|
Originally Posted by madmax757
(Post 4012240)
Also a member on Alaska airline BOD is former Boeing ceo. They get sweet Boeing pricing . It will be 787s , 737s in less than 3 years. As far as Amazon contract who knows. How much do you really make doing Amazon ?
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012308)
The fixes in and of themselves are costly and disruptive, especially if it involves actually holding IR territory. Which is why I certainly never advocated for any of this.
|
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 4012348)
You finally got to the point, but I think you overestimate how much of a 'wad' is required.
But the system will adapt, one way or another, if this drags out. They're already talking about it in the biz media... https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com...-critical-oil/ It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk. It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping... we did it to the IR Navy, but of course we have multiple CSG's, surface combatants, subs, and numerous land-based tacair in theater. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012232)
I did not close the other thread. The only time I get the "last word" is if I'm explaining why a thread got closed.
.......THIS VVVVVVV
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 4012220)
I find it amazing you get the last word in the other threads before you close them out. And now new rules of no partisan politics on why it started or whether it should have started. It’s here so let’s discuss that reality, I agree. But that conversation should have a portion which is why we got here to begin with. Because those are some ugly answers.
Originally Posted by Midsomer
(Post 4012255)
Protest is banned and only cheerleading allowed is how I read that statement. Doesn’t seem very “fair and balanced”. Not that I am surprised it’s just the quiet part out loud.
And you removed the post, and others, that WERE FLAME. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
On Day Zero, it doesn't take much at all... underwriters get spooked, ships drop anchor.
But the system will adapt, one way or another, if this drags out. They're already talking about it in the biz media... https://europeanbusinessmagazine.com...-critical-oil/ It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk. It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping... we did it to the IR Navy, but of course we have multiple CSG's, surface combatants, subs, and numerous land-based tacair in theater. What This Means for Britain — and Europe For the UK, the implications are uncomfortable. Lloyd’s withdrawal was not an act of strategic calculation — it was a risk management decision made under acute commercial pressure. But the consequence is a permanent reduction in British financial infrastructure’s role in the most strategically important shipping corridor on earth. The long-term consequences for European financial influence in global energy markets are significant and largely unexamined in the current coverage of the conflict. Europe, which imports a substantial proportion of its energy through Gulf routes, now finds itself doubly dependent on American goodwill — for both the physical security of those routes and the financial infrastructure that makes commercial shipping through them viable. That dependency has always existed in military terms. It now exists in financial terms too. The 300-year empire died in 48 hours. And the nation that replaced it did not fire a single additional shot to do it. FAQ Q: Why did Lloyd’s of London pull maritime insurance from Gulf shipping?Iran’s attacks on Gulf shipping caused maritime insurance rates to spike by 400% in a very short period, creating commercially unacceptable risk exposure for Lloyd’s underwriters. The withdrawal was a risk management decision rather than a strategic one — but its geopolitical consequences have been profound, opening a vacuum that American insurers and the US Navy moved to fill within 48 hours. Q: What does America’s takeover of Gulf maritime insurance mean for global oil markets? America now controls both the physical escort corridor through the Strait of Hormuz and the financial infrastructure — insurance — that makes commercial oil shipping through it viable. This gives the United States structural leverage over the global energy supply chain that extends well beyond the current conflict. Nations that depend on Gulf energy imports are now operationally dependent on American financial and military infrastructure in a way that has no modern precedent. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
It takes a lot more to actually physically interdict a relevant % of shipping...
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012353)
It doesn't take much to spook insurers who are risk averse, and also averse to hard-to-quantify risk.
Asymmetrical. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012153)
Re-opening this discussion, no partisan politics or discussion as to why the war started or whether it should have started.
It's here, lets just discuss that reality. All the threads that have started here recently including two by me that deal in principle with the conflicts ancillary impact on our careers and/or career progression……have been swiftly shut down by fangs. Every time an important topic gets shut down this is what comes to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ame0j8jbMY4 It is not that I am advocating for discussing politics, it’s just that a discussion like this thread will be impossible without some subjective input that won’t be shared by all users…so maybe just a little tolerance. In addition your website has always been a place for (atleast me) to gauge insight on important things that may be seen as inappropriate or uncomfortable for the flight deck. |
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 4012365)
You had it right before.
Iran can lay low for a while, and when the traffic starts flowing drop a few mines and send a few drones. All they need is one burning tanker or even the threat of one in the SOH. The US DOE Sec already said no escorts until next month at the earliest and I don't think escorts will be close to 100% effective. Asymmetrical. |
https://www.axios.com/2026/03/13/mar...-us-deployment
One has to wonder if these people are Kharg Island bound. While I don’t necessarily think US BOG is a good idea, putting them on an island 18 miles off the coast of Iran that controls 90% of Iran’s oil exports is probably the least bad idea of BOG options. And I can’t think what else they may be going in for. While the escorts add add marginally to anti drone/missile capability, the Tripoli is a big high value target with a lot of concentrated personnel on board that I’d keep out of drone range unless I actually planned to use the 2200 Marines for an amphibious assault. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4012368)
...
All the threads that have started here recently including two by me that deal in principle with the conflicts ancillary impact on our careers and/or career progression……have been swiftly shut down by fangs. ... When threads veer off into repeated violations of the posted Forum Rules, despite repeated warnings to abide by said rules, they get shut down. Per the TOS. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4012378)
When threads veer off into repeated violations of the posted Forum Rules, despite repeated warnings to abide by said rules, they get shut down. Per the TOS.
Or perhaps automatically move politically fraught discussions to Hangar Talk? Atsomoto is correct. EVERYTHING involving people is political. I use techniques used by writers in the former communist controlled countries. Write something with an oblique reference and rely on the reader to make correlations so as to understand what and whom is actually being refered to. It is a method that has its limitations. |
Manufacturered National Security crisis now potentially leading to the temporary suspension of the Jones Act, adding more fuel to the fire for those who wish to permanently repeal it.
|
Originally Posted by MaxQ
(Post 4012401)
Perhaps it's time to revise the TOS? ( which I have never read)
Or perhaps automatically move politically fraught discussions to Hangar Talk? Atsomoto is correct. EVERYTHING involving people is political. I use techniques used by writers in the former communist controlled countries. Write something with an oblique reference and rely on the reader to make correlations so as to understand what and whom is actually being refered to. It is a method that has its limitations. Again, partisan politics are off limits, and will get posts deleted, infracted, account time-outs, and/or threads closed. APC is not the place for it. |
Originally Posted by MaxQ
(Post 4012401)
Perhaps it's time to revise the TOS? ( which I have never read)
Or perhaps automatically move politically fraught discussions to Hangar Talk? Atsomoto is correct. EVERYTHING involving people is political. I use techniques used by writers in the former communist controlled countries. Write something with an oblique reference and rely on the reader to make correlations so as to understand what and whom is actually being refered to. It is a method that has its limitations. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 4012405)
Manufacturered National Security crisis now potentially leading to the temporary suspension of the Jones Act, adding more fuel to the fire for those who wish to permanently repeal it.
|
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 4012415)
Puerto Rico has entered the chat*
|
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 4012416)
Oh yes. I believe the 17 or 18 hurricane has been one of the leading causes of the discussion and it's coming hard from the left.
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012474)
I haven’t really been following the longer term discussions on the Jones Act, but a permanent repeal would be a huge detriment to our maritime capability.
https://www.marinelink.com/news/oped...s-china-525576 An excerpt: Once a dominant global maritime power, the United States today operates a commercial fleet of fewer than 80 ocean-going vessels under the U.S. flag engaged in international trade — a startling figure compared to China’s rapidly expanding commercial fleet of over 5,500 ships. While China aggressively invests in shipbuilding, port infrastructure, and international shipping dominance, the U.S. fleet has withered due to decades of policy neglect, cost disadvantages, and a reliance on foreign-flag carriers. |
Originally Posted by jerryleber
(Post 4012365)
You had it right before.
Iran can lay low for a while, and when the traffic starts flowing drop a few mines and send a few drones. All they need is one burning tanker or even the threat of one in the SOH. The US DOE Sec already said no escorts until next month at the earliest and I don't think escorts will be close to 100% effective. Asymmetrical. Again, the entire global economy isn't irrevocably bound to the bureaucratic protocols in a binder in a file cabinet at Lloyds of London... ships will sail, one way or another. Read my link above. But it's hard to argue opinions on how this plays out, probably just going to have to check back in a month and see how it's going. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4012480)
|
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012507)
That’s the point of the Jones Act, so we don’t lose it all. Particularly on the manufacturing side.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/TE10110 Even the few shipyards capable of building military ships have been an unmitigated disaster. The LCS type retired early due to major and uncorrectable problems with the power train , the Zumwalt Class - terminated after three vessels finished, the Constellation Frigate class terminated after two ships half built. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...ps-half-built/ The Jones Act has been around for 105 years. It demonstrably has not worked. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4012510)
What manufacturing side?
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/TE10110 Even the few shipyards capable of building military ships have been an unmitigated disaster. The LCS type retired early due to major and uncorrectable problems with the power train , the Zumwalt Class - terminated after three vessels finished, the Constellation Frigate class terminated after two ships half built. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...ps-half-built/ The Jones Act has been around for 105 years. It demonstrably has not worked. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012548)
The fact that we can build ships at all is proof that it does.
You might, I suppose, argue that we are losing ships and major shipyards more slowly than we otherwise would, but you can hardly argue that the Jones Act has been successful at maintaining the number of US flagged vessels or major US shipyards. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4012553)
That’s a fools logic, proven by the fact that we had far more US flagged ships in commerce before the Act was passed in 1920 than we do now.
You might, I suppose, argue that we are losing ships and major shipyards more slowly than we otherwise would, but you can hardly argue that the Jones Act has been successful at maintaining the number of US flagged vessels or major US shipyards. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012579)
We would have exactly 0 without it.
https://sealiftcommand.com/about-msc/ships-msc https://www.ics-shipping.org/shippin...hipping-flags/ https://www.msc.usff.navy.mil/Ships/...l-on-Roll-off/ |
This is a regular topic of discussion in maritime security circles...
From a national security perspective, we don't actually *need* a vast armada of US owned, flagged, and operated merchants... as long as we have allies, partners, and friendly-ish neutral parties willing to sail for $, we can accommodate our security needs. It would be "nice to have" but probably not "must have". Now it would be ideal economically speaking if all of those jobs weren't offshored, but shipping isn't the only US industry in THAT boat (pun intended). If foreign countries could generate pilots as easily as they can train able-bodied seamen, we'd be in trouble ourselves, at least on international routes. PRC on the other hand has their own reasons and motives to maintain a very large fleet of easy targets for our SSN's. One of which is that while our desire to *participate* in global commerce can be met with foreign shipping, China's desire to dominate global commerce is better served if they control the log chain. Now if we were to go all isolationist and sever security ties with the traditional western-led global order, then we might need more boats, but we're still a long ways from that despite everything. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012593)
This is a regular topic of discussion in maritime security circles...
From a national security perspective, we don't actually *need* a vast armada of US owned, flagged, and operated merchants... as long as we have allies, partners, and friendly-ish neutral parties willing to sail for $, we can accommodate our security needs. It would be "nice to have" but probably not "must have". Now it would be ideal economically speaking if all of those jobs weren't offshored, but shipping isn't the only US industry in THAT boat (pun intended). If foreign countries could generate pilots as easily as they can train able-bodied seamen, we'd be in trouble ourselves, at least on international routes. PRC on the other hand has their own reasons and motives to maintain a very large fleet of easy targets for our SSN's. One of which is that while our desire to *participate* in global commerce can be met with foreign shipping, China's desire to dominate global commerce is better served if they control the log chain. Now if we were to go all isolationist and sever security ties with the traditional western-led global order, then we might need more boats, but we're still a long ways from that despite everything. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4012594)
Be that as it may, if the purported purpose of the 105 year old law was to keep the Merchant Marine going, and over that time it has taken a 95% hit, either it truly is unimportant or it should have been amended to something that actually works for the stated purpose.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012593)
If foreign countries could generate pilots as easily as they can train able-bodied seamen, we'd be in trouble ourselves, at least on international
Do you remember the #denyNAI movement. It wasn't poor pilotage that caused them to fail. We are very lucky that Covid 19 caused NAI to crash and burn and thus the flag of convenience operating model did not threaten us. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4012600)
.........but they can. The reason our buttoxes are not being replaced by the buttoxes of Indonesian twenty somethings are cabotage laws. These are the same things that kept me from getting a 737 gig in Thailand, Vietnam when I had thrice the experience of the people I was training for that specific job.
Do you remember the #denyNAI movement. It wasn't poor pilotage that caused them to fail. We are very lucky that Covid 19 caused NAI to crash and burn and thus the flag of convenience operating model did not threaten us. Although cause vs effect: I tend to suspect that the reason cabotage protections *have* survived is partly because we are in fact harder to replace than deck seamen (ship officers are more like us, which is why it's common to have different nationalities on the bridge and on the deck). If foreign carriers would just have to hire US pilots anyway, what's the point? The US objectively has by far both the largest general aviation and military pilot ecosystems. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012593)
This is a regular topic of discussion in maritime security circles...
From a national security perspective, we don't actually *need* a vast armada of US owned, flagged, and operated merchants... as long as we have allies, partners, and friendly-ish neutral parties willing to sail for $, we can accommodate our security needs. It would be "nice to have" but probably not "must have". Now it would be ideal economically speaking if all of those jobs weren't offshored, but shipping isn't the only US industry in THAT boat (pun intended). If foreign countries could generate pilots as easily as they can train able-bodied seamen, we'd be in trouble ourselves, at least on international routes. PRC on the other hand has their own reasons and motives to maintain a very large fleet of easy targets for our SSN's. One of which is that while our desire to *participate* in global commerce can be met with foreign shipping, China's desire to dominate global commerce is better served if they control the log chain. Now if we were to go all isolationist and sever security ties with the traditional western-led global order, then we might need more boats, but we're still a long ways from that despite everything. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012609)
If foreign carriers would just have to hire US pilots anyway, what's the point? The US objectively has by far both the largest general aviation and military pilot ecosystems.
By the way this nothing to do with the original thread. While it may be discomforting the rule in place in India, that an Indian must be in every cockpit. I kind of see why this is the case. You wouldn’t want a key, not to mention safety critical workgroup of your flag carrier being controlled by foreign nationals regardless if that country was an ally of yours or not….same reason that a foreign individual or entity cannot hold more than 49% of any US airline. Now if we can only get the IT firms to think like that. Listen I get it, it’s complex. I was willing to work in developing world Asia to fly an A320 or 737 for what now would seem like quarters on the dollar….but I tell you this: it’s certainly was a LOT more than I was making as a flight instructor or as a first officer for any US regional at the time. You see I knew people who had access to multiple passports and visas were able to get into right seats of 73’s and 320’s at 250…..spend like 5 years there come back to US and be seen as more competitive than me because in those same 5 years I could only draw on CRJ or EMB 145 experience. These types of rules put in place by politicians or people appointed by politicians well WELL THEY MATTER. |
The people that went to Asian contract carriers (five year contracts example) also had to play by their rules and many came back because their contracts were terminated. More power to them if they wanted to play for less pay…over there.
Our US air carrier unions have fought hard for scope protections in this arena. I don’t want SWAPA to roll over or relax international scope items for a dangling carrot that lets the camels nose into the tent. Slight digression on my part I guess. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012615)
That is not generally the consensus on the Joint Staff, so I’m not sure what national security perspective that you are referring to.
It would also be *really* great to have 20 carrier strike groups and associated air wings, escorts, and log ships. But you don't see the JS pushing for that now do you? Why? Because they'd have to pay for it... Ultimately it's a calculated risk... rely on allies, partners, and third parties for merchant lift (for both economic and security purposes). Alternative would be to artificially build a US merchant fleet, which the government would likely have to prop up indefinitely. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012641)
You have to understand how that game is played... of course they'll advocate for policy which is beneficial to their mission planning and execution, when it doesn't come out of their budget.
It would also be *really* great to have 20 carrier strike groups and associated air wings, escorts, and log ships. But you don't see the JS pushing for that now do you? Why? Because they'd have to pay for it... Ultimately it's a calculated risk... rely on allies, partners, and third parties for merchant lift (for both economic and security purposes). Alternative would be to artificially build a US merchant fleet, which the government would likely have to prop up indefinitely. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012642)
I worked on the Joint Staff. That isn’t exactly what the joint staff does.
Maybe a better way of putting it... if the DoD were to fund say a 1000 ship merchant fleet, would that be worth taking the $ away from other parts of the budget? Like combat power? Even if the DoD didn't fund the entire program, just the delta between cost and commercial revenue, would it be worth it? On that note, while the US flagged merchant fleet is minuscule, there are almost 1,000 US *owned* merchants which operate under flags of convenience... those could be reeled in relatively quickly in the event of a long-term change in geopolitical landscape. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4012643)
I also know from experience what the JS does, and how, and why.
Maybe a better way of putting it... if the DoD were to fund say a 1000 ship merchant fleet, would that be worth taking the $ away from other parts of the budget? Like combat power? Even if the DoD didn't fund the entire program, just the delta between cost and commercial revenue, would it be worth it? On that note, while the US flagged merchant fleet is minuscule, there are almost 1,000 US *owned* merchants which operate under flags of convenience... those could be reeled in relatively quickly in the event of a long-term change in geopolitical landscape. |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4012647)
Based on what you are saying, I don’t think you really understand what the Joint Staff does. It’s understandable, reservists unless they were EAD generally were given menial tasks since they didn’t have the time to see anything through.
But why attack my service history, instead of the merits of the discussion? I know some regular AD folks like to look down their noses at reservists, but if it helps I did start life as regular AD on day one (back when that was a thing) and made my own choices along the way. Not everybody who bailed on regular AD had a DUI. |
So we are asking the Chinese to help us in iran now? Is this real life or a Saturday night live skit?
|
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4012691)
So we are asking the Chinese to help us in iran now? Is this real life or a Saturday night live skit?
PRC suffers from high oil prices like the rest of us. They would benefit from stability in the region (and in oil prices) more than they would from abstractly poking us in the eye. They also participate in anti-piracy ops in the region, in coordination with western navies. So not really a ridiculous idea. They are pretty practical. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands