Waitingformins

The difference is the guy riding in the back of the Gulfstream has a direct say in how old the the guys ridding in the front are. The folks riding in the back of 737 don't have a say and don't get to interview their pilot. The government says on their behalf.

MR JT8D

Pilots always suffer after a crash. That's the way we're punished. First the PRIA from that Eagle crash, then the failed checkride backlash from Colgan. What's next?

Packrat

Not on a fractional.

Waitingformins

Yes, the guy who pays 7.5 million for 1/8 share of a Gulfstream and 5k and hour gets as much say as the traveling public.

vilcas

Remove the hourly requirements and make the ATP provisional on certain circumstances based in experience. Example: With 300 hours you can get provisional ATP but you need to be run through a more intense training program double the sims and double the OE. This will make airlines more careful as to who they hire and the increased vetting will improve the quality if the pilot candidates who are given the opportunity to enter the Airlines training program.

eaglefly

This differences in performance between these two examples is negligible and irrelevant. This is simply another example of the interests of big business trumping safety in this industry. The 1500 hour rule if reduced to say 750 won't solve the shortage, because it isn't the core cause. It might allow regionals to kick the can down the road another year or two, but the core cause is the disparity of economic reward for resources invested (both time and money) and the corresponding lack of interest in being piñata for unsympathetic maximum profit oriented capitalist businesses when there are more financially rewarding career options that require a fraction of the investment.

I'm sure the fix is in and then until the next accident related to training and experience occurs and more human hamburger is presented to the corrupt fat cats in D.C., it will remain.

johnso29

I'm sure the pilots now benefiting from Age 60 & age 65 would love that. They got theirs because of Age 60. Why stop now?

Also, how does an airline staff itself with no mandatory retirement age?

pete2800

This.


There is a gap, whether you want to believe it or not. As a regional pilot, we're constantly fed the management line of "you're just not qualified for a mainline job. You're not good enough." Then somehow, simultaneously, we're supposed to believe that there's one level of safety. Either I'm just as good as my mainline counterparts or I'm not. If I am, I should be paid appropriately. If I'm not, then I'm not as safe. It's simple.

CBreezy

I have a few thoughts on these comments.

1) There is ABSOLUTELY a difference between a 70 year old pilot and a 50 year old pilot. Medical studies absolutely show that mental acuity declines as you age.

2) Reducing the experience requirements is not about the pilot shortage. It is a justification to continue to pay "intern" wages to pilots. They are getting very close to losing the battle to labor. A4A has a very big interest in ensuring this doesn't happen because otherwise the either have to pick up their own feed (more $$) or pay more for outsourced labor (more $$). Either way, it's a lose/lose for them.

3) No matter what anyone tells you, the same pilot with 300 hours vs a pilot with 3000 hours will be a much better pilot in the latter scenario. Experience does matter. I learned more about aviation and flying after 500 total time than I did in the first 500 hours.

ClearRight

INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO SHIFT BLAME TO REGULATIONS AS CULPRIT FOR REGIONAL AIRLINES' INABILITY TO FIND PILOTS TO WORK FOR FOOD STAMP-LEVEL WAGES

Buffalo, New York - April 29, 2014 – In a show of support for new federal aviation safety guidelines geared at avoiding a repeat of the tragic and avoidable crash of Continental (now United) Flight 3407, the 'Families of Continental Flight 3407' will attend Wednesday morning's House Aviation Subcommittee hearing. The hearing, to be held at 10 a.m. in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, will focus on air service to small communities, at airports served almost exclusively by regional airlines. The family group will also make rounds on both sides of Capitol Hill to highlight a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Pilot Supply that exposed the myth being propagated by the airlines that there are not enough ATP-licensed pilots to fill their cockpits.

“You are seeing a tried-and-true page out of the airline industry's lobbying playbook being put into full effect - just stay the course with the campaign contributions and the behind-the-scenes pressure, and over time you will get what you want,” declared Scott Maurer of Moore, South Carolina, who lost his thirty year old daughter Lorin in the crash. “Unfortunately we have some bad news for them: five years later, we are not relaxing and we are certainly not going away. We are going to continue to stand up for the traveling public who deserve what Lorin and our loved ones sadly did not receive, a true 'One Level of Safety' for every passenger boarding a flight operated by a regional airline. And we are most definitely not going to allow them to scare everyone in Washington with their dire predictions of a pilot shortage, not when the GAO report makes it clear that the issue is not whether there are enough ATP-licensed pilots out there, it's whether the airlines are going to continue to drive them away with food stamp-level compensation."
Maurer was referring to industry efforts in the past few months to sabotage recently-implemented regulations regarding pilot fatigue, entry-level hiring qualifications, and airline pilot training protocols. The new rules came about as a result of a landmark regional airline safety bill that was unanimously passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Obama back in August 2010, bipartisan legislation engineered by the leadership of both the House and Senate Aviation Subcommittees. Despite the unanimous passage of the law, some veteran members appeared to waffle on their support of the safety provisions at a House Aviation Subcommittee hearing back in February.
“With the way the political landscape constantly shifts here in Washington, it is imperative that we keep showing up and reminding any members who may be wavering five years later why this bill made such strong sense to everyone back then, and should continue to do so now; namely that safety must always come first,” stated Karen Eckert of Williamsville, New York, who lost her sister Beverly Eckert, a noted 9/11 widow and activist. “Regardless of how economically tempting certain positions may be when it comes to the airline industry's bottom line or a member's reelection campaign war chest, the fact remains that these critical safety provisions were the right thing to do back in 2010 and they remain the right thing to do now. We ask anyone who feels otherwise to take a minute to think of their loved ones - their spouse, parents, children, siblings - and imagine having them taken from you by a needless and preventable tragedy like this one. We are counting on our elected representatives here in Washington to challenge the regional airlines to step up their game when it comes to safety, not to cut them more slack like they did in the decade leading up to Flight 3407.”