Originally Posted by
FlyJSH
I'm not sure why anyone would want to eliminate the pilot "shortage". If there is a shortage of a comodity, the price goes up (but it may take time).
Personally, I don't believe there is a pilot shortage. Yes, the pool is drying up, but it is not gone. A sampling of regional minimums shows an average of about 500/100. The FAA says a 250 hour Comm AMEL can be an FO. 250 is significantly lower than 500 hours: it seems some companies STILL have canidates to choose from. True, there are one or two companies whose minimums ARE Comm AMEL. Those companies will need to get creative to fill the pilot slots. Already we have seen companies willing to pay signing bonuses, even lower minimums with jet transition (or whatever they are called) courses, large newhire classes with high failure rates, and now Colgan is trying the Pilot Development Program.
The results of these creative solutions?
(1) Signing bonuses were eliminated almost immidately due to contract violation and general pilot outcry
(2) Jet transition folks paid a ton of money for some ground school and a few hours in a sim
(3) large newhire classes with high failure rates: costly and sends many folks home with a busted checkride
(4) Colgan's Pilot Development Program... results unknown for the company. But for a lowtime applicant there is no out of pocket cost (other than room and board) and no risk: if the applicant does poorly, there is no busted checkride on record.
Is Colgan's solution good for the industry.... I don't know. But at least it may keep a few over eager and ill prepared people from getting a black mark that would follow them the rest of thier carreer. Who knows, the Pilot Development Program may be the beginning of ab-initio progams here in the U.S.
(For the record, I have quit debating how low is too low. The Feds say 250 is enough, and they make the rules.)
Very good post.
Regardless of what one may think of Colgan or it's new stepfather, I think the program itself is a good deal for both sides. It's good for the pilot that is making the initial transition to 121 turbine operations and may need just a few extra hours of training/sim time to ease the transition. If this means that they can avoid a washout or a busted PC on their record, it's a good thing. It will help some pilots successfully get through training who have the aptitude to take on the job at relatively low total time. It may also help others realize that they may need to go build more time/experience without having to learn that through a busted PC and a permanent mark on their record.
It's also a good deal for the company. It gives them a better indication of how the candidate will fair in training. It should help reduce the number of avoidable training failures and thereby reduce the associated costs. Now without getting into the debate about total time, I will say this. Regardless of one's perspective concerning the total time issue, I do not want to see a pilot fail and have a permanent mark on his/her record. If there is something that he can do to better his chances of getting through training, in my opinion it's a good thing.