Slick111

We all know that the regional airline management want to abolish the ATP requirement for the SIC, (note I wrote "ATP" not "1500 hour rule", because a 121 SIC doesn't need 1500 hours, he/she needs an ATP), because they simply want to be able to continue to hire cheap pilots. No brainer.

Plan B, (assuming the ATP for SIC rule remains in effect) will be to increase (or remove) the age 65 rule. This will slow the progression/flow of pilots from regionals to major airlines, but will be MUCH more costly to both the regionals AND the majors. Regional airlines will retain more of their current, (but higher seniority/higher cost) pilots,......and the majors will also retain more of their current, (higher seniority/higher cost) pilots. But at least regionals, (and the majors who depend on that feed) will find it easier to staff their regional airplanes,.....in theory.

Sadly, I think the pilot unions will fight the ATP SIC rule, tooth and nail,......but I don't see them putting up the same fight over increasing age 65, because ALPA, et al. makes a LOT of money from the dues of those higher seniority pilots.

Start talking to your union reps about opposing Plan B before it's too late.

Waitingformins

It was reported that United flight 1603 the captain was 63 and died.

FlyingKat

Pay attention to Chucky. This is why these efforts to change the 1500 hour rule will likely go nowhere. The FAA can change the requirements for an ATP, but they cannot get rid of the requirement for an ATP to be hired at 121 carriers without congressional approval. Chucky will likely be the next Leader of the Democrats in the Senate when Harry retires or gets retired. So as long as the Democrats have 40 votes in the Senate, this will go nowhere because I don't see the FAA relaxing the standards for getting an ATP any more than they already have, and the Democrats in the Senate are not going to go against Chucky, he's too powerful.

The likely outcome from this is some kind of report that the rule needs to be changed. The FAA will send them to congress because they will refuse to lower the standards for an ATP any more. It will pass the House, and Chucky will bottle it up in the Senate and tell them to pound sand, game over.

This will never get changed until the Republicans have 61 votes in the Senate, then it still may not depending on whether they hold together. And the chances of Republicans getting 61 votes in the Senate is very unlikely, no matter wheat Obama does.

Magpuller

I definitely feel there is a gulf between regional pilots and mainline pilots insofar as safety. But I don't think the problem is regulatory I think it's contractual.

The fact is that regional pilots regardless of the training standards of their carrier or their personal level of experience are paid substantially less and work substantially more hours. In many cases the average day in the regionals is a duty day that bumps right up against the max 117 limits. That certainly happens at mainline carriers but it would be a major stretch to say it comes anywhere near the level of frequency it does at the regional level.

The average regional pilot is less rested and more stressed. When the substandard pay causes problems at home that the majority of legacy pilots don't face or face it with less severity less often, its easy to bring that stress to work. Stress, we all agree, lowers cognitive awareness. Those 20 day months, worries ove bills not paid with those awesome 30K salaries, frequent 117 extensions and 14 hour days that are the standard in the regionals most certainly effects the safety bottom line.

The mainline pilot groups simply have better CBA protections that create standards much more restrictive insofar as duty day and days at work per month. Those same CBA rules at regional carriers are pretty much all less restrictive and in many cases the same as the 117 regs. That allows regional airlines mgt. to use the limits as the standard. And with that you get a pilot that is more stressed and more fatigued.

But all that being said its probably not a huge difference because the job is hard on one's body despite livery.

FlyingKat

That is a great theory and I agree regional airline management thinks repealing the ATP rule is the key to solving their problems however...

None of this addresses the root of this staffing problem. Young people are looking at what they now have to invest to get into this career and are looking elsewhere because the return on their investment is so ridiculously low. Plus it is impossible to get student loans to cover all of your aviation training because Sallie mae and Key will not finance any loans that are not government backed which limits you to $80,0000.

I got into this for around $30,000. Most of these students today are looking at least $150,000 to get into this profession. Until airline management teams wake up to this, and decide to make this a lucrative enough career to justify the investment OR pony up the money to pay for someone's training cost this problem will continue to get worse.

Repealing the ATP rule might ease some of the pain, but it will not eliminate it.

Waitingformins

Are they gonna make they cockpit door large enough for a Hoveround?

Beech90

Who wants to fly past 65 anyway? Retirement at 60 is good enough for me.

sailingfun

Historically most incapacitation's have been in the 45 to 55 age range.

Waitingformins

No, your probably right that does seem to be the time that life catches up with you. Id even speculate that if AME's put more guys through the ringer 45-55 would be the highest risk for medical denial. If you got through 55 with a medical then you did and do live right. I think the pencil whip AME may skew the numbers on that though.

Al Czervik

Greaaaaat.