# mc cain's agenda on amtrak



## yarrow (Jul 1, 2008)

mc cain's agenda on amtrak


----------



## The Metropolitan (Jul 1, 2008)

Very interesting reading. It's unfortunate that despite his earlier rhetoric that Amtrak needed to show signs of progress before getting a commitment to funding, he continued to block such funding even after he acknowleged that efficiency had improved.

This combined with the increase in ridership would be something you would think a candidate would pay attention to. Troubling to say the least.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 1, 2008)

yarrow said:


> mc cain's agenda on amtrak


That link does not point at the Globe, though there's mention of it being from the Globe at the end. Maybe a Globe piece got reprinted in a Seattle paper?

That article does talk about `` $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail''. I'm sort of baffled as to what useful thing towards high speed rail can be bought for a mere $20 million. Killing that might actually be something McCain did right (although a more right thing would have been to adjust the number towards $200 billion instead of zero, and perhaps slightly redirect the money to make sure it's spent well).


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 1, 2008)

Derrick Z. Jackson (the author) is a columnist for the Boston Globe.


----------



## GP35 (Jul 1, 2008)

> McCain has all but handed Obama a golden spike to beat him over the head with.


I hope Obama does beat Mccain over the head with this. Mccain would have no choice but to support Amtrak.

A win for Amtrak reguardless who wins.


----------



## Chessie Hokie (Jul 1, 2008)

PetalumaLoco said:


> Derrick Z. Jackson (the author) is a columnist for the Boston Globe.


*Here* is the link to the same article on the Boston Globe web site.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 2, 2008)

McCain seems to have a personal hatred for Amtrak and always has. Nothing will change that.


----------



## MStrain (Jul 2, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> McCain seems to have a personal hatred for Amtrak and always has. Nothing will change that.



Maybe he was peeved when they started serving Pepsi products...............or some surly LSA made him cry...... :unsure:


----------



## GP35 (Jul 2, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> McCain seems to have a personal hatred for Amtrak and always has. Nothing will change that.


Mccain was a moderate almost liberal senator UNTIL he ran for president.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 2, 2008)

I doubt McCain has ever traveled on Amtrak. Very few of our elected officials in Washington ever travel on Amtrak. I was on an Acela that Dick Gephart, former congressman from MO was on and he definitely supported Amtrak and expansion of Acela type trains throughout the US. Representatives need to ride the trains in their district to see reality!


----------



## AlanB (Jul 2, 2008)

jphjaxfl said:


> I doubt McCain has ever traveled on Amtrak.


John McCain has certainly never traveled on Amtrak. At one point a few years ago he made a statement that basically said "Why should I support Amtrak when it doesn't even serve my state?". Apparently he didn't even know that the Southwest Chief visits his state twice every day and that the Sunset Limited visits it six times each week.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt McCain has ever traveled on Amtrak.
> ...


Actually, he has, but only on the Acela. I remember coming across this story a few months ago and my friend and I were saying that he shouldn't even be allowed to ride Amtrak given his past record with funding it:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/poli...syndication=rss


----------



## NapTown Jim (Jul 2, 2008)

GP35 said:


> Mccain was a moderate almost liberal senator UNTIL he ran for president.


You're kidding, right? As domestic political policy goes, there's very little differennce between McCain & Obama. I'm considering voting for Obama principly because I believe the republicans in congress will have more backbone to block idiotic and uncessary spending and foolish new programs if there's a democrat in the White House. Amtrak is so far off the radar as political issues go in politics that I doubt either cannidate would make a big deal of their positions one way or another. That said, I'd love to see a national effort to beef up the passenger rail network in this country like what the Eisenhower Highway Bill did to our roads in the 50s, but I doubt it would ever happen.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 2, 2008)

Though it's logical to assume Barack Obama would be more likely to support Amtrak (as opposed to McCain's non-support), I can recall all the routes that were cut under the Carter administration. And Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a huge Amtrak supporter either, though it's no coincidence that the Texas Eagle was heavily rumored to be one route that would get the axe and didn't. Had nothing, of course, to do with the Eagle not only running through his hometown of Hope, AR, but right past his house as well.


----------



## GP35 (Jul 2, 2008)

Mccain rode the SL before. The reason I remember this was because the SL was involved in an accident where it derailed.


----------



## GP35 (Jul 2, 2008)

JayPea said:


> Though it's logical to assume Barack Obama would be more likely to support Amtrak (as opposed to McCain's non-support), I can recall all the routes that were cut under the Carter administration. And Bill Clinton wasn't exactly a huge Amtrak supporter either, though it's no coincidence that the Texas Eagle was heavily rumored to be one route that would get the axe and didn't. Had nothing, of course, to do with the Eagle not only running through his hometown of Hope, AR, but right past his house as well.


Texas Eagle, tri-weekly, did get the axe, then it was brought back as a daily train.


----------



## DaveKCMO (Jul 2, 2008)

mccain will probably be able skate through the general without having to mention amtrak at all. if he is elected, it's likely he will face veto-proof votes, just like the current president.


----------



## JayPea (Jul 2, 2008)

DaveKCMO said:


> mccain will probably be able skate through the general without having to mention amtrak at all. if he is elected, it's likely he will face veto-proof votes, just like the current president.



Which is why I don't think it will make much difference for Amtrak whether Obama or McCain gets eleected. Well, for Amtrak or any other subject, for that matter. I've voted "none of the above for President before and may well do it again.


----------



## Guest_rdj92807_* (Jul 2, 2008)

JayPea said:


> DaveKCMO said:
> 
> 
> > mccain will probably be able skate through the general without having to mention amtrak at all. if he is elected, it's likely he will face veto-proof votes, just like the current president.
> ...


It's real simple in November. If you love passenger trains travel in America, DO NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 2, 2008)

In addition to The Globe story...

promised that if he's elected president, shutting down Amtrak would be "a non-negotiable issue.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt McCain has ever traveled on Amtrak.
> ...


Alan, we all know he rides Acela regularly, and also that he once rode the Sunset.



Guest_rdj92807_* said:


> It's real simple in November. If you love passenger trains travel in America, DO NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN.


McCain will be a train wreck for Amtrak, which as a statement works on several levels. I have made no secret that I will be banging my head against the wall at human stupidity if McCain gets elected, because on about 4543532 different levels, I think he is the wrong man for the job at this particular point in time- although I think he is a good man in general.

HOWEVER, stepping away from that, I will find anyone on this board, or anywhere else, an idiot if they vote for Obama because McCain hates Amtrak. Actually, I broaden this statement further. I consider anyone who votes for someone because of one issue alone an idiot. I personally say good riddance to Trent Lott, no matter how much he liked Amtrak.

Amtrak, as an important subject to me, rates high on my priorities in this election. However, if the Democrats, for some unknown reason, made the mistake of selecting Bozo The Clown as president elect, I'd vote for McCain. Even if Bozo's center and event horizon as an election proposal was improving Amtrak.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 3, 2008)

NapTown Jim said:


> As domestic political policy goes, there's very little differennce betweenMcCain & Obama.


Thanks for the bad joke. Given a serious look at the presumptive candidates' policy positions, a reasonable observer would be hard pressed to find similarities. Saying there is little difference between Obama and McCain is downright ludicrous, and verges on willful ignorance. Exploiting willful ignorance and fear is how George W. Bush got elected (ONCE). Good choice, folks!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Jul 3, 2008)

if mc cane wins no more amtrak correct


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 3, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> if mc cane wins no more amtrak correct


No, that would not be correct. Bush has tried to kill Amtrak and it is still here. It is really more in the hands of congress than the President. Now, McCain might again try to kill it, but I doubt he would be successful.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jul 3, 2008)

KISS_ALIVE said:


> if mc cane wins no more amtrak correct


No. Reagan could not kill Amtrak, Bush could not kill Amtrak, Carter could not kill Amtrak: and all three tried their best. The others pretty much didn't care one way or another. I defy anyone to point to any President since the formation of Amtrak who did anything positive for Amtrak. It does not matter what they say, it is what they do.

The fact is that McCain's issues with Amtrak relate largely to the 1990's era when Amtrak management was, shall we say, less than forthcoming with the truth. He has a very low tolerance for that sort of thing, and when the late George Warrington used to appear before Congress and make all kinds of wild statements about profitability and route growth, McCain was among those who were skeptical, and voiced that skepticism rather loudly. It turned out that the skeptics were correct.

The bottom line is that Amtrak is what Amtrak is. It is the both the best and worst thing that could have happened to intercity passenger rail. It has a life of its own and is kind of like the cockroach. It survives despite all attempts to kill it. It will live on even after a nuclear holocaust.


----------



## edding (Jul 5, 2008)

MStrain said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > McCain seems to have a personal hatred for Amtrak and always has. Nothing will change that.
> ...


OK, being from Arizona, I have to respond to this. I'm making no political statement here one way or another but to say that McCain was a moderate to liberal senator before he ran for President beggars the imagination. I know that it's not true; anyone else in Arizona except the most stridently conservative would tell you it's not true; and Senator McCain would tell you it's not true( and that would be straight talk!)


----------



## edding (Jul 5, 2008)

edding said:


> MStrain said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Apologies: I replied to the wrong note. As you can tell by my response I'm replying to the note that said McCain used to be moderate to liberal before he ran for President.


----------



## PanamaRR (Jul 5, 2008)

The Sunset Limited was the only coast-to-coast passenger railroad route in the United States prior to Hurricane Katrina. It is my understanding that 41% of the revenue earned in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 came from the 28% of the railroad miles which have effectively (but not following mandatory federal regulations for discontinuing passenger service) "removed" from the Sunset Limited route.

We do not have a surface transportation policy. Now is the time to ask your Representative and your Senators in the U.S. Congress to support H.R. 6003, to authorize and fund Amtrak.

Now is the time to decide whether you will vote for someone who puts passenger rail travel on the back burner and turns the burner off. Perhaps encouragement will have the burner turned on. Maybe when the price of gasoline goes to $ 5.50 a gallon in the United Satates after the November election, a surface transportation policy will become a priority. Unfortunately after the election politicians are not as anxious to talk to you nor are they as willing to listen.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 5, 2008)

PRR 60 said:


> No. Reagan could not kill Amtrak, Bush could not kill Amtrak, Carter could not kill Amtrak: and all three tried their best. The others pretty much didn't care one way or another.


However, the management of Amtrak is appointend by the President, and I strongly suspect that whether Amtrak grows to several times its present size in the near future, or whether it continues to stumble along with only the most painfully obviously needed service and equipment improvements will depend on what sort of management the President appoints for Amtrak. I believe our country would be best off if Amtrak has management appointed by the President that goes to Congress explaining exactly what could be done in the way of expanded, faster service if Congress would only provide the money. I believe if we expand Amtrak to ten times its present size in terms of the number of revenue passenger miles actually carrying passengers, it will still be too small.

I want Amtrak to have management that can talk to Congress about how embarassing it is that this country that we want to be able to think of as a great country is so far behind France and Taiwan in high speed rail.

I want Amtrak to have management that can recommend to Congress that we work out a plan for track with 300 km/h or faster speed limits from the edge of one city to the next going all the way from the San Francisco area to Los Angeles to Las Vegas to Salt Lake City to Denver to Kansas City to St Louis to Chicago to Cleveland to Pittsburg to New York City, with a proposal explaining how we could get this done in the next ten years with sufficient funding, if only Congress would approve that funding.

That proposal should also talk about the possibilities for 300 km/h or better track linking Seattle to Portland to the San Francisco area, Las Vegas to Phoenix (including a high speed route just south of Las Vegas allowing non-stop Phoenix to Los Angeles service in under three hours), Kansas City to Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston to San Antonio to Dallas/Fort Worth, Atlanta to Cincinnati to Indianapolis to Chicago, Atlanta to Charlotte to DC, DC to Pittsburgh, DC to New York City to Boston, Atlanta to Orlando to Miami, Tampa to that Orland to Miami track, Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul, Chicago to Kansas City, and St. Louis to Indianapolis to Columbus to Pittsburgh.

(At some point, I need to work out where that would put us in terms of per capita miles of 300 km/h or better track compared to France.)

I also want Amtrak to have management that will work to restore service along most of the routes NARP proposes in their vision, to enhance speeds along the existing Amtrak routes, and to provide more frequent service along the existing Amtrak routes. I want Amtrak's management to aggressively seek funding for these improvements from both the federal and state governments.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I want Amtrak to have management that can talk to Congress about how embarassing it is that this country that we want to be able to think of as a great country is so far behind France and Taiwan in high speed rail.


Why not add Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Holland, China and Vietnam to that list? And if we want to talk about the extensiveness of the rail network, rather than just HSR, I was just in Russia and they have far more rail options than we do. I believe much of eastern Europe is the same way.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > No. Reagan could not kill Amtrak, Bush could not kill Amtrak, Carter could not kill Amtrak: and all three tried their best. The others pretty much didn't care one way or another.
> ...


Some thoughts here about Obama, Amtrak management and the future...

link;

Mass clamor for mass transit


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 5, 2008)

edding said:


> MStrain said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


McCain has a reputation as a moderate because of a fawning press. They like him because he's very accessible - good for a reporter. But he's no moderate. A right winger from Barry Goldwater territory.

And I have no gripe with (retired) General Clark's statement that being a fighter pilot and POW does not automatically qualify one to be president of the USA. Here I point out that McCain, as Senator from Arizona, has actually voted AGAINST the best interests of veterans. His patriotism is a crock. He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?

Finally, I'll point out that McCain was not a fighter pilot. Not to rag on his bravery, but the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk (A for attack, not F for fighter) that he flew was classified as a light bomber. So bomber pilot.

EDIT: Once worked with a guy who was a Marine medic in Vietnam. Had to pry the war stories out of him. He had nothing but disdain for the Navy pilots who were called to do airstrikes when his unit was in a tight position. Called them high altitude pussies. He said the Marine aviators - also operating off carriers - came in right on the deck and got the job done.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 5, 2008)

One of my gripes is John McSame wants recognition and support for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam, a tererible thing, but how come he supports the fact that USA has a prisoner of war camp with autracious conditions at Quantanomo bay ???


----------



## planetcadillac (Jul 5, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> One of my gripes is John McSame wants recognition and support for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam, a tererible thing, but how come he supports the fact that USA has a prisoner of war camp with autracious conditions at Quantanomo bay ???


I have always thought it wise to leave one military record alone unless there was a serious grievance committed that is akin to a civilian crime. Otherwise it is simply tit for tat to discuss how someone reacts to military situations. Everyone will be different and there is not way to tell whether being a POW is a net plus or minus for anyone. Considering many Republicans stepped all over John Kerry's military record I suppose it is fair game but again I would just leave well enough alone. Given $4-5 gas prices and a host of many other things McCain's Vietnam record will likely not be a major factor in anyone's voting decision.

I have found, in general (not assuming everyone...) that most Republicans have been reluctant to support Amtrak because A) Its more government spending and government control over what once was and could be a market driven commodity; B ) Republicans tend to dislike anything communal and they love their big trucks and SUVs so they can be 'king of the road'; C) The demographic that utilizes Amtrak tends to be more Democratic than Republican for various reasons not including the fact that the NE Corridor is a heavy commuter corridor and the NE is heavily Democratic.

Even in times of a Republican WH and Republican Congress - there were enough urban legislators and rural legislators like in ND where Amtrak is a popular and sometimes necessary mode of transportation to ensure at least level current spending. Given the fact that $4-5 gas is likely to remain indefinately and with Amtrak ridership on the upswing and given the above factors I do not forsee threats to service in the near term. Coming from Chicago - Barack Obama seems to be favorable to mass transit and likely will not fight funding.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 5, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?


US military officers with a couple decades of service get rather nice pensions, and the reduction in military income officers get by going from being active duty to being retired may be something that can easily be more than made up for by taking a civilian job, such that officers may fairly easily be able to make more money by retiring than by staying in the military.

I have no idea what enlisted pensions are like. Maybe they're a lot different than officers' pensions. I gather McCain must have been an officer.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WhoozOn1st999 said:
> 
> 
> > He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?
> ...


The problem in your theory is there are way more enlisted than officers, and their prospect of employ has been diminishing for last 8 years


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 5, 2008)

No matter what they may say, Republicans are never good for Amtrak. Or anybody else. EDIT: Except the filthy rich. Bush's buddies. Pie in the sky junk about privatization. Why don't we see in the business pages that companies are chomping at the bit for a chunk of passenger rail? Answer: Just not a profitable proposition. Nobody makes money from passenger rail or transit, and for Republicans to keep insisting on this delusion is just, well, delusional. But those clowns just don't give up. Now there's renewed Republican yap about offshore drilling. They still don't get it.

My friends, the answer is not more oil.. From anywhere. Ain't gonna happen. Reduction of consumption is the long-term partial solution, but you won't hear that from any Republican.

Hard times, and hard choices. But choices that must be made, and in the long run there is only one choice: Reduction of consumption.

We can make this choice now, or we can wait until it's too late and people are seriously suffering. This is only the beginning.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 5, 2008)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > WhoozOn1st999 said:
> ...


I don't intend to be arguing that McCain is right about this. Just trying to figure out where he might have gotten his ideas on this from.


----------



## wayman (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> WhoozOn1st999 said:
> 
> 
> > He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?
> ...


All pilots are officers.

I can't speak for enlisted pensions. The officers pension is based on "years of service", but those years can be either active duty or in the reserves. So after the mandatory five years on active duty, you can leave full-time active duty, remain in the reserves until you hit 20 or 30 years (retirement age varies on rank), take a job in the civilian world, and ultimately perhaps wind up with two full pensions (one military, one civilian). So yes, you can almost certainly make more money this way.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

"_He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?"_

Whooz,

That's partially because the incentives can be so good that it takes away the drive to stay in the military. Why stay (especially the Marines/Army where it's especially tough right now) if you've earned a nice bonus and want to actually enjoy it, or educational bennies and you want to go to school NOW instead of years later ending behind your peer group.

No yapping at me folks. I'm the military wife and have written this before in this forum. I KNOW the life.

Jody


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"He had nothing but disdain for the Navy pilots _"

Whooz,

Me again. This isn't all that unusual for chinks between the services. The Army thinks of the Air Force as desk jockies. My 4 years Ranger husband (tab and service in Bn for those who understand that just going to Ranger school doesn't make you a Ranger) had to endure the Viet vets (a war older than my husband) disdain for Rangers. The gripe: Rangers would go in first and stir up the hornet's nest and those that followed endured the sting. In SF, the consummate mil professionals, we didn't even get sat with at a holiday dinner until after the tab. SF is thought of as being a college grad and thinks of Rangers as high school.

So, don't give any thought to the rivalries.

Jody


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"Republicans tend to dislike anything communal and they love their big trucks and SUVs so they can be 'king of the road'_"

That's BS. I vote Repub because of my litmus test issue not because I agree with every plank on deck AND I was once a member of Greenpeace. I happen to have a brain that thinks independently of scripts. SUV luv isn't limited to Repubs. (I wouldn't own one unless it was given to me- always been that way.)

In this election, I keep thinking, "where's another choice". I don't like these two.

Jody


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 5, 2008)

Guest said:


> "_He's said that giving veterans better benefits might prevent them from re-enlisting. EXSQUEEZE ME?"_
> Whooz,
> 
> That's partially because the incentives can be so good that it takes away the drive to stay in the military. Why stay (especially the Marines/Army where it's especially tough right now) if you've earned a nice bonus and want to actually enjoy it, or educational bennies and you want to go to school NOW instead of years later ending behind your peer group.
> ...


Nice to hear from you again, Jody. I understand McCain's reasoning, but just find it appalling. I see you've done some more posts. Let me read them more thoroughly and take some time to gather my thoughts. Both of them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"And I have no gripe with (retired) General Clark's statement that being a fighter pilot and POW does not automatically qualify one to be president of the USA_"

What isn't coming across with Clark is that McClain has hooah for having endured the POW camp. That's no small thing. Look deeper than the surface with Clark's remark. There's bound to be something there. And of course, not all are entrusted with fighters. It's a different breed with a high espirit de corps. The leadership training (actually for all service members) starts right after basic training.

I like to know (as do military members) that my commander in chief knows what the military life is like and doesn't show the disdain for them as the Clintons appeared to have. Somehow, Harvard Law School doesn't instill that.

Jody


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"Nice to hear from you again, Jody"_

Whooz,

You're a riot. I've been posting almost daily since "the incident" but anonymously because of the vitriol that was inappropriately directed my way.

How's the family doin! ... just kidding.

I keep reminding people to _write_ their representatives and let them know your thoughts on Amtrak, not just vote and then seethe in silence when Amtrak is squeezed. These issues that face us need some unique solutions and the time seems right for Amtrak.

Use the NTB report link and posts (yep, I read and post stuff like that) and find a way to make some saliable points to your reps.

Writing example: "My job is in Junction City, 50 miles away. I can't afford the gas, but with Amtrak, I can swing it. Amtrak is the difference between my family getting fed, you know with these high food prices...etc., etc." For me, I would write, using the NTB report and asking for funds to be reallocated from something I dislike (airplanes and asphalt) towards trains. I'm epileptic (but it's not a handicap for me) and there may come a day when driving is not possible. I want to know that a means exist for me to travel long distances. Excuse me for a moment older folks, but I think of the Auto Train as the "Old Fart" express. It keeps a lot of accidents off of the annual Snow Bird migration route. If you camp in state parks like we do it amazes me that some 75 year old is winging an RV the size of a tractor trailer around and most of the time dodging the trees. We're all going to be aging in place and we need a lot more of these express routes to ship us around from kid to kid.

