seven6

crazyjaydawg

No, FAA would be breaking the law. The Administrator would be held accountable and funding would be taken away. I don't think the FAA would risk dragging its feet on this issue

Exactly!

As the bill is written it just says three years to comply, the furloughees would need to work on the hours on their own but they have 3 years to do it.

__________________
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations.

rickair7777

Good question, the law does not specify that one way or the other. The common-sense interpretation to me would be to grandfather furloughs but the FAA will be the agency implementing this and they might not agree...

The whole concept of furlough is a purely a business arrangement...it has nothing, zero, zip whatsoever to do with FAR's. Interpreted literally, a returning furloughee might be considered a new-hire depending on how long he was gone and what training is required.

But as far as the ATP goes, the law does not appear to require that of new hires until three years after the date of passage. You might be subject to a brutal interview/screening process when you return, but I think you will have three years to get the ATP.

Don't get any DUI's or FAR violations while furloughed...I'd bet you will not be invited back if you do.

Nevets

This what the judicial branch is for. If the executive branch refuses to do what the legislative branch enacted them to do, they could simply ask the judicial branch to require them to do it.

I guess you would have to ask if furloughed pilots are considered "PROSPECTIVE FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS" or "ALL FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS."

Whacker77

Leave it to Congress to make the wording somewhat difficult to understand. As I read it and I could be wrong, the rule would state that airlines can hire pilots not currently employed or on furlough with a 121 operator without an ATP, but an ATP must be earned within three years. Is this how others interpret?

pinkpanther

The amount of teeth this has suprised me, it's good to see the language in there to hold the FAA's feet to the fire. However, I'm not expecting the same language coming out of the senate side. So make sure you write your senator to express your concern and view on this (they actually listen, at least the senator I worked for did), the only groups trying to influence their votes are us and the IATA and RAA and they typically have more influence than we do.

crazyjaydawg

You're right congress doesn't really know how to word something like this. I think they're just trying to make the FAA make this a rule in the FARs. The FAA would most likely make the wording pretty clear.

__________________
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations.

seven6

All very good points. Now let me throw this one out there....

Not to long ago the NMB (I believe) considered all furloughed AA pilots to still be current employee's. Can this decision be used by ALPA to help grandfather the furloughed pilots into this new legislation? That would definitely help eliminate the gray area when asking "Are furloughed pilots perspective flight crewmembers or current employee's?"

Nevets

My point was that it doesn't really matter. Either you fall under one category or the other. But either way, you will have to have an ATP. The only difference is that if you are "prospective flight crewmember" you need it to apply. If you are "all flight crewmembers" you have three years from the date of enactment to get it. I don't see any grandfathering in the language in that even if you are currently employed, you still need to get it in three years.

crazyjaydawg

I think you're exactly right, the FAA will have to make the exact wording on it.

__________________
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations.