Exciting, Glamorous Jobs?

It's funny.  I don't like telling my Uber passengers that I'm a semi-retired helicopter pilot.  They nearly always get the wrong idea.  They think that flying helicopters must be an exciting and glamorous job.  They couldn't be more wrong.

We professional pilots work very, very hard to keep the job from being exciting or thrilling.  We like it to be very predictable and dull.  One of my mentors used to say, "No surprises.  When I'm flying I want no surprises."  And that is exactly right.  Surprises that get the heart pumping and adrenaline flowing can only mean that you're in a near-death experience.  Typically, helicopter pilots are not adrenaline-junkies.  Most of us are just the opposite.

And so we sit there as we fly along, monitoring all systems, keeping everything right in the center of "normal."  This applies whether you're out in the Gulf of Mexico flying from oil platform to oil platform, or hovering over cherry trees for hours on end.  If it's exciting then you're doing something wrong...or at very least you're not doing things right.  

And yes, flying certainly is "fun," I won't deny that.  The views are often spectacular beyond description.  We get to see the planet from a perspective that few other mortals can experience.  And that is truly special.  But there are other things that make flying fun too.

When lifting off from the ground up into a hover, some pilots are content to allow the helicopter to lurch into the air like drunken sailor might get up from the bar floor after being cold-cocked for saying the wrong thing to the wrong guy's girlfriend.  However, there is great pleasure to be had in getting the ship to lift off smoothly, so it seems to the passengers that the earth just falls gently away from the aircraft.  It takes practice and finesse on the controls.  

When I dry cherries I make an effort to follow this particular row at this exact altitude and this precise speed, watching the effect that my downwash is having on the trees and making sure that I'm shaking/blowing every one.  

And so the pleasure...the fun, if you will...that you get from flying is often the result of doing it as well and precisely as you can.

People don't believe me when I tell them that driving for Uber is the most-fun job I've ever had.  I quickly add that it's not the most highly-paying job...that should be obvious...but it truly is an incredibly rewarding and enjoyable job.  I mean, what guy doesn't love getting paid to drive around?

There is a constant stream of new people getting in the car all the time.  (And a fair number of repeat-riders as well!)  You have to like people, of course.  Doing ride-share might be miserable if you don't.  Fortunately I do.  

Just as with being a taxi driver, I'm a kind of ambassador of the Pensacola area.  I truly love living here, and it's fun to communicate that and share my experiences with new visitors to the area...or compare notes with other locals.

But while taxi passengers were kind of guarded and sometimes standoffish, assuming that I was just another guy who couldn't do anything but be a cabdriver, Uber passengers look at me differently.  It's subtle but it's there.  There's a higher level of comfort and informality between ride-share passenger and driver.

When I take people out to Pensacola Beach, there is a point when you get to the top of the Bob Sikes Bridge.  Suddenly you are presented with a beautiful, sweeping panorama of the barrier island and sparkling Gulf of Mexico beyond. Most of the time I'll spread my arms wide, smile and say, "THIS...is why I live here!"  Nobody argues with me.  I do love living where people come on vacation.

I know I've written about this before...about how much I love this Uber job.  But I do.  It's like this job was created just for me.  I don't know how long it will last.  Heck, self-driving cars might actually be right around the corner and they'll put me out of work.  Who knows?  But I'll enjoy it until I cannot do it anymore.  

Flying was great, but ride-sharing is better.  Believe it or not.

Can Uber Survive?

For seven years I drove a taxi here in Pensacola, Florida. When Uber came on the scene, it was apparent to me that it was a taxi service disguised as something else.  Uber was using various weasely excuses to get around the traditional licensing of taxicabs that many (but not all) municipalities have in place.  Once the camel got his nose under the tent, there was no stopping it.  Now Uber is everywhere.  I saw the handwriting on the wall and made the Big Switch last May - a year ago, come to think of it!

As a company, Uber has never been profitable.  It loses billions of dollars each year.  Yet investors threw money at it like crazy, allowing the company to grow on a worldwide scale.  And, sure enough, one of the reasons people use Uber is because it works everywhere.  One app: every city.  What's not to love?

Well...investors do love profitability.  And it must have been with a certain amount of trepidation of senior management when they took Uber public this month (May 2019).  Because now, instead of just being answerable to a relatively few investment capitalists, there will be another layer of management to deal with: Stockholders.  And stockholders are notoriously fickle and single-minded (read: profit-oriented).

Uber came out of the box strong during the IPO, but the stock price dropped and dropped in the first week.  I'm certain it's because of fear and skepticism on the part of would-be investors.  To wit: Can Uber ever be profitable?  Can it even survive?

Uber has stated that their future profitability depends on self-driving cars (SDC's).  And they've hinted very strongly that SDC's are right around the corner.  They're not.  Merely saying something with conviction about some future event does not make it so.  Sure, the technology has made great advances, but there's still a long way to go, and many issues to be solved before SDC's become a reality in your town.  And even then they won't be introduced country-wide.  Maybe they won't even be introduced first in the litigious U.S.!  Would you get into an autonomous vehicle/taxi right now?  I wouldn't.

But if Uber can take the driver (and what they pay him/her) out of the picture, then that's 40% more revenue for them.  That's the theory, anyway.  Who actually knows what additional, unpredicted costs there might be in terms of...oh...insurance, for one thing?  If a driverless car gets into an accident and fare-paying people inside of it are injured, who pays?  The reliability in heavy-duty commercial use of these new SDC's is unproven.  It's a safe bet that passengers will treat an SDC Uber like they do a current taxi, maybe worse.

And what other fees will municipalities levy against the company for having their cars, roaming the streets while searching for fares, circulating aimlessly in already-clogged downtown areas?  Here's the thing about a commuter's car: He drives it into the city, parks it, and it's OFF THE STREET during the workday.  An autonomous ride-share vehicle drives itself into the city, drops off its passenger and then will still be in the mix of traffic, adding to the congestion instead of reducing it!  And instead of twenty or thirty or forty people on a city bus, these same people will be divided up into four- five- or six-passenger (presumably electric) Uber cars?  This is supposedly better?  Maybe, maybe not.

So there are a lot of unanswered questions, a lot of unknowns.  We've only addressed a couple.  With driverless cars, Uber assumes that their cost of operation will go down.  But I don't think that is assured.

Here in Pensacola, Florida, Yellow Cab has come up with this thing called Z-Trip.  It's a hybrid taxi/ride-share service.  You can use it just like a regular old taxi: Call Dispatch and they'll send you a car.  OR, you can have your credit card information on-file with them and use Z-Trip as you would an Uber.  Either way, they charge the going taxi rate here in Pensacola which is $2.25 per mile, which is higher than Uber and Lyft at the moment.  Yellow Cab is transitioning all of their traditionally colored taxis to the new Z-Trip branding.

Right now, Z-Trip is only available in certain U.S. cities.  And it's not global, of course.  But if anything can eat into the ride-share market, it could be Z-Trip...if it can be rolled out and available nationwide.

Renouncing Christianity

Christian evangelist, Franklin Graham (son of famous preacher, Billy Graham) has touched off something of an internet firestorm by criticizing presidential hopeful and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, who is gay. It started on Twitter, naturally. I was blissfully unaware of Graham's comments, but of course they spilled over into real life when the mainstream media picked up on them.

In a series of "tweets," what Graham said was this:
Presidential candidate & South Bend Mayor @PeteButtigieg is right—God doesn’t have a political party. But God does have commandments, laws & standards He gives us to live by. God doesn’t change. His Word is the same yesterday, today & forever.

Mayor Buttigieg says he’s a gay Christian. As a Christian I believe the Bible which defines homosexuality as sin, something to be repentant of, not something to be flaunted, praised or politicized. The Bible says marriage is between a man & a woman—not two men, not two women.

The core of the Christian faith is believing and following Jesus Christ, who God sent to be the Savior of the world—to save us from sin, to save us from hell, to save us from eternal damnation.

Graham's comments leave me deeply troubled. I mean, I get it, Christians are supposed to live in accordance to the Bible. And the Bible (both Old Testament and New) decry homosexuality...call it a sin in no uncertain terms.

But where does that leave homosexuals? The fact is, homosexuals exist. They're not pretending to be gay; they just are. Do Christians like Graham believe that a person's sexuality is a choice...that they can switch it off at will? If so, I'd like to ask Franklin Graham if he believes his own sexuality was/is a choice. Did he choose to be straight? Why should it be any different for gay people?

This is a problem. Because as a gay man who always considered himself to be a Christian, I find myself at odds with the Bible. It is a dilemma that I can no longer reconcile or ignore. This is because I don't believe that we can pick and choose which parts of Scripture we want to obey and follow, and which ones we ignore. You either believe all of it, or none of it.

And so I feel less and less like a Christian every day. But I still believe in a Creator (and let's call this Creator, "God" for the sake of simplicity). I believe that God made me and loves me and wants to see me again when this particular chapter in my existence is over. And He feels the same about you. I don't think He really cares whether we like guys or girls, or whether we eat pork or shellfish (or any of the other silly prohibitions in the Old Testament).

Maybe it's time that I renounced traditional Christianity. Because if Franklin Graham's version of Christianity won't have me...won't allow me to be me, then why should I call myself one? I can still model my life after that of Christ. In most respects, anyway. Then again...by the time Christ died he was thirty-three years old and still single. Should we not even raise a suspicious eyebrow and ask why?  Guys like Graham and his ilk are quick to point out that according to the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman, period!  Why then did Christ never marry?  How come he never had a family and became the paragon of biblical virtue that Christians often hold up as the standard?