Originally Posted by
NineGturn
A minimum three pilot crew must be two captains and a first officer. Captain qualified first officers meet the requirement for cruise captain so it depends on the definition of captain. But this is academic and depends on airline policy. From a scheduling standpoint there is greater flexibility in having more captains than FOs.
Often foreign carriers will put their lowest time or least skilled first officers on these routes since the experience gained is not as valuable as short haul...transitioning them to short haul FO later.
It makes no sense to work as a long haul FO in the few years immediately preceding an upgrade to short haul captain. Again, an inefficient distribution of experience.
Most augment crews are 1 Captain and 2 First Officers at UA, and all have PIC type ratings. On double augmented trips under 16 hours its 1 captain and 3 First Officers, over 16 hours 2 Captains and 2 First Officers. Regardless of which seat you occupy, unless you have a 4th stripe, you are a First Officer. The Captain is still the PIC even when in the bunk, and the First Officer with a window seat for T/O and landing assumes command as SIC as delegated by the PIC per the FOM. I sit in the left seat about as much as I sit in the right seat but still get paid FO pay, and assume SIC duties as Third In Command.
The bold above is concerning, and probably the reason we see so many issues popping up with foreign carriers....the airline decides your status based on a perceived experience level. Foreign carriers don't care about airmanship, they just just want the best "High Speed Aluminum (or Carbon Fiber) Transport Computer Programmers". Sure, sitting in the back seat watching is a great experience builder, it still doesn't replace the individuals ability to master airmanship, and foreign carriers seem to care little for airmanship.
I also disagree with your assertion about long haul FO's. Our most recent bids at UA we have seen 777/787 FO go to about the same seniority as 320 CA. Many do it for quality of life as they see it, and their seniority gives them the ability to make those choices.
Originally Posted by
NineGturn
Seniority is the ultimate manipulation. The airlines and unions have successfully brainwashed the pilot population into believing the myth that seniority is needed to prevent sucking up. I've been a chief pilot...no good manager likes an ass kisser. Merit is based on experience, skill and work ethic...all things that type A people like to excel at. Not having seniority is called a free market. Seniority promotes mediocrity and stifles type A people.
Pilots also confuse unions with seniority as if they are one in the same. There is absolutely no reason one can't have a working union without seniority. Seniority shackles the pilots and blocks the natural actions of the free market. Without seniority the "regional airline" business model couldn't exist.
While seniority probably can't and won't go away....it certainly needs to be reformed and looked at differently to stop it's abuse by management and make it work for the pilots again instead of against.
Seniority keeps things in check, and allows the individual to choose what they want to fly. I don't need some one telling me what airplane I should fly. I'm also not sure how seniority can be reformed. It's a number based on a hire date. Pilot number 1 has been here longer than pilot number 2, but pilot number 2 has 2,000 more hours of experience, whoopee doo but as pilot number 1 I still get first choice. If pilot number 2 doesn't like that then by all means use the "free market" to gain employment elsewhere.
Originally Posted by
NineGturn
Actually I've flown all over the world as a captain. I was one of those who always upgraded quick (the "RJ" had not yet been invented). My first transatlantic trip was as a captain. I have about fifteen times more PIC than SIC experience in my civilian career so I am personally aware of the dangers of low time captains...I learned fast because I had to and got lucky more than a few times in my career. I have emerged unscathed of incidents, accidents, or certificate actions.
I'm retiring early and getting back to GA because that's where the fun is...my interest in enlightening "regional" pilots is on behalf of the future generation of airline pilots whom I have a personal vested interest it.
...and I have a lot of free time to think.
Congrats and good luck on the retirement, sounds like you had a good career.
Now, in the bold above you say your first trip over the Atlantic was as a Captain and probably at a time before GPS, CPDLC, and ADS which means you had to work your a$$ off every 10 degrees of longitude, post-position plot, etc. How did you prepare for all that? How did you manage the stress? My first crossing was to FCO in a 764 on IOE, I was so far behind that I was still introducing myself to the FA's while getting on the hotel bus!
So hear you are advocating that today's young aviation professionals need more time, experience, etc before upgrading (1,000 hours SIC is required now, which I think is a good bar to set) but where was the bar for you?
I would argue that you "learned fast, and got lucky a few times" because you had a good sense of airmanship, I applaud that, and I'm sure those who hired you at the time thought you had what it took to do the job read: airmanship. What makes you think some of the folks joining the 121 ranks today do not possess good airmanship? You were able to safely cross the Atlantic for the 1st time as PIC. So why can't folks at the regionals today, with a few thousand hours and 1,000 SIC and after successfully completing upgrade training, operate as PIC in the lower 48, Canada, and Mexico? What makes you so much better than them?
Either way, good discussion and all the best to you.