Who did I rile up this time!

Jody


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"I have made no secret that I will be banging my head against the wall at human stupidity if McCain gets elected"_

No you won't. Your kibbutzing butt will get drafted! I believe the service would be good for you.

Jody

Green Mandolin. You know I adore you.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 5, 2008)

Guest said:


> _"He had nothing but disdain for the Navy pilots _"This isn't all that unusual for chinks between the services. The Army thinks of the Air Force as desk jockies. My 4 years Ranger husband (tab and


WAY off topic, Jody, but I know a bit about that. Certain chinks even within services. I was a civilian jet mech, and there was a shop full of recip mechs right next door at Pt. Mugu. Worked mostly with swabbies. We hated the recip guys, and they hated us jet jockeys. Mostly a friendly rivalry, and we would take it out everyday on the volleyball court in front of the hangar at lunchtime. Recip Crew vs. Attack Crew.

Way fun!!

Occasionally we took a reinstalled engine out to test at high power. Everybody saved empty soda cans for such occasions. Tie down the aircraft, run it up to 100%, toss the empty cans into the exhaust, and watch them get rocketed into the air by the jet blast deflector. Kids having fun with major machinery. One time they let me sit in the cockpit and run up the throttle myself. An A-6, so two engines. Major rush.

Again, WAY off topic. Sorry.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

_"we didn't even get sat with at a holiday dinner until after the tab. "_

In the spirit of disclosure to those for whom this matters. Dear hubby didn't make it all the way through assessment (he's way too little for the physical aspects and older than most of you SFers.). We did spend about a year in SF before the assessment and you know what happens afterwards.

Jody


----------



## AlanB (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> However, the management of Amtrak is appointend by the President, and I strongly suspect that whether Amtrak grows to several times its present size in the near future, or whether it continues to stumble along with only the most painfully obviously needed service and equipment improvements will depend on what sort of management the President appoints for Amtrak. I believe our country would be best off if Amtrak has management appointed by the President that goes to Congress explaining exactly what could be done in the way of expanded, faster service if Congress would only provide the money. I believe if we expand Amtrak to ten times its present size in terms of the number of revenue passenger miles actually carrying passengers, it will still be too small.


Well the President nominates Amtrak board members, but they still require Congressional approval.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

"_Occasionally we took a reinstalled engine out to test at high power. Everybody saved empty soda cans for such occasions. Tie down the aircraft, run it up to 100%, toss the empty cans into the exhaust, and watch them get rocketed into the air by the jet blast deflector. Kids having fun with major machinery. One time they let me sit in the cockpit and run up the throttle myself. An A-6, so two engines. Major rush._

_ _

_Again, WAY off topic. Sorry."_

What a hoot.

My attempt at high speeding was to try to impress my husband by going up in a Cessna with a parachute attached to my back. Yeah. I was tough...gonna jump out and impress this Ranger. HooAH. Well, they opened the door-said I was first, wind was squeezing my face and if you know jumping, it's (after ground school) Feet/hands on the struts/steps (been a long time), something else, "go". I took one look out. The civilian jump zone (a gravel pit) appeared tiny in comparison to the power lines, forest and huge lake (could of been an inland ocean for all I knew at that moment). I turned around to the pilot, grabbed ahold of the seat and said, "no way, I'm going down with you". Ticked off the other 5 or so cramped in behind me. My husband, on the other hand, is a jumpmaster (the one who climbs outside the plane to rescue stranded jumpers and cuts them loose to land in the tops of trees or wherever it's safe. He knows no fear and still smiles at my "jump" experience. I found my limit at that moment.

No doubt, McCain found what he was made of in the POW camp and it's an inseparable part of who he is. The military makes extraordinary stuff, ordinary, to those who serve.

We just have to convince him that Amtrak should be ordinary.

Jody


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 5, 2008)

Guest said:


> "_Occasionally we took a reinstalled engine out to test at high power. Everybody saved empty soda cans for such occasions. Tie down the aircraft, run it up to 100%, toss the empty cans into the exhaust, and watch them get rocketed into the air by the jet blast deflector. Kids having fun with major machinery. One time they let me sit in the cockpit and run up the throttle myself. An A-6, so two engines. Major rush.__ _
> 
> _Again, WAY off topic. Sorry."_
> 
> What a hoot.


I hasten to add that before there was any folderol or shennanigans, we made sure everything checked out okay. All readings had to be right. If not, back to the shop for more work to get it right. Lives on the line, and we were well aware. But we usually got it right. A good crew. But once everything checked out, fun city. Let's play with the airplane! RUN IT UP TO MILITARY!!

EDIT: Pilots were almost never around for maintenance, and probably woulda had us shot if they knew the way we were playing around with their planes.

2nd EDIT: My squadron never lost a pilot. I know different circumstances from McCain. A test squadron, not at war. Still a point of pride that our pilots always came back. Not everybody's, non-war, did. And we saw stupid mistakes. "You're gonna let a guy fly that thing?" Bad hydraulics, and worse. Once we knew an A-6 from a carrier was gonna try to take off without flaps. And we knew his electrics were shot as well. He had bingoed from a carrier, and wanted to get back to the ship. "Dude, are you serious??" He was. Everybody was out on the runway, watching the takeoff. A certain crash, but somehow the guy made it.

His good luck didn't last.

Hydraulics failed, and arresting hook wouldn't drop. Ramp strike. Dead pilots, and A-6 a loss. Shoulda listened to us: "Sir, this plane is unflyable." They always think they know better.


----------



## Amtrak Watcher (Jul 6, 2008)

Amtrak carried 25.8 million passengers in the last fiscal year -- up 1.5 million from the year before. Ticket revenue rose 11 percent. Trains on the Northeast Corridor and other popular corridors are increasingly sold out, and opinion polls consistently show overwhelming public support for a viable national rail system. But the conservative (and especially the Libertarian) competes with PETA to see who can appear more ridiculous in pursuit of Idealism. 10 out of 10 for standing on principle, but minus a few points for doing it in a clown costume.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2008)

_"Ramp strike. Dead pilots, and A-6 a loss. Shoulda listened to us: "Sir, this plane is unflyable." They always think they know better._ "

Whooz,

I understand the mentality. I've spent the better part of our marriage showing DH where the edge of the table is located. The fear is trained out of them so that great things can be accomplished and the mission completed. When you see the historical films (WWII) of the scaling of the French cliffs (Rangers did theirs at Point du Hoc.), you know you're dealing with something special. We had to, OF COURSE, go there on our official honeymoon to pay tribute and it blows you away to see it in person. Between there and Anne Frank's attic hideaway in Amsterdam, we got a good sense of evil and strength.

Amtrack Watcher: Don't abdicate on letting the winner know where you stand by believing that they are unmovable.

"_10 out of 10 for standing on principle_"

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson

Jody


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 6, 2008)

Guest said:


> _"Ramp strike. Dead pilots, and A-6 a loss. Shoulda listened to us: "Sir, this plane is unflyable." They always think they know better._ "
> 
> Whooz,
> 
> I understand the mentality. I've spent the better part of our marriage showing DH where the edge of the table is located. The fear is trained out of them so that great things can be accomplished and the mission completed. When you see the historical films (WWII) of the scaling of the French cliffs (Rangers did theirs at Point du Hoc.)


I certainly appreciate Jody's viewpoint, but think there's a line to be drawn between bravery under battle conditions and just plain stupidity when it comes to taking off - in peacetime - with a plane that one has been informed (in no uncertain terms) is not airworthy.

No more air rant in an Amtrak forum; promise.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 6, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > _"Ramp strike. Dead pilots, and A-6 a loss. Shoulda listened to us: "Sir, this plane is unflyable." They always think they know better._ "
> ...


We done with planes yet ???


----------



## Rail Freak (Jul 6, 2008)

planetcadillac said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > One of my gripes is John McSame wants recognition and support for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam, a tererible thing, but how come he supports the fact that USA has a prisoner of war camp with autracious conditions at Quantanomo bay ???
> ...


2nd that!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2008)

Informal poll. No shouting at those with whom you disagree or calling them or their positions, idiots, just an exercise.

What is your litmus test for this election? And will it cost you anything in the concrete (versus the abstract)? You'll see how conflicted I am in a minute. Example litmus tests include:

1. Global War on Terrorism (Iraq, Afghan & wherever)

2. The Economy, to include unemployment increases and high gas prices.

3. Affordability of Healthcare

4. Amtrak and the transportation policies

5. Environmental issues

6. Sanctity of Life versus Access to Abortion

7. Definition of Family

8. Other- Defined (spell it out for us please)

9. Other- Unspoken

By now (from reading the other thread on the war) you may know that the war touches me personally as my husband just finished a deployment and could very well do another as many of our friends have. They're painful. BUT, for years MY unshakable litmus test is #6 on the sanctity of life issue. Also for the record and to shake some of your prejudices, I traditionally vote Repub, have been an environmentalist for longer than some of you have been born, don't (& wouldn't) own an SUV unless it had phenomenal gas mileage, would put a solar panel on the roof if I could figure out how to get it up there, have grown organically- again longer than some of you are old, believe in the need for a utility called Amtrak as part of an integrated transportation policy, am a CPA and recoup gas prices through investment rather than calling for government intervention. And, my husband is a union member.

We need to get past the loud mouth media commentators to be able to discuss this stuff civily.

In case you're not familiar with the concept, the _litmus test _is the deal breaker issue.

Jody


----------



## Ryan (Jul 7, 2008)

Guest said:


> Informal poll. No shouting at those with whom you disagree or calling them or their positions, idiots, just an exercise.


Informal poll.

Does this belong in this thread? Yes/No.

Not being "on topic", I'll not address your ignorance of interservice rivalries, "leadership training" for pilots (there isn't any) and all the rest.

You want to talk politics? Start your own thread, it'll be fun. I'm trying to read about politics *and AMTRAK* in this one.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

HokieNav

Take a chill pill and take the poll.

Jody


----------



## amamba (Jul 7, 2008)

Guest said:


> Informal poll. No shouting at those with whom you disagree or calling them or their positions, idiots, just an exercise.
> 
> What is your litmus test for this election? And will it cost you anything in the concrete (versus the abstract)? You'll see how conflicted I am in a minute. Example litmus tests include:
> 
> ...


I don't have a litmus test - I think a variety of issues are important and wouldn't vote dogmatically one way or the other on just one issue. Although if I had to pick one from your list - it would be #6, and in the opposite way of Jody.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 7, 2008)

Guest said:


> _"I have made no secret that I will be banging my head against the wall at human stupidity if McCain gets elected"_
> No you won't. Your kibbutzing butt will get drafted! I believe the service would be good for you.
> 
> Jody
> ...


I wouldn't be drafted, and I've already served in a military anyway, thanks. Also, stop acting like a 5 year old with your childish ribs. If you want to discuss, I'm all for it. I live here to get away from the violence of my youth, lady. It angers me to no end that a government so idealistically created, so humane in its self image, would go into such nonsense as this. There was no need for this rubbish. It didn't need to happen, it shouldn't have happened, and frankly the president and half his staff should be on war crimes trials for perpetuating it.

My main issue in this election is the economy. Pro business is not what will work in an economy such as this. Frankly, this country needs to declare bankruptcy. Unfortunately, neither candidate has the cojones for that.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 8, 2008)

Guest said:


> What is your litmus test for this election?
> Jody


I'll try again, and rephrase.

Knew my last post wouldn't last. Very harsh on the current administration. AlanB is very fair-minded about running these forums, and there was no way my incendiary rant was gonna stand. Knew that when it was posted.

But I think it's fair to repeat, without my usual heated leftist rhetoric, that my only real litmus test for this upcoming election is intelligence.

Not so much interested in candidates' positions as whether they can discuss them coherently. Where there's intelligent discourse, there's the potential for change. Right wing or left wing, I see it as more important to sit down and talk about things with the purpose of coming to some sort of conclusion that may not please everybody, but works overall for the greater good of the American people.

And of course I want more Amtrak funding.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2008)

_"I've already served in a military anyway, thanks"_

_US_ Military?.. i.e., the one that pays the price so that you can speak your mind? Are you still under the term of obligation? (_Generally_, one serves actively for a set period and the contract is for x years past that in the IRR with occasional muster calls.

_"My main issue in this election is the economy_"

That's what I wanted to know. Sometimes, on this forum it comes across (not necessarily from you) that Amtrak funding is _the_ litmus test. If it is, so be it, especially to an Amtrak employee. Some believe that the current economy has its roots in other-than Bernanke's policies. Do you agree, GML?

"_I see it as more important to sit down and talk about things with the purpose of coming to some sort of conclusion that may not please everybody, but works overall for the greater good of the American people."_

Amen and nice save, Whooz. Add the word, _civily_. An opinion article by Lee Iacocca in the _AARP Jul/Aug 08_ issue points out that we know so little about the leadership qualities (of the candidates) and asks the question: " Show me instances where the candidates have demonstrated creativity in solving problems, courage in the face of adversity, curiousity about people who aren't like them, and the ability to communicate forcefully, with friends and enemies alike..". But the part that really strikes a chord is when Mr. Iacoccoa says, "_Who is going to be on their teams if they're elected? The presidency is not a one-man show.... It matters who the key advisors are-..." _

Written somewhere is the possibility of Mr. Obama choosing former Senator Sam Nunn as his running mate. That would be palatable. He was an excellent Senator, and a statesman (versus a politician). He ran for President in 199x. Go check out his platform. He ran on the belief that terrorism would be our next greatest challenge. Insightful. He understands the military and has a brilliant mature mind that would be a compliment to Mr. Obama. GML, who do you think should be some of the teammates?

I see the transportation policy as being non-partisan and would like a candidate to do as Mr. Iacocca says and that's to show creativity in solving problems. Find some solutions "outside the box".

Jody


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 9, 2008)

I think perhaps we are getting a bit too non-train political for this forum, but if no one objects, I'll continue unless someone complains.



Guest said:


> _US_ Military?.. i.e., the one that pays the price so that you can speak your mind? Are you still under the term of obligation? (_Generally_, one serves actively for a set period and the contract is for x years past that in the IRR with occasional muster calls.


I picked the word "a" carefully. Israeli. I got out of it because of medical and family reasons. They could still (technically) call me back for non-combatant work, but in the 5 years since I left, I haven't been so far.



Guest said:


> _"My main issue in this election is the economy_"
> That's what I wanted to know. Sometimes, on this forum it comes across (not necessarily from you) that Amtrak funding is _the_ litmus test. If it is, so be it, especially to an Amtrak employee. Some believe that the current economy has its roots in other-than Bernanke's policies. Do you agree, GML?


The roots of our economy, (and I wrote a term paper on this, by the way) stems back to Harry S. Truman and Dwight David Eisenhower. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in an attempt to restore our economy in the 1930s, selected as a muse one John Maynard Keynes, or so it seems. He was clearly applying Keynesian economic theory. That theory includes (I don't know if you know economics, so I'm sorry if I'm droning on about stuff you already know) the concept of using governmental intervention to flatten the economic cycle.

Roosevelt, according to that theory, poured government money into the economy, which helped a good way to reviving it (so did the war economy of WW2, of course). The theory basically suggests that the government should put in when times are bad (government spending, lower taxes)- and take out when times are good (lower government aide, increased taxes). Its been known to work well in long term political systems.

Unfortunately, the United States is not such a system. At the end of the war, taxes were, for the most part, reduced by Eisenhower, government spending was not curtailed all that much, and taxes were not raised to repay the costs, and building up a reserve for the next econominc downturn. Its hard to sell the typical american on higher taxes/lower services. People tend to want things NOW, and they, unfortunately, also vote NOW.

At this point, I think we are in a time when the government needs to pour money in. McCain, and the general republican stance on economics, are not in going with that concept.



Guest said:


> Written somewhere is the possibility of Mr. Obama choosing former Senator Sam Nunn as his running mate. That would be palatable. He was an excellent Senator, and a statesman (versus a politician). He ran for President in 199x. Go check out his platform. He ran on the belief that terrorism would be our next greatest challenge. Insightful. He understands the military and has a brilliant mature mind that would be a compliment to Mr. Obama. GML, who do you think should be some of the teammates?


I have a great deal respect for two men who I'd consider to be more statesmen than politicians (although they are still basically politicians). Those two men are Michael Bloomberg and Joe Corzine. Bloomberg is conservative, (we are talking financially, not socially) Corzine being more liberal. I'd like to see both of them in his cabinet.

Abraham Lincoln, in my opinion, is the best president this country has ever had. One of his most intelligent decisions (although not so bright in light of him dying, I'll admit) was his cabinet of rivals. I hope Obama has the chutzpah to select people he disagrees with, and people who disagree with each other, but are the best for their jobs.

Its sad. The last kind of person you want to run a country is a politician. Yet only a politician is capable of being elected. (this is a philosophical, rather than direct, statement)


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 10, 2008)

I would like to know how a certain person entered the Israeli military, and in what capacity he served. And what branch?

Working for the Navy (civilian), we had a guy on Attack Crew named Howard Wurm. Nobody knew how the guy got in, but there he was. The standard saying was "Every outfit has a Wurm."

He'd never been on a carrier, cuz nobody wanted him at sea, where his mistakes could cost lives. I'd never been to sea either, but that was because of my weird civilian status.

One day saw Wurm about to walk straight into jet blast. NO!! Even the Wurms of the world are fellow human beings, so ran like hell and knocked the guy down before he got himself incinerated. He tried to fight me. "Dude, calm down. You're gonna see your wife tonight. You were about to get killed."

Jerk never thanked me, but the unit did with a letter of commendation (rare for a civlian). Saved the major hassle of endless accident reports.

Yes, I promised no more air rant, but am reacting to provocation.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2008)

_"I would like to know how a certain person entered the I*ra2li military, and in what capacity he served_"

Whooz, I know you'd like to know, but I'd leave that alone or do the pm route. If you work around the J#h community (to thwart searches) you'd know... but understand your curiosity. It also gives insight into the disdain for "Cross bearers" seen in GML's writing and has more to do with the goings on of the country he served. Is that close, GML?

I'd like to read your economics paper if you have the ability to pm it (sans your name) to me....

"_Its sad. The last kind of person you want to run a country is a politician. Yet only a politician is capable of being elected_"

..very much in agreement. I believe that a _statesman_ of either party would be able to see the need for passenger rail and help get us past this table tilting instability.

Let's do a little informing here about politics and campaigns.... based on my experience. I'm not an expert, I just ended up in a higher place than I ever would have imagined because I had a skill that was desperately needed at a point in time and had commitment and the ability to focus under pressure. The whole time I kept thinking, "nah", this isn't how it works, but it was. I volunteered initially to answer the phone. Within that campaign there were at least 2 kinds of workers: those who were in the "political business" and those who were idealists. A railfan would be an idealist. The business types may not agree with the candidate personally but they work elections for various reasons. They may work all parties. This year it may have been Hillary, last term, it may have been Bush. After a loss, these kind will run you over to the exits. The idealists labor on.

If victories start occurring the candidate begins considering future partners. It NEVER crossed my mind that I would get considered for a state wide post. Remember, that's the idealist. The very first question asked, "Do you have a past?". When I see some of your posts I know that you're not considering that you are forever associated with your posts in electronic archives, etc. We're all tempted and give in to "letting it fly" or flaming to silence. Many of you are young and have no idea where fate may lead so watch what you are posting (all over) if you wish to influence the future. Because? On every sharp campaign is that team called "Opposition Research" to try to discredit you. Your own words may do that best. You want passenger rail? Work for it, no matter the party- not here- but work where it counts.

Letter write your officials about the future _possibilities_ you see with Amtrak (not the nitpicking- employee-hurt-my-feelings and the grits were cold type). I've been in the "nah, can't be" mode when I've heard the exact paragraph written come out in a speech. See if your representative is looking for examples of how the gas prices are affecting you. (Mine is at this time, but it looks to be in support of ANWR drilling and I hate that.) Go to their websites and see if there's anything related (today) to tranportation, highways or gas prices and request that Amtrak be considered a permanently viable part of the solution.

Another way is to join at the local (city/county/parish/

burrough/high school/college) party level. If passenger rail is not a plank in the ticket, start educating these groups why it should be. Figure out how the system works. Become a delegate. In some areas it's easier than others. Be persistent and not cynical in your involvement.

You have the blessed ability to influence.

Jody


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2008)

Whooz, if I ever get around to typing up my memoirs and publishing them, I'll send you a copy. 'Til then, you can continue speculating. Since I am never likely to get far in life (I'm too damned caustic- I know myself well.) I doubt I'll ever think of a reason for writing my autobiography, but ya never know.

Jody, when I upgraded my computer from OSX 10.4 Tiger to 10.5 Leopard, my file vault managed to corrupt itself and all the data on my hard drive that was within the protection of FileVault now sits in a SARS image on my second hard drive, encrypted. I know I have the paper on a CD back up somewhere, so if I do happen to find it, I'll be happy to send it over to you. Or if I manage to find someone whose willing to decrypt it for less than the $500 someone quoted me.

As for my stance on "cross bearers", its only because so many people in this country are Christian, and as such, they are the ones I have reason to blast off at. I feel exactly the same way about fanatical muslims and jews. And any other religion you can name. I am tired of people who try to bash people over the head with the tenets of their own beliefs. Especially when its literal.


----------

