Great point. It really does amaze me that I likely use tools like precision GPS approaches and live access to weather data more than the typical part 121 airliner. However, I do think the FAA's strategy to slowly and methodically make changes to part 121 is valid given the safety record you cite. It does excite me to see these things come to GA though. If you chose to use them properly, tools like ADS-B in and inflig…
Dumb question, but what does 121 mean in this context?
14 CFR FAR 121 is the FAA regulations governing scheduled air carriers in the United States.
They definitely do. They usually end up leaving because of the culture and the pay. Reading about X is very different from working in X professionally.
Yeah, I don’t understand why companies like Boeing don’t pay competitively. Their revenue is pretty good. Also, they seem to hire a lot of people. What am I missing? Why do they hire so many people at less than awesome comp?
CS people are not the main revenue driver for an aerospace company. Aircraft have been built without software engineers for over a hundred years, and they still are being made that way in some places. Software devs are still often seen as branch from the IT department. Most of the work is in supporting the actual aerospace/mechanical engineers, and is stuff like internal tool development, data engineering/warehousing. You're not doing any physical testing or generating drawings for parts, which constitute the actual IP worth billions that is used for manufacturing planes. For mechanical engineers the salaries are quite competitive and in line/better than other companies. These are generally much lower than FANG salaries for software engineers.