full post, including comments

Good explanation of Olympic Games economics

This interview with Andrew Zimbalist, an economist who studies the cash bonfires that cities stage for athletic events, has some interesting points:

when the tally is accurately made we’ll find that Rio has spent somewhere in the order of US$20 billion to host the games this year, they’ll receive back something around $3 billion in revenue, so there’s a deficit there of $17 billion. … What was previously seen by many people around the world as a city of immense natural beauty and great partying and a fun-loving lifestyle I think is now seen as a city that is severely troubled with water pollution and water shortages, with violence, with economic recession, with corruption in business and with political instability. So it’s more likely that the Games will have a negative impact in the long run than a positive impact, in addition to the short-run deficit.

[Where does the $3 billion in revenue come from?] They’ll receive about $1.2 billion from corporate sponsorships, domestic and international. They’ll receive about $1 billion from international television money. They’ll receive $300 million or $400 million from ticket sales and then there will be some miscellaneous revenues.

Now when the typical tourist doesn’t come and they are replaced by the Olympic tourist the Olympic tourist goes home and tells his friends, relatives and neighbours that he saw some wonderful competitions but the Olympic tourist doesn’t go to the typical tourist sites. When a normal tourist goes, if a normal tourist goes to London they go to Piccadilly Circus, they go to the theatre, they go to the museums and they come home and they tell their friends, neighbours and relatives about what a lovely place London is to go. So you get a word-of-mouth effect, which according to studies in tourism is the most important way to grow tourism. You get a word-of-mouth effect from the typical tourist that you don’t get from the Olympic tourist. So not only does the number of tourists not grow typically when you host a mega event, and sometimes even falls, but you lose the word-of-mouth benefit from promoting tourism.

Related:

Full post, including comments