Originally Posted by
TOGALOCK
None, but if you read the article that is hyperlinked to the “more training” reference you’ll see that the linked article explains that the additional training is very minimal.
Yes, slightly misleading journalism (Are you really surprised?) in the originally linked article, but if you do the legwork to read the hyperlinked articles it is all clarified. You really seem more irked by this than you need to be.
The whole point of print journalism should be to take the extra few paragraphs to actually explain something. At least this one linked articles with additional information.
Neeleman's quote seems to blame the 'stress' of command as the primary driver. I suspect that's the minority of cases. The major driver would be loss of seniority. He's absolutely right that a line holding FO with a comfortable salary and a good home life with his family in a no income tax state isn't likely to choose to uproot them to the northeast or to commute, especially not for a reserve schedule.