Originally Posted by
Cloudnine
I think the problem is more complex than just Pay. At least in terms of restoring the pipeline.
Ms. Black mentioned how EAS contracts are being won by 135 carriers nowadays.
Rather than regulation to reduce ATP mins further, why not lift the 9 seat cap on 135 commuter and raise it to like 19 or 25 seats. They could use 2 pilot aircraft/fly under IFR, and hire FO's with commercial/multi creating a "seamless" pipeline from flight school to ATP once again. The 135 carriers could greatly increase capacity.
It's probably not economically feasible to fly these routes with just 9 seats in most cases unless EAS subsidized. The other problem is there are no aircraft in development in this category.
CAPE Air alone cannot produce the FO's the 121 carriers need.
From what I've seen, most graduates aren't taking crop dusting jobs, no, but the part 91 flying has diminished greatly, as evidenced the AOPA president's testimony. Part 135 is mostly single pilot as it stands. So you do have a gap (from 250-700 or so). This I believe does influence career decision making at the very outset.
Everyone says get a CFI but it is an additional expense that people don't always have. As a side note, I believe the CFI mins should be something like 500 hours anyways.
Many people on here want the regional model to implode but its such a haphazard way of solving the issue.
Are you actually suggesting this? First of all, most EAS routes are empty or nearly empty much of the time. I fly with folks who used to do EAS routes and they tell stories of flying airplanes with 1 passenger or doing empty round trips. So why increase capacity? It's my personal opinion that most EAS routes should be eliminated anyway, but that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax.
Second, making larger airplanes into 135 operations? Are you kidding me? Why not make 50-seaters into 135s? Oh, and since the CRJ700 and 900 are the same type, why not just include them? Voila, the new Beech 1900....... And pay-to-play F/Os.
No thank you. Turning 19-seaters into 9-seaters is already a large step backwards. Just because a plane has 10 fewer seats doesn't make it different to fly.
Racing to the bottom has never helped anyone except a handful at the very, very top and none of those at the top is a pilot. I can hardly think of anything worse for our profession than increasing the scope (there's that word) of a Part 135 operation to include larger aircraft. That's a very slippery slope.
Thankfully, I doubt the FAA would entertain the idea.