Wow, where to even start with this thread. This is an outstanding example of the adage about arguing on the internet being like winning in the Special Olympics, but I'll wade in anyhow (which is revealing in and of itself, and not in a good way).

Brilliant! Let's have all flights flown by 300 hour pilots - that will surely reduce the accident rate. I'll let you put your family on an airline flight in the Northeast during a winter storm with a crew of 300 hour pilots; let me know how that works out for you.

I'm not saying high time pilots don't make mistakes, obviously they do such as Little Rock - however, those are the aberrations. However they also pull off great saves (think Sioux City or the Hudson) that an inexperienced pilot just doesn't have a big enough bag of tricks/tools/experience to do. They also operate thousands of flights daily without incident, frequently utilizing the experience they've acquired over the years to make that happen.

On the other hand, I do have reservations about (relatively) high time pilots who have been highly structured environments such as an ab-initio or zero-to-hero program and then virtually straight to a 121 operation airline for their entire careers (the military is a different duck). They have essentially had their hands held every step of the way, suddenly a few years down the road they upgrade and are getting what is effectively their first "real" PIC time with 50, 70, or 90 paying passengers in the back. I do not believe there is any real substitute for being the only one who has to make the hard decisions, and you don't get that in those environments. There's a vast difference between having the safety net of an instructor, a dispatcher, or an experienced pilot to back up your decision making in a scenario; knowing that if you make the wrong one someone will most likely correct you and prevent you from hurting yourself verses being alone in the middle of the night at an airport or inflght, knowing that depending on the decision you make you may be dead or fired. THAT is where experience is gained.

If I hear this about one more time I'm going to puke or kill something, maybe both. For most of the history of commercial aviation, the 250 hour minimum has been a non-issue because NO ONE was hired into a 121 carrier with those kinds of time (yes, I am aware of the very brief aberration in 1960's). Most of that time, people accumulated 2000+ hours to obtain a position at a commuter/regional carrier.

Somehow the SJS/Children of the Magenta Line (COTML) generation has gotten the idea that it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to jump into a 121 operation with less than 1000 hours. It's not, and people are missing out on extremely valuable experience by doing so.

Further, in years past, flying for a regional carrier WAS a good way to gain experience and airmanship skills - you would have been flying a Metro or a 1900 with no autopilot, and only a VOR/ILS and NDB for navigation.

That is because you don't know what you don't know. I agree, structured training can produce a better pilot, and certain specialized training even more so. I support reduced hours for 135 PIC, so people can continue to gain experience. I DO NOT support reduced hours for 121 - as I have previously stated, there is experience you gain that only comes from experience; there is no shortcut to getting there. In fact, I personally believe there should be a chronological aspect to the requirements as well (eg; must have X number of hours AND have been actively flying for Y years). You gain experience not just from hours you've flown, but from seasons you've been flying. Again, there is no shortcut there.

From what I've read on that thus far, it has a lot less to do with flight time than it does airmanship skills, CRM, and (if France trains stalls in the same way the idiots at the FAA want them performed for type rides) training. If anything, it points to an over dependance on automation to save the day, rather than understanding what the airplane is doing and why. Again, I've spoken with enough check airmen to believe that this area is NOT a strong suite for the COTML.

Others have pointed out other aspects that are problematic with this, but to me this biggest one is this: The traveling public isn't being sold the portion I've bolded above. Joe and Janice Sixpack don't comprehend when they buy a ticket on ABC Airlines, that the flight they are traveling on is being operated by XYZ Airlines, which has hired some pilots whose primary qualification is the ability to fog a mirror. These carriers aren't the regionals of yestererday, where there was a clear delineation between the mainline flights and feeders.

I'm not bashing all regional pilots - I have number of friends who are back at regionals after being furloughed of unemployed from failed carriers, and I'd have complete confidence riding with them anywhere, anyday. But they didn't get their (or to their previous positions) by hiring on virtually straight out of school, they all had years of experience BEFORE they ever had a 121 command.

I'll believe that when I see it. My personal expectation is a few years from now Delta pilots will be hearing how they need more 76 seaters to compete, and the wheel will continue to go around.

Again, see above.

Thank you, someone here gets it! I wanted to quote this just so it would be repeated here.

This guy shouldn't be allowed to vote or reproduce - but the mentality does explain a lot of things.

I hope you're right about that. Again, my suspicion is that they'll be flying even larger planes AT the regional airlines as the majors shrink ever smaller. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one, but I predicted the debacle we have today as a result of giving away scope 25 years ago. I wish I could pick stocks that well...

Damn, another novel. Sorry about that - I'll probably go on a couple of ignore lists for this one